General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We are in the midst of the estimates debate. For those who are at home listening today, that is the debate that takes place in Parliament when the Government outlines what it wants to spend its money on, and we would hope that Opposition members would rise to say what they, if they were given the opportunity, would spend the money on. The Government’s agenda has been very clear. This is it: we want people to get a job and go to work. We want to have a very strong economy. We want middle and low income households to be able to afford to pay the rent, raise the kids, and get out there and afford all the things that go with being a New Zealander today. We have said that we want to have good, strong public services like the health system, the education system, and the care and protection systems for young people. We want to ensure that we are housing people well, and we want our economy to be out there exporting around the world—to create the kind of economy that we all want. That is what we want to have, and it is working.

I have heard speaker after speaker from the Opposition side of the House start their debate, and they have been forced, after 5 short years of outstanding Government by Labour, to say that it is not luck but outstanding management by the people on the Government side of the House that has led to an economy that is performing. There is a very low rate of unemployment, more people than ever are employed, more operations are being done, there is better education, more people are in education, more people are housed, small towns are booming, and the regions are growing. That is the picture, and even the Opposition now has to say that it is the picture.

Perhaps that is why we have not heard one single idea in the estimates debate from the National Opposition that tells us what it would do if it were able to spend the money. What we have had to do is to go back and look at those members’ real agenda. I will touch on only some of it, but this is where they have been going. This year there has been the Ōrewa speech. The agenda there was clearly social division. Those members say that is not the case; they do not want to turn Māori against Pākehā, they say. But having lit the fuse, have they given us one single idea of what they would do? Having lit the fuse of racial division, what would they do if they got into power? We do not know that; they just want to have the argument. That is wrong. Simon Power has said that what he wants to do is to allow the Americans to tell us what our foreign policy should be. We are a sovereign, independent, small, feisty, self-determining nation, and we will tell people what we want to do. But the National Party wants the Americans to tell us what to do. That is wrong. On crime, those members tell us they want to spend the money on prisons and all the things that punish people, but they have not one single idea about overcoming the causes of crime. They are tough on crime and pathetic on the causes of crime. They have nothing to say about where crime comes from. They are trading on fear, and that is wrong.

The National members tell us they want to roll back to the 1990s’ economic agenda—the one that gave us an 11.9 percent rate of unemployment, emptied out the regions, stopped us growing, and drove up our national debt. That is the agenda they want to return to. They want to do that because of their ideology and because a few of their friends in big business want that. That is wrong. We are about to hear National’s next big speech, which will be about welfare, time-limited benefits, people being put on work for the dole, and work-capacity testing of the kind that had to be cancelled in the last decade. National members will attack the most vulnerable people in this country, to try to win power. That is wrong. National is a party that is so bad and so wrong that Mr Sowry and Lynda Scott are already leaving. They are getting out now while they can; they do not want to be part of it. I want to say that some of the other leading lights are being driven out of National, because they have a conscience. They come from places like Rangitīkei.

That was a sad and pitiful speech from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who tries to hide the unemployment figures by moving tens of thousands of New Zealanders on to the sickness benefit. He surreptitiously tells his public servants to put people on the sickness and invalids benefits, so that he can stand in Parliament and say the number of people on the unemployment benefit is coming down. I tell that Minister that these are the things that will remove him from office in the next 12 months. National will abolish the race-based privileges of the Labour Government. National will reduce crime by keeping career criminals in jail for longer. We will not let the Parole Board release rapists after serving 33 percent of their sentences. We will put beneficiaries back to work and will lower taxes for hard-working, middle-class New Zealanders. We will have them paying lower taxes, rather than being beholden to this Government and its beneficiaries.

In the Bay of Plenty in the last 10 days, the people of the community have pulled together in a way that is unprecedented since the earthquake in Edgecumbe, to support their neighbours and the community in recovering from the Eastern Bay of Plenty floods. I want to say that—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: George Hawkins was there.

Well, if we want to say who was or was not there, I think Mr Samuels should be careful. Once people have been rehoused and the farms are back in business, it is important that we in the region find out whether things could have been handled better than they were. Was this a freak flood or one caused by global warming? Should the river schemes have been stronger? Should the dam have been managed differently? Those are all questions the community will need to seek answers to later on. But I want to report that the people of the region are pulling together, and we look forward to the Government’s announcement of the rural recovery package to help families, and farmers in particular, to re-establish their businesses in the aftermath of the disaster.

