General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We can see the glum faces of the Labour back-benchers as they reflect on another day of very poor performance by their ministry team. Today, perhaps more than ever before, we witnessed the timid incompetence of the Labour ministry with the reciting of new answers to question time. For weeks, months, and even years, this Government has evaded answering questions in this House. It has Ministers who have been timid about their Government’s policy and Ministers who have, to say the least, been economical with the truth.

So they have had the media advisers in—a big cheque written for Brian Edwards and his mates—and have said: “Give us some new ways of not answering questions.” So we have the great phrases: “Generally, yes.” and “Generally, no.” Today I think Mr Benson-Pope had a new one: “I am not aware of it at this point.” Then there was the classic from Margaret Wilson, who said: “Goodness me, they are different figures.”

Finally, from Ruth Dyson we had perhaps the worst answer ever given by a Minister when confronted with her own incompetence. When asked to comment on the appalling treatment of two children in this country, she simply said: “I did not know until now.” Well, a couple of days ago that Minister was quite capable of answering categorically that those children had not been in any danger, and that the mother had been perfectly competent. Then when we came here today and Tony Ryall was able to expose the truth of the sordid environment that those children were subjected to, what did we get from the Minister? She said: “I did not know until now.”

This is a Government that has its hand off the rudder. It is a Government that is going the wrong way. Just to emphasise how out of touch it is with New Zealanders, members should look at what it is proposing over this new marine farming allocation to Māori. It is all about the enormous problem the Government has created with theForeshore and Seabed Bill. Under that bill, the Government has allowed Māori to have absolute veto over coastal areas, right out to the territorial limit, where ancestral connection is established. The Prime Minister has told us that that will include most of this country’s coastline, so if we want to get new areas of sea space for marine farming, Māori have to approve it. The best way to ensure we have lots of space is to give Māori a chunk of it—in this case, 20 percent. The more Māori approve, the more they get. That is why we are seeing the unwinding of the 1992 fisheries settlement by this Government.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: No, it pre-dates it.

Mr Hodgson can sit there and shake his head, but if he would like to read section 5(1) of that settlement, it reads that this settlement: “shall discharge and extinguish all commercial fishing rights and interests of Maori whether in respect of sea, coastal or inland fisheries (including any commercial aspect of traditional fishing rights and interests), whether arising by statute, common law (including customary law and aboriginal title), the Treaty of Waitangi, or otherwise,”.

That is just set aside for the expedience of keeping a Labour Government sweet with the Māori electorate. It is that type of behaviour—that lack of leadership—that will see the worst fears of all those Labour back-benchers come true. My advice to them is to get up to their offices, get out of Parliament and start flashing their CVs up, because in their tens they will be looking for jobs very shortly.

There is no problem with sorting out the issues of aquaculture once the moratorium is lifted. Māori are already very big players in this industry. The moratorium stopped Māori dead in their tracks. Forty percent of the applications held up belong to them. It is a nonsense, and this Government will pay the price for it.

At 12.15 today the Hon Peter Dunne and the Prime Minister jointly announced the appointment of commissioners to the Families Commission. The independent appointments committee has professionally scrutinised the large number of high-calibre applicants, and has interviewed those who made it on to its shortlist. Those appointed are well known for their commitment to New Zealand children and their families. Over the next few weeks they will advertise for and employ the essential support staff, and begin to map out a strategy for the establishment phase of the commission. I expect the commission will be inundated with approaches from the many stakeholders that serve the interests of families and have demonstrated huge interest and support for this commission. Government departments, academics, research agencies, social service providers, parent educators, family health experts, and family law practitioners will all want to be consulted, and to offer advice on the shape and content of the strategic plan, and want to help to identify the key questions that the commission’s research dollars should address. This is exactly how it should be—a commission charged with the task of learning all that it can about both the health and pathology of family environments, so that it can supply the Government and community agencies with the information they need in order to better target families with the initiatives they really need.