As the National Party’s law and order spokesperson, I want to turn to the tremendous leadership that Dr Don Brash is providing this country with in his plan to improve the fight against crime. The law and order system is simply a mess. In significant parts of this country, the police turn up to an emergency in the required time in only just over half the incidents that they are expected to attend. If one rings up with a life-threatening emergency, the police are supposed to be there within 10 minutes, but in south Auckland, it is likely that they will turn up within that time frame in only just over half those emergency cases. That is because this Government has underfunded and under-resourced the New Zealand Police, and has the police under such considerable pressure that they are unable to deliver a lower rate of crime. Since Labour has been in Government, crime is up across every region. Violent crime is up by 15 percent under this Labour Government. Every year, the chances of being bashed, mugged, or attacked are the highest they have ever been. In Wellington City, there has been a 40 percent increase in burglaries. In Rotorua, burglaries and violence go unchecked, and the Government offers nothing. Right now, we have a horrible situation whereby people who are before the courts for quite serious offences are on the verge of walking free, because of stupendous delays in the nation’s court system. We know that the Ministry of Justice states that 40 percent of the jury cases in Auckland are at risk because of those delays.

There is a man who objected to a prison being located in his area when he was offered one. Yesterday, in the estimates debate, Parliament said yes to the Labour-Progressive Government’s $263.128 million investment in economic, industry, and regional development. Funding has been approved for 26 new initiatives in the 2004-05 financial year, totalling $98.398 million. Some of the more exciting investments propelling the economic transformation of our nation include programmes to enhance New Zealand’s ability to attract new investment, the opening of new international market opportunities to a number of our industry sectors, significantly greater participation in international trade fairs, and the promotion of New Zealand’s goods and services. The Large Budget Screen Production Grant fund is paying dividends for all New Zealand. New Zealand is increasingly a technologically advanced and forward-looking society that is confident of its place in the world and confident of where it is going as a nation.

The Labour-Progressive coalition Government relishes its vital role in contributing to that process of economic transformation. The reason the coalition Government is active in supporting industry and regional development is that we know that intelligent partnerships are assisting the whole economy to leverage more out of our existing skills and advantages. It is a multiplier effect, and we need to have a lot more of it to ensure that the exceptionally strong economic performance we have seen over the 5 years since 1999 continues uninterrupted for many more years yet. It does not seem very long since 1999, because so much has happened since then and it has been so good. We are a Government that is actively encouraging new investment and new job-creating businesses, including those with export potential. Strengthening the international connections of our businesses plays an important part in lifting our national economic competitiveness, and therefore delivering higher average living standards. The Progressive Government’s hard work constantly pays dividends for all New Zealand.

Yesterday, Jim Anderton and EDS (New Zealand) announced that EDS has already achieved a major milestone stipulated in an investment partnership forged between it and the Government in March of last year: EDS has created more than 200 jobs in just 15 months. It has created all those jobs in the wake of this Government’s $1.5 million investment in the company via our Strategic Investment Fund. That is great news, of course—which is why John Key is celebrating it now—for our expanding information and communications technology industry. EDS’s next target is to create 360 new jobs, in total, by March 2006. Increasing the number of high-value, high-skilled jobs is an important step towards the Labour-Progressive Government’s goal of raising the living standard of every New Zealander. The flow-on effect to the wider society from the Government’s partnership with that global company is that all New Zealand benefits from having a stronger information and communications technology sector based on our shores. Of course, all New Zealand benefits from increased export earnings and from a sophisticated, skilled workforce. EDS (New Zealand)’s managing director, Rick Ellis, says that the Government grant was an important factor in assisting EDS (New Zealand) to compete in the global market for work from overseas EDS subsidiaries, because the investment partnership reflected the strong level of Government support enjoyed by EDS (New Zealand).

The Government is committed to working in partnership with New Zealand in order to get more and more New Zealanders into jobs. As of March 2004, there were 1,985,000 people in work. That is 193,000 more than when we were elected as a coalition Government in 1999. The growth in jobs far exceeds the growth in the labour force. If members want to know what the opposite of the Progressive Government’s economic development policies would look like, then they should look no further than to the National Party members on the Opposition benches. Those members strongly oppose the new jobs created at EDS and the positive partnership that this Government has. Instead, they have a scenario of reckless, big Government spending. National proposes, on the one hand, to end the Government’s investment in our future prosperity, while, on the other hand, recklessly spending more on building prisons and employing more police to keep order in the streets of the alternative society it wants to build. New Zealand would become the Uzbekistan of this part of the world. National would have trouble in building the prisons, because Paul Hutchison, Shane Ardern, Phil Heatley, Bill English, and Tony Ryall do not want prisons when those prisons are to be sited in their areas. National’s is a vision of a society that is failing economically and socially, and therefore has to use precious taxpayers’ money to build ever-increasing numbers of prisons. New Zealand currently imprisons 155 people per 100,000 inhabitants, the seventh-highest imprisonment rate in the OECD. That is the only competition in the OECD National wants to win—the one for the highest level of imprisonment—and that is what it probably would achieve.

That was a valedictory speech from a member of a once-important party in our country, long since so, which is why the name of the party is spelt with such a small “p” these days. I want to talk about something the Alliance used to believe in, which is New Zealand ownership of New Zealand assets. In the period between 1988 and 1999, a total of $9.2 billion of State assets was sold, first by the Labour Government and then by the National Government.

There is one party in Parliament that has principles in respect of New Zealand ownership of assets—so much so that we walked out of the Government on that principle, back in August 1998, on the issue of whether the Wellington Airport would be sold to a majority foreign ownership. We say that our sovereignty as a country has been taken by stealth, by successive Governments of a Labour and National hue that allowed this country to become putty in the hands of big business abroad that has conned short-sighted politicians here into believing that we need it to bail us out. The truth is that we are not better off as a country as a consequence, in respect of our assets and wealth—quite the converse.

The current Government has not learnt the lesson at all. Its blind strategy is obvious, although it is not so visible as it used to be. Just recently it moved the threshold in respect of overseas ownership to $100 million before there is any scrutiny at all. Can anyone tell me how many New Zealand companies have $100 million? That means 20 percent of our market can be purchased tomorrow without any scrutiny whatsoever. We are being priced out of our country and no Labour-led or National-led Government is going in to bat for New Zealanders any more. Already 97,000 hectares of South Island high country has been sold to overseas interests—an area equivalent to three Paparoa National Parks. Farms in this country are being sold like second-hand cars at a vehicle auction. All this has been under a Labour-led Government, and National would be so much worse.

Dr Cullen said his intention was to ensure that the new criteria took a broader view. Yeah, right. What he is scared of is being called “anti-business”, although 95 percent of New Zealand businessmen know this is a bad idea. They know because of our balance of payments crisis amongst other things. The Government claims that buyers will be required to stipulate in their applications how they will manage land with special heritage or environmental value. So there it goes, a doff to the left, and the massive sales will go on to foreigners; a little doff to our environmental areas and the massive sale programmes will go on.

Do members know that Cabinet rejected a Treasury paper that stated the figure should be not $10 million, which is what Labour inherited, not $50 million as it changed it to, and not $100 million, which it has got up to now, but that Treasury recommended the figure be $250 million? Do members know what Cabinet said? It said that was a tad high; it was a bit high. When we have a Government that takes such a casual approach to New Zealand ownership, then we have a Government that needs to be tipped out of office.

The Government states that the $100 million rule is expected to cut the annual number of businesses that are able to seek approval from 20 to 12 on average. That is good. So now we are to have fewer people owning more of our land. That is the result. Land with an unimproved value of more than $10 million—and that will be in our central cities—no longer requires any consent whatsoever. Dr Cullen and his Labour colleagues are so nervous that overseas investment has declined that they have lost faith in New Zealanders to create more market access and new technology ideas. All this time we have billions of our savings dollars in the “Cullen fund” parked off shore, making a fortune for some other economy. Who can figure that out? He says that we must change these rules to attract foreign investment. It is not that at all, of course. It is a foreign takeover. We would not see that in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Ireland, or any other country in the world. He opens up this country to all sorts of takeovers whilst he has parked off shore billions of dollars of New Zealand - saved money in the “Cullen fund”. That is utter madness.

I listened in amazement, a few speakers back, to Tony Ryall. Remember Tony Ryall? He was Minister of Justice in 1999. Remember 1999? That is when the referendum was held—a referendum on 9 years of a National Government, where 92 percent of this country said: “Not enough, no action, a do-nothing Government!”. People threw out that Government and signalled quite clearly what they wanted from this Government, and we have delivered.