If I could design a marketing brand for our nation it would not be “nuclear-free New Zealand”, or “clean, green”, or “business-friendly”—although those slogans all have merit. I would go for a byline that pulled all those ideas together and clearly stated what United Future believes Kiwis really want. It is as simple as this: that New Zealand should be, and can be, the best place in the world to raise a family. But for that to be a reality we have to look beyond the current emphasis on the well-being of individuals, and to start asking ourselves hard questions, like those about the factors that contribute to the best long-term interests of children and their families. Put simply, we must move beyond merely responding to the current crises faced by many New Zealand families, and we need to build capacity as a nation. The Families Commission is the body that will be able to put all the pieces of the jigsaw together, and reveal a picture of the processes that occur within families and in the interaction of the family with the broader social, economic, political, and cultural environment that is New Zealand. With the picture made clearer, Governments and communities can be much more responsive to the real needs of families. Sustainable changes in family outcomes often take a generation or two to reach fruition, and that is why it is essential that a core concern of the commission will be to articulate and advocate for the crucial role that families play in the development and socialisation of children. The family environment and experiences combine with the impact of childcare, schools, media, and neighbourhoods to shape the next generation of New Zealanders.

I would like to congratulate those named today as Families Commissioners. Chief Families Commissioner Dr Rajen Prasad is well known for his former role as Race Relations Conciliator. Dr Prasad has extensive professional experience in family and social work and in research into family issues, and has a strong background in the governance and management of public and educational organisations. Deputy Chief Families Commissioner Sharron Cole has been actively involved in Parents Centre. She is a bioethics researcher, has been an elected member of the Hutt District Health Board, and serves as an adviser on a number of health-related committees. Psychiatrist Professor Mason Durie has specialised in community psychiatry, family therapy, and family health issues. He is currently professor of Māori research and development at Massey University. Legal expert Sandra Alofivae has a background in family and youth law, and 20 years’ experience of voluntary and community service, with a particular emphasis on education for families and communities in south Auckland. Former human rights commissioner Carolynn Bull is a senior family law practitioner in Christchurch, and long-time family advocate Lyn Campbell has been the Christchurch City Council’s child advocate, with extensive experience in leading and advising on various family and community initiatives.

I believe that New Zealand can reclaim what has been lost and once again be the best place in the world to raise a family in, and I am confident that those commissioners will provide the balance and skills needed to make their mark in the history of this country as the commissioners who took up the challenge of making that goal a reality.

Climate change is happening. While a tiny minority of scientific opinion may dispute whether the build-up of greenhouse gases and the overheating of our planet are our fault, overwhelmingly the evidence is clear—it is us. It is the behaviour of people like us that has been responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to around 375 parts per million now. Globally, the future is bleak. Unless we can effect an enormous and a rapid shift in human behaviour, global warming and energy, water, and food shortages, combined with burgeoning populations, will pose unprecedented threats to world peace and political stability, as well as cataclysmic environmental consequences.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Ha, ha!

The member may laugh about it. Here at the bottom of the Pacific, we may be better placed to survive global warming than people elsewhere in the world, but it will not be possible to isolate ourselves from the global consequences of it. The local climatic consequences are already evident and inescapable.

The last time I spoke about these issues in the House, it was clear some members thought I was overstating the case. I said then, and I repeat now, that wishful thinking—and, I add, blind faith in a merciful God, or in human ingenuity—is no substitute for hard evidence. Nobody can be sure of the exact consequences of climate change, but we need only to look at the consequences to date and extrapolate from there. If a 30 percent increase in carbon dioxide has resulted in the planet experiencing, since 1990, the 10 warmest years on record—June, July, and August 2003 being the hottest months in Western and Central Europe, and the UK alone experiencing for the first time temperatures in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit—then one does not have to be terribly imaginative to work out that something like a doubling in carbon dioxide levels in this century will present unimaginable consequences. The floods, the droughts, the desertification, and the extreme weather events are likely to overwhelm us.

What must we do? If ever there was a time for a cross-party accord—the equivalent of an all-Parliament wartime-type Cabinet—now is that time. There has never been such a need for cooperation in this place. If we are serious about our commitment to preserving peace and tranquillity—and we talk about it every time we come into this Chamber—then we need, most urgently, to begin to work together. To date, we have focused on perpetuating the unsustainable and the absurd. We have spent vast fortunes on enabling people to live too far from where they need to be, to access food and stuff from all over the planet, and to bury my children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance in expensive holes in the ground. We are destroying our future and undermining the quality of our present. Our global responsibilities and our local needs are one and the same. We must put in place the infrastructure to enable a rapid reduction in our fossil fuel use. Passive solar energy for heating our spaces and our water would result in more comfortable houses and more efficient industry, and would lower our energy bills. Investment in rail and in a marketing campaign to persuade people to live closer to the places where they work, play, shop, and go to school, and to source their needs locally, could dramatically reduce our energy demands, avoid some of the impacts of burgeoning fuel prices, begin to meet our Kyoto commitments, and create safer and healthier communities.

In short, consumerism is killing us. We have never worked longer or harder. Although some of us have no jobs, and suffer the worst kind of poverty—that is, poverty in the midst of plenty—too many of us have too much and work too hard. New Zealanders do not need to produce or consume more, but we do need to share the work and the time, and we do need to make sure that we spend more of our money on the things we really need. We need to make sure that those things are made to last and made by the people around us, so that we restore the welfare of our community and reduce the energy component of our possessions and our food. We need to change our behaviour, not by creating new rules but by persuading people that the choice is between learning to live within the capacity of the planet to sustain or consuming away our children’s future.

I like to think that this country and its people have the ability to demonstrate a different way of doing things. We can wait until the consequences of our behaviour are inescapable and irreversible, and the population is baying for our blood, or we can demonstrate a new measure of integrity and leadership.

The National Party's—and, in particular, Don Brash’s—handling of the nuclear issue has been incredibly damaging to the Leader of the Opposition’s reputation and to the National Party itself. When can anyone in this House recall such fumbling indecision or such a series of flip-flops? First of all, Don Brash said he was in favour of the Somers report because it was logical. Then he was in favour of the Creech report; the Creech report was the way forward. Then he said to the Americans that the ban would be gone by lunchtime. And now, tail between his legs, he has crawled back into his hole, saying that there will be no change to the nuclear policy—leastwise, the National Party will not publicly talk about it before the election.

My challenge to the National Party is to ask why, when it has a conviction on an issue, it cannot show the courage of its convictions. Why does National not acknowledge its stand on that issue? Why does it not come out of the closet and say yes, it is in favour of nuclear-propelled ships coming to our harbours? Why does National not show that it has a series of principles and policies that it believes in? I will give Mr Hide the prediction that the back-down by Don Brash—the failure to stand up for the policy he promoted just a matter of weeks ago—is ACT’s big chance to get back into the electoral race. The National Party is showing, once more, that it has no policy—or that it has a policy for everybody. Regardless of what that policy is, National will deliver—no policy; every policy. Nobody believes any more that the National Party has a platform on which to take this country forward. That is the real damage it has done. Did the flip-flop happen because the National Party does not have conviction in what it believes, or was it simply because it cannot make a hard decision? That is another explanation for National’s change of policy. If National’s members cannot make a hard decision, what are they doing in this Chamber, pretending that they can lead this country?

I predict that the National members cannot make a decision on that issue. They are divided; they are all over the place. Simon Power sits there on the Opposition benches. He has told the country that decisions should not be made in New Zealand but in Washington, in Canberra, and in London—anywhere but in Wellington. For God’s sake, he says we should not have the courage of our convictions, exercise our judgment, or have our own values! Simon Power is prepared to pass all those things overseas—as, indeed, is Nick Smith. Nick Smith will have a policy on Kyoto if Australia and the United States do, but he will not if they do not. Now, there is a man of conviction, and there is a party of conviction—we really do know what they believe in!

If the purpose of the exercise in raising the nuclear issue was to improve relations with Australia and the United States, as Don Brash has said on many occasions, then the National Party has done just the opposite of that. National is a laughing stock in Washington and in Canberra. When one is Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, one is meant to be diplomatic—

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Mr Goff appears in his speech to be claiming knowledge of the subject that has probably come from diplomats’ reports. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 45/1, which states that “diplomats’ views must not be used to influence debate.”

I am prepared to table what I am quoting from. It is actually the lead article in the New Zealand Herald: “Australia snipes at NZ nuclear ban”, in which Alexander Downer—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will rule on the point of order. That is perfectly acceptable, and the Minister can ask to table that page at the end of his speech.

In an astonishing departure from his normal diplomatic style of not criticising the internal policies of other parties and other countries, Alexander Downer absolutely panned the National Party. He said that it creates expectations, reneges, and never delivers. What did he say about Labour? He said that he could understand Labour’s policy, because: “It was an article of faith.” It was something Labour believed in. There was no such excuse for the National Party. National Party members just did not have it in them to stand up for what they believed, and that is why I say they are a laughing stock in Canberra. They are not believed in Canberra or in Washington. Thank God they will never be the Government of this country.