But let us remember that Tony Ryall also said something about the new legislation discounting sentences. Now, Nick Smith was a member of the National Government in 1993. He remembers the amendment to the Criminal Justice Act that cut parole from 50 percent to 33 percent. In 1993 we had a National Government. What else happened in 1993? The National Government passed legislation stating that a serious, violent criminal, no matter what risk he constituted to the community, had to be released at two-thirds of his sentence. Then National members say how terrible it is that people sentenced under their own legislation are getting out at two-thirds of their sentence, when they still constitute a risk of committing further crimes.

Remember the National Party? Bill English was the Minister of Finance. Bill English has on the record of this Parliament an acknowledgment by him, as a National Minister, that he would cut police numbers and resources to pay for the failed INCIS scheme. So why would any New Zealander believe this National Party? National members are lions when in Opposition but lambs that do nothing when in Government, even though they say they will crack down on crime. It has been shown time and time again that we cannot trust a National Government. Tony Ryall rails against home detention. Who introduced home detention in this country? It was Tony Ryall in 1999. It was one of the last things he did in Government. How can we trust a party in Opposition that pretends it should be the Government, when it shows such duplicity time and time again?

If we want to talk about double standards, National is promising the country 10 more prisons. However, I have a report from the Waikato Times in 2001 stating that eight National MPs, including Paul Hutchison, Shane Ardern, Richard Worth, and others were out there telling the people of Waikato why they should be opposing a prison in their own area. Don Brash is now saying that National would change the Resource Management Act so that people can be told: “There is a prison coming in your street soon and you won’t have any rights to do anything about it.” Yet we had the hypocrisy of eight National members in 2001 saying to people that they should exercise rights that the National Party has now acknowledged it would take away from them.

It is no wonder people do not have confidence in the National Opposition. One cannot trust National members. They say they want DNA testing. Where were they last year when we changed the DNA legislation to ensure that any persons committing serious crime in this country would have to have their DNA taken, and where every person committed to prison in this country would have to give DNA samples? Well, that was tough, but not tough enough for National members, who say: “We want to extend it to those engaged in unlawful assembly and who are drunk and disorderly.” At $200 a time, that would clog up police resources and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. That is what they would do, because they are going to be tougher than the Labour Government. Then those members say: “No parole; more prisons.” Over a decade, the promises already made would cost $9 billion.

What do we see from the United States, the one country in the Western World that has a higher prison rate, with 3.2 percent of the adult population in the justice system—2 million in prison and 5 million on probation? In California, the home of “three strikes and you’re out”, there is an 85 percent recidivism rate within 6 months of being released from prison. That is what no parole means—an 85 percent recidivism rate. Texas is now emptying out its jails. It is letting people out before they have completed their terms, because the jails are overcrowded and it cannot afford them.

The wrong people have been put in prison. This Government has unashamedly said that those people against whom the public need to be protected will be locked away, and for a long time. William Bell has to serve 30 years before being eligible for parole. But we will not do the stupid things that the National Party is promising to do. They do not work and they would waste the Government’s and the people’s money.

The Minister of Education is on record as calling the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) a triumph. Well I call on Mr Mallard to tell that to the pupils of Glenfield College in Auckland, particularly the students in a year 11 history class last year who walked into their history exam expecting to answer questions related to the topic they had studied for most of the year—a topic that was compulsory. The topic was set by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for the level 1 history exam. That topic was: “Tangata and Whenua: the effect of population movement on Maori society”. A considerable portion of the academic year had been devoted by these students and their teacher to studying and revising for this topic. It was a major part of the level 1 history exam. But what did they find when they walked in? They found that not one question had been set on the topic that they had studied for that standard. Those students were effectively denied four credits attached to that standard. Their teacher wrote to me and said they came out of the exam confused and terribly upset, as was their teacher, John Watson, confused and upset.

He went to the website to find out what had happened. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority website specifically stated that the level 1 history paper in the NZCEA would have the topic “Tangata and Whenua” available for examination in 2003. Does Mr Mallard call that a triumph? The teacher wrote to Trevor Mallard in February this year telling him what had happened and asking why that topic was still stated on the website as being available. His students had spent 9 months studying it. The Minister took nearly 3 months to reply to that letter, and stated absolute gobbledygook. In fact, he refused to address the complaint.