If that latest back-down was designed to reassure the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, who on principle are against nuclear-propelled ships coming here, then it will have no such effect. The TV3 poll showed quite clearly that, overwhelmingly, New Zealanders do not believe the National Party is sincere in its back-down. Instead, they believe what Don Brash told the Americans in private. What sort of a leader goes around telling New Zealanders one thing—solemn, sincere pledges that his party had made no decision—after he has told the Americans in private that the ban would be “gone by lunchtime”?

On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate—this very debate we are having now—Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House—perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House—a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course—and a lot of people do not realise this—Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.

This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.

With that serious and considered debate from the Hon Ken Shirley, we see now why the ACT party has made such a mistake with its change of leadership. It had a choice of having someone with brains, someone who could make a case, someone who could front up when needed, someone with appeal around the country, and it chose Rodney Hide. It is sad, but that is the way it goes.

I want to bring the debate back to the nuclear issue. I want again to focus on Don Brash, who, I presume, was having a sleep today. The last time I saw him in the House was when he had question 3 on the Order Paper, and he missed the call on it. The reason was that he was asleep. If one is going to be a member of Parliament, a politician, or the leader of a party, one cannot have a siesta between 2 pm and 2.15 pm. If one has a question in to Parliament and comes along to ask it, one has to be awake long enough to actually do it.

I have yet to see Don Brash awake in this Parliament since that day. On that day, someone did wake him up. I think it is fair to say that Murray McCully pulled the string and woke him up so he could ask the question. But since that time has he come to the conclusion that he cannot stay awake in order to ask questions, and has taken the wise approach and had a sleep in his room? Or has he just given up? Is he so sick of being beaten by the Prime Minister in the House, so sick of entering a battle of wits with Dr Cullen unarmed—[Interruption] Well, I think there is an interesting point about John Key. The mumblings are coming from the National Party members. I am told that he has not been taking his policy announcements to their caucus, which does not bode well for someone who is meant to be a rising star. What is more, he keeps on sitting on the front bench. We thought he had been promoted.

💬 Simon Power: We thought Ross Robertson had been promoted.

Well, no, we are not silly—

💬 Simon Power: You’ve got nowhere to go on that one!

I did not think he was sitting there. I thought Michael Cullen was—such gravitas has the member who is also the Assistant Speaker. He looks like the Deputy Prime Minister, I am sure—especially if the angle is right, and if he puts his head down and greys his hair slightly.

But let us get back to the point. The mumblings are happening in the National Party about John Key and his attitude, and how he thinks he has been promoted already. Simon Power understands. He spent 4 years studiously doing nothing, trying to look like Keith Holyoake in the past, making one statement—flogged, I think, from Peter Fraser—

💬 Darren Hughes: Michael Joseph Savage.

“Where America goes, where UK goes, we’ll go too.”, he said. The only statement he has made that we can remember is one that almost got him fired. So he has gone back to the policy of the last 4½ years of saying nothing. But he sees his spot going to John Key, and he is worried. He is leading the mumbling, we understand.

I want to ask Don Brash about the nuclear policy. When was he telling the truth? Was he telling the truth when he said: “This is an issue where the country’s interests are not well served in having policy flip backwards and forwards.”? Was he telling the truth when he said: “I think the electorate expects the National Party to have quite clear policies on all these issues, and I do not think we want to fudge these issues at all.”? When was he telling the truth?

I was intending to talk, and I shall talk, about the law and order issues that this Government is failing to deal with. But I really do have a bit of a doozy here that I would like to share with the House before I go as far as that.

I ask Mr Speaker and the ladies and gentlemen of the House whether they are aware that these days when one goes on a visit to a prison one might be handed a visitors survey form to fill out. The pamphlet I have with me here is a very glossy one. It would have cost the taxpayer a lot of money. But what is of interest is that the Department of Corrections not only is concerned about the way in which it is seen by the visiting public—by all those fine, upstanding citizens like members of gangs such as the Mongrel Mob and the Nomads who go to a prison to conduct a bit of business—but actually wants to know what the visiting public thinks.