Six months later the Minister wrote again to John Watson stating that he felt in his mind that there was no need to do anything about it, because he had checked it out, and overall, those students had done well in the NCEA. That would have been a bit like saying in the old days that if students walked into the history exam and there was no question set on the subject they had studied all year, it did not matter that they failed it, because they had passed their School Certificate, anyway.

Worse than that, the Minister’s excuse for there being no questions on that topic in the exam was that the examiner had not been able to come up with satisfactory questions to ask in the exam. But he had been able to come up with an assessment of the completed exam. The Minister also thought that it was OK, because he said that a circular was delivered to schools a couple of weeks before the students sat the exam. Can that be called an NCEA triumph? Most New Zealanders would call it grossly unfair. Those students had paid fees to sit their exams. The fees they pay to sit the NZCEA are not inconsiderable. Tangata whenua was a compulsory topic.

In other words, the Minister ordered those students, and all students in New Zealand, to sit a New Zealand topic in history. The teacher had taught the topic. He told me that those students were above the national average in intelligence and ability. They had studied and revised the topic, and when they went into the exam, unbeknown to them there was nothing in the exam on that topic. I call that a disgrace. The Minister of Education quite happily spent $15 million on a closing-the-gaps campaign called Te Mana, which basically involves printing a whole lot of glossy brochures to encourage Māori to be educated. At the same time he thinks nothing of dumping the tangata whenua topic from New Zealand history. The Minister is showing that he is quite happy to dump on New Zealand schools, teachers, and students. That is totally unfair. He should give that teacher and those students a better explanation than a cursory letter full of unintelligible language and then turn around and say that because they did OK overall, it would not matter. To excuse himself by saying that no reliable questions could be formed on the subject is just not good enough.

Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. Ko tēnei anō Te Wiki o te Reo Māori. E tika ake anō I runga I te tū nei ki te mihi ake anō I ā tātou mai I te motu, kei te whawhai tonu ake anō mō tō tātou reo. E mōhio ake anō tātou, ko tēnei anō te reo o te tangata whenua o Aotearoa. I nui ake anō ngā tamariki e whai kaha I roto o ngā kura, ngā kōhanga pērā tonu.

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

[This is Māori Language Week once again. It is therefore fitting that in rising to speak I should extend a greeting in the language to all of us throughout the country, and assure everyone that the battle for our language continues. We know that this is the language of the indigenous people of New Zealand. The number of children with the language in the schools is strong. It is the same in kōhanga.]

This week has become a national annual event and it is of major significance. Two hundred and ten languages are spoken in New Zealand, with te reo Māori ranking second with 160,500 speakers. Te Wiki o te Reo Māori—Māori Language Week—is a time when we embrace our Māori language and when we elevate it as an icon of Aotearoa and as an official language of New Zealand. “Give it a go. Kōrero Māori.” is the theme of the week, and the plea that is going out is that we want everybody to get into it. The message behind Te Wiki o te Reo Māori to all New Zealanders is to have a go at speaking the language. I am 101 percent behind that take. This Government has been committed to that in recognising the tangata whenua language and the status that it does hold, and has, by right in this country.

We believe in the idea of creating a supportive environment for giving it a go, to lighten up, and be free and easy about some of the tabus like the mixing of English and Māori, as they do very effectively on Māori Television’s Kōrero Mai, and about other people’s levels of vocabulary and fluency. The official language status of te reo Māori can only be enhanced when enjoyed by using and sharing it.

Forty-two percent of Māori adults have some speaking ability in Māori, although only about 9 percent are highly fluent. It is definite that not only are more speakers essential to revitalisation but also greater numbers of speakers with high proficiency levels to create solid maintenance are required. This Government’s vision, as established in the Māori language strategy, is that by 2028 the majority of Māori will be able to speak Māori, so there is a clear target.

This Government is in a unique position to show leadership in bilingualism. That is something that the Opposition, given the opportunity to govern, which is very unlikely, will not do. That is why many services can be accessed in Māori. Let it not be that we just do the haka in Māori, when the All Blacks turn out, and we all get excited. Let it be an everyday part of this language and no different from other countries.

Interestingly, the majority of New Zealanders—56 percent—support some level of Māori language tuition of all school students, so that is good. However, there is a balance, and we will not get a positive attitude towards language used by forcing it on people. In other words, knowing the language of our ancestors is part of our belonging.