I have in my hand a national visit survey form from the Department of Corrections, and I want to share with members some of the questions it asks. First, it reminds visitors that they are anonymous. When a person comes to the door and signs in as a visitor visiting “Inmate Bloggs”, that person is handed a form that says: “We don’t know who you are, you are anonymous, but we want you to fill in this form. We won’t tell anyone who filled it in.” Then the department proceeds to ask questions on the form, like: “Have you ever been asked to bring drugs, alcohol, or other unauthorised items into a prison? Yes or No.” Then it asks: “What drugs, alcohol, or other unauthorised items have you been asked to bring into prison? Tick all that apply.”, and it lists them. I can just see all the gang members out there lining up and filling in this form very studiously, saying: “Yes, I bring in drugs, and, yes, I’ve been asked to bring in alcohol, and, yes, I’ve brought in a SIM card. Oh, I’ve brought in a weapon, and cannabis, and methamphetamine, and Ecstasy.” It goes on: “What drug, alcohol, or unauthorised items have you brought into prison that you have not told the prison staff about?”.

Well, how stupid and how naive is it for the Department of Corrections to be asking visitors—and now inmates, I understand—these sorts of questions? Is this Government so naive when it comes to dealing with law and order and crime? Does it seriously believe—and I can see Mr Peck laughing already—that inmates, their visitors, and their associates will fill in this form and not lie, or will even bother to fill it in at all? I seriously wonder about a Government that runs its corrections and rehabilitation policies on surveys of that type. What an utter waste of time and money!

One other issue of pressing concern to New Zealand First is police staffing, and, in particular, police staffing in communications centres. In the last 2 weeks I have twice asked the Minister of Corrections what he was doing about the overworked, overextended staff at communications centres around this country. Those questions have come on the back of articles published in the Police Association News, Nos 4 and 5, dated May and June, giving extensive coverage of the problems facing those centres. I cannot understand why a Government that is so concerned about employees’ rights, labour laws, and stress in the workplace has ignored the letters received by the Minister of Police from very concerned staff at the communications centres.

One letter addressed to the “Rt Hon Mr Hawkins” specifically details a number of incidents of concern. One specific incident, which I am astounded the Minister has ignored, is that pregnant women working as dispatchers are working 10-hour shifts with no relief. Those pregnant women do not even have adequate time to relieve themselves. To do that they would have to abandon their workstations, and they fear that if they did that, a call for assistance from a policeman on the street would go unanswered, and they could be held responsible for the death of a policeman. Those concerns are well articulated in the Police Association News.

In reference to waiting times, another incident related by a staff member concerns an “elderly woman living on her own being harassed by neighbourhood children. She’s been waiting over an hour now, and it may be another hour before attendance will be arranged. At that same time I have logged on seven highway patrols working from the Rangiora base, and none of these are available to attend it. They are all dedicated to traffic and traffic alone.”

This debate gives the Government the opportunity to warn the people of New Zealand of the dangers associated with a party that has a tradition of saying one thing before a general election and another thing right after that election. In fact, it has become so traditional with one party that it could be called a “National pastime”. I think that is true. That is National with a capital “N”.

Not one single New Zealander believes that National, should it ever gain office, would not take steps to amend or repeal the nuclear-free legislation, and I am sure that National will never gain office because of that policy. I heard Dr Brash say on television last night that National wanted to act in the best interests of the people of New Zealand, which is why it would not amend the nuclear-free legislation. However, National’s own internal review of the legislation recommended precisely that it was in New Zealand’s interests to amend it. Dr Brash has not resiled from that report at all, and that is because he believes in every single word of it. He would love to be upfront with the people of New Zealand, and say it was in their best interests because he believed it was in their best interests. But he cannot say that, because National’s polling has told it that its standing in the polls would be affected. National has not pulled its policy on the nuclear-free issue on a point of principle; it has simply pulled its policy on a point of polling. That is why most New Zealanders do not believe that that policy is off the table at all.

The difficulty with Dr Brash is that he thinks the expression “the national interest” is one that has National spelt with a capital “N”. That announcement is about National’s interest—the National Party’s interest. It is nothing more than a cynical attempt to create a false sense of security. But as the TV3 poll confirms, the general public is not as foolish as Dr Brash seems to think they are. They know exactly how the National Party operates and it matters not one jot that the leader has changed. It is a National pastime to say one thing before an election and do something else afterwards. National always does that. The public knows that the “puppet on a string”, which Dr Brash is well known as, is quite capable of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on who is pulling the string. If it is the Americans, he says one thing; if it is the pollsters, he says another. That is what happens with Dr Brash.

I call it the 15-year pitch. Every 15 years the National Party pitches to the electorate and then runs away with the ball. In 1975 it was the dancing Cossacks on the television screen that signalled the biggest bribe in electoral history. Imagine if National had not won the 1975 election and the New Zealand Superannuation Corporation had survived to the present day. National stole from my parents’ generation the ability to create a sustainable superannuation fund into the future.

In 1990, it was “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”. That was a cast-iron guarantee from Mr Bolger that the surcharge would go. Did it go? No, it did not. What was worse, the National Government increased the age of eligibility over a shorter period than it had promised.

What will the next 15-year pitch be in 2005? I do not think that National will be upfront. It knows that Dr Brash wants to abandon the Superannuation Fund. He wants to lift the age of entitlement to 70 years, and he wants to lower the relativity to the average wage.

My firm belief is that superannuation will be a key election issue next year, and I welcome that fact. Labour has a proud track record on superannuation, which we can take to the electorate. National has an appalling record of treachery in that regard, and New Zealanders simply cannot afford to risk losing the gains we have made.

I would like to talk about the dirty, dirty deal of the Labour Party. Shane Ardern might very well ask what dirty, dirty deal of the Labour Party, and the public might generally think there was only one lolly scramble in this quarter, but we now know there were two. The deal I am talking about is throwing another patronising handout at Māori again, in the form of aquaculture marine farms. The Labour Party, as opposed to what it is doing for marine farmers in general, is giving Māori four bites of the cherry.

Here is the first bite. The deed of settlement for Ngāti Awa, which was signed in July 2002, includes a provision whereby the Minister of Conservation, when offering by public tender any part of the marine area, will give Ngāti Awa a preferential right to purchase 5 percent of that space. Another deed of settlement, signed in November 2001 with Ngāti Tama, states that should tendering of the coastal space for marine farming occur, Ngāti Tama will have preferential right to buy space, at the tender price, of up to 10 percent of marine farming authorisations. In other words, through deeds of settlement, Māori already get a preferential right to purchase space—5 percent, 10 percent, and an open-ended amount in some settlements. That is the first bite of the cherry.

Last week we heard the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope, say that he would give Māori a second bite of the cherry—that is, a blanket 20 percent of aquaculture space right across the country. On top of that, we also found out today during question time in the House that the Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope, will allow Māori to purchase marine space out of the general pool. So Māori will get one bite through their deeds of settlement, they will have a second through the blanket 20 percent, and they will be able to have another crack by getting marine space out of the general pool.

In some areas of this country—for instance, in the Marlborough Sounds—before this handout occurred, Māori already owned 40 percent of marine farms. They are doing very well in marine farming by getting up out of bed every morning and going to work like everybody else. They do not need this welfare cheque.

However, three bites of the cherry are not enough for the Labour Party. It has also said that iwi will have to be consulted by regional councils and other marine farmers every time a competing marine farmer applies for a marine farm with a resource consent attached. In other words, Māori are to be consulted when their competitors go marine farming. They will control this industry. Once again, the patronising Labour Party treats Māori as if they cannot do it on their own. The Labour Party gives Māori these handouts through a lolly scramble, and the rest of the country pays. The Government should be quite ashamed of that.

I will table those deeds of settlement, because I do not believe that members of the Labour Party’s general caucus even realised that those settlements were signed, and if they did, then they did not realise that those settlements already give Māori the right to space in their areas. We have here the figures of 10 percent in the case of Ngāti Tama and 5 percent in the case of Ngāti Awa, and Ngāti Ruanui has an open-ended amount for the specified part of their coastline available for aquaculture space.

The House will recall that in 1992 National signed a fisheries settlement that gave Māori 20 percent of the wild fishery stock. We did that because Māori were involved in the wild fishery. They had never, traditionally, been involved in aquaculture.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kei te mihi atu ki a koe, arā, kei te pānui atu ki te ao Māori mō ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki a rātou, arā, ngā kaupapa hoki a Te Rōpū Nāhinara e whai nei rātou ki te muru ngā māngai Māori katoa i roto i te Whare Pāremata.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge you in this address to the Māori world, in regard to policies relating to it, and those of the National Party as well; in particular, the one whereby it is seeking to abolish all Māori representation in the House of Parliament.]

The question is: to be or not to be? It is a question not in the sense of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice but perhaps for Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee. Are nuclear-powered ships to be or not to be allowed? The people of our country want to know, and the Māori nation wants to know. I am a little bit disappointed in some of the comparisons and statements made by Mr Brownlee and Phil Heatley when they talked about Māori taking three bites of the cherry—and Mr Heatley went on to say that Māori have taken four bites of it. My advice to them is to combine the bites of the two cherries—seven bites—and take one bite of the kumara. Then they might understand and be enlightened on issues that affect Māori.

First of all, I want to say that I admire the enlightened statements made by the former Minister of the Crown in the National Party, Sir Douglas Graham, and I congratulate him on them. I say to him that the vacant spaces across the other side of this House surely need him right now. They need his wisdom, and they need him to jolt the memories of the corpses that sit over there, because, quite clearly, they have forgotten a lot of things. Sir Douglas Graham had integrity amongst the Māori people. He knew tikanga Māori, and he understood the Māori nation. He knew what Māori dimensions were all about, and he put on the table a fair, square deal in terms of Māori and the Crown.

From what I am hearing Gerry Brownlee say, I can see that he has absolutely no understanding about Māoridom and a Māori dimension. He has absolutely no understanding about his role in terms of the perception of Māori. He should at least have some understanding about how to relate to the Māori people. The first thing he said was that he wants to abolish the Māori parliamentary representatives in this House—representatives who were elected in Māori constituencies by Māori voters. I want to say to Māoridom so they hear me loud and clear: “The National Party’s policy is to abolish your Māori representation in this House.” Secondly, he also wants to abolish Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development. He wants to repeal all legislation that refers to the Treaty of Waitangi. He wants to demolish the Māori Television Service. And he wants to be seen as the future Minister of Māori Affairs? Come on, get a life! This is the deputy leader of the National Party, the so-called shadow Minister of Māori Affairs, saying that he wants to demolish the Māori nation. How does that line up with representing Māori issues and a Māori dimension? I say: “Come back, Doug Graham!”.

I remind members across the other side of the House, including my friend the MP for Whangarei, in the meantime, that the 1992 settlement deal was a very comprehensive one. If he looks at it he will see that it contains some references to aquaculture. Aquaculture, in terms of the proposed 20 percent, is unfinished business. It was business that was negotiated in 1992, and the Labour Government has the courage to front up and finish the business. It is absolute humbug that Māori already have 10 percent, that they already have 5 percent, or that they have had three or four bites of the cherry.

Let me put it to the House this way: when the National Government introduced a quota management system, Māori were already fishing with the general quota, but this was a completely different quota to the customary quota and the traditional quota that had been negotiated. My colleague across the other side of the House knows that. Māori not only fished in the fishery but also bought and sold commercial quota from the general pool. That was fine. But in terms of the treaty settlement, that was something completely different altogether, and I am afraid I am a little bit disappointed that my friends across the other side seem to suffer from some sort amnesia when it comes to the true facts. Kia ora tatou. Tihei mauri ora.

I seek leave to table the Ngāti Tama settlement that gave them 10 percent of allocated space.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I seek leave to table the Ngāti Awa July 2002 deed of settlement that gave them 5 percent of coastal space.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I seek leave to table the 1992 deed of settlement that was entered into by the Crown and Māori.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Last Thursday the Minister of Health organised a patsy question from her colleague Steve Chadwick. The question asked: “What is the Government doing to address the continuing meningococcal epidemic?”. After the Minister’s usual loquacious beginning to the answer, she said: “The vaccine is safe and will provide protection against the epidemic strain of group B meningococcal disease.” But what did we find the next day? We found that Medsafe had not even licensed the vaccine. The Minister had botched up on the first batch of the vaccine. Meningococcal meningitis is, indeed, a very serious disease. Of the approximate 5,000 cases between 1991 and 2004, there were 220 deaths. In 2003—just last year—there were 540 cases, including 13 deaths.

Yet here we have the Minister of Health botching up at the beginning of this very serious campaign. She clearly has some explaining to do, because the people running this campaign do not even know what is going on. I spoke to them in Auckland yesterday, and they do not even know what is going on themselves. Why did she say that the vaccine was safe before it was even licensed, before it was even checked out by the international panel of experts? Can the Minister answer me? No, she cannot. There is no way that that question can be answered at this stage of events.

The Minister has now said that she cannot give clear explanations because of commercial secrecy with regard to the people who are manufacturing the vaccine. But there are contracted vaccinators waiting out there, in south Auckland right now, who have nothing to do because there has been a muck-up. This is a serious waste of very precious health dollars. This is the way the Minister of Health operates. She has started a very important vaccination campaign, with a botch-up. Can she guarantee that Medsafe will license the vaccine? Of course she cannot give that guarantee. Therefore, she should not have claimed, prematurely, that the vaccine was safe.

There are also extremely serious questions about the date of the vaccine, and whether there will be any further delays. I read in the New Zealand Herald that “the Ministry of Health is reassuring the public it’s on track with the meningococcal vaccine.” Yet already the campaign has been delayed by 2 weeks. So how can the ministry say the campaign is on track, when it is several weeks late already? What is more, there is a chance that the first whole batch of vaccine may have to be dumped, at considerable expense. If the Minister had held her instruction to Steve Chadwick, if she had instead explained the problems that can occur with a new vaccine, she could have been forgiven. But I know that this Minister of Health insisted on her 24 hours of glory, before she was found out to be grossly incompetent.

The other aspect is the wider issue of vaccinations in New Zealand. I have asked on several occasions whether the Minister can tell me how many New Zealand children are having their vaccinations completed. After 4½ years of a Labour Government, she cannot even tell us how many children are having their vaccinations completed.

What an extraordinary week it has been. On 16 June, after returning from Washington, Don Brash had this to say about the National Party’s nuclear policy: “The likelihood is that if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable, and that of course would be after we became Government, we would then seek a referendum for any change in the law.” So I thought Jeanette Fitzsimons’ question today, as to where the seat of Government was likely to be, was relatively astute, frankly.

Then, only about 6 weeks’ ago we heard from Simon Power, a man in the National Party whom we on this side of the House regard somewhat affectionately—we call him “Mr Mini-Me II”. He had this to say about New Zealand’s relationship with Australia, the United States, and Britain: “… without reservation we will support our close allies …” Without reservation! Well, that again makes Jeanette Fizsimons’ question in the House this afternoon quite astute.

Then I had a look at where National Party policy had come to. I could just hear Dr Brash going: “Er, this is an issue where the country’s interests are not well served in having policy flipped backwards and forwards.” That was his first position in June 2004. Then he said: “Er, I think the electorate expects the National Party to have quite clear policies on these issues, and I don’t think we want to fudge these issues at all.” That was said on 19 June 2004.

He had said in January 2004: “Er, if the National Party was in Government today we would get rid of the nuclear propulsion session today, by lunchtime even.” Then in May 2004, he said: “Er, my personal views on this issue, er, on the task force, er, are that it appears to offer New Zealand a very useful way forward whereby we can maintain, er, an effective ban on nuclear-propelled ships visiting New Zealand, while easing, er, the relationship with the United States, and if we can pull that off, er, that’s my strongly preferred outcome.” Who believes any of that? It is no surprise to find that 53 percent of New Zealanders, in a poll conducted by TV3, do not believe him.

Indeed, I want to give Rodney Hide credit, because only today Rodney Hide said, in his inimitable way: “National’s nuclear-powered ship debate has been all process and no outcome. The status quo rules.” I think Rodney Hide is somewhat disappointed. Mr Hide’s party at least has been consistent in saying it would get rid of the nuclear policy, and it had Don Brash convinced. It even had “Mr Mini-Me II” convinced that that was the way to go. We have seen an incredible flip-flop on the nuclear policy by the National Party.

But the National Party got something wrong. Don Brash goes on about that all being in the national interest. Well, he spells national with a little “n”. I can tell him that what he thinks is in the national interest is certainly not in New Zealand’s interest, and the public have told him that.

We know—and Darren Hughes, who was in the Chamber previously, remembers quite well—the policy announcements that were made in 1975 and in 1990, and now it looks as if they will be made again in 2005. It is the “15-year tizz” that the National Party gets. National members get themselves into such a lather about a particular policy that they say they are going to do something, and then they do something totally different.

I have to tell the National Party that the sad thing is that the biggest bulk of voters now are Grey Power voters. They remember Muldoon and Bolger. They remember the policies that were promised by National and were never delivered on. Those voters will not trust National. Do members know what? Those voters have grandchildren. They talk to their grandchildren about the day that Mr Muldoon said he would give them back their superannuation. The only Prime Minister who has ever been shown to break the law in this country is Robert Muldoon—he is the only one. The case Fitzgerald v Muldoon is a standard case in law schools now. Those voters remember the “no ifs, no buts, no maybes” from Mr Bolger, and they will remember Mr Brash as saying: “Er, well I’m a little uncomfortable where we are at the moment.”

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.