More positive stuff for te reo Māori is that over 350,000 New Zealanders watched Māori Television in its first 3 months on air and that does not include those watching digital. At the moment it is estimated that 60 to 65 percent of Pākehā watch Māori Television, especially the Kōrero Mai programme. Estimates based on survey suggest as many as 700,000 may have watched Māori Television in the first 12 weeks.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: For how long?

Māori Television attracted strong interest from non-Māori audiences, with 65 percent having watched Māori Television over the first 12 weeks, and a lot longer than before, when that member was in Government, because they did not care about the tangata whenua. This Government will stand on the platform of its achievements in relation to moving Māori forward.

Quite clearly, in the health area, Māori boys are expected to live to 69 years. That is a lot more years than they were in 1995 and 1997. Māori women are expected to live to 71.3 years. It was previously reported that they could be expected to live only to 68 years. In education, as that member pointed out, tertiary education enrolments have doubled, from 32,825 in 1999 to 62,574. Right now there are 21,737 Māori in industry training and they are doing a whole lot more things.

“Coming to a river near you!” Members might like to study this map to look at the orange dots in their electorates. Those 65 orange dots are the plans that the Ministry of Economic Development has for our rivers. Those 65 are only the publicly known opportunities to dam, divert, and put into canals. They are only the ones that the Ministry of Economic Development believes have a high-to-medium level of confidence of proceeding. Altogether, they add up to over 12,000 gigawatt hours, which is nearly a third of the generation that New Zealand used last year.

They claim to have removed the projects with environmental issues that would be difficult to resolve, and they claim to have removed projects in national parks. However, quite a number of those are still illegal and require changes of the law before they could proceed. They rely on the lifting of water conservation orders that have been fought for by local communities often for a decade or so before they have finally been put in place. They propose the lifting of water conservation orders on the Ashburton River, on the Mohaka River, and on the Gowan River. They do affect national parks. They proposed to divert the Mangawhero River on the edge of the Tongariro National Park into the Wanganui River. They contain numerous examples in forest parks such as up in the Tararuas where many local Wellingtonians have their recreation and tramping.

Two of the main rivers in Molesworth Station just acquired by the Department of Conservation for the benefit of all New Zealanders—the Awatere River, currently running free and unmodified would be dammed, and the Clarence River—would be diverted through a range of hills into a dam on the other side in a major tourist and recreational area.

The examples are legion. There are four dams on the Ngaruroro River, which currently has no dams on it. The East Cape, the Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, and the Hawke’s Bay region is particularly affected. There is the Waiohine River, a tributary of the Ruamahanga River, with its headwaters in the Tararua Ranges; the Ashburton River, which requires a variation to two water conservation orders, with a proposal to divert waters from two catchments, and run canals through the basin where The Lord of the Rings was filmed—it would have looked great with canals in the background would it not—and the damming of the river at the gorge.

There is a proposed diversion of the river draining Lake Koroko in the Fiordland National Park, and diverting a discharge of Lake Wakatipu down into Southland. Chief amongst all these proposals, of course, is Project Aqua, which is still on the books, whose applications have not been withdrawn, which provides the largest amount of power out of the 12,000 gigawatt hours, and with which it is clearly still aimed to proceed if a suitable regional plan can be drawn up under the Waitaki bill.

All of these rivers have natural values that are important to New Zealanders. All of these rivers are habitat for biodiversity for indigenous species. All of these rivers have recreational and scenic values. They are people’s favourite fishing spots, favourite swimming spots, and favourite tramping places. The Ministry of Economic Development shows no sensitivity at all to those values. It is simply: “What is the hydro potential? Let’s go for it if we think we could get consent.”

There is also a strong link here to the proposed amendment to the Resource Management Act in that the website refers to these rivers as water bodies of national importance. We know that one of the proposals to amend the Resource Management Act is to put a clause in allowing the national interest to override people’s local amenity interests, and the environment, and this is what that override will be for. This is what that national interest clause in the Resource Management Act will be about. There will be about 65, but there are a whole lot more to come that are perhaps a little less likely than these. These are just the most likely ones on rivers all over the country.

All of this could be avoided. We have large opportunities in New Zealand for energy efficiency and conservation. We have the best wind sites in the world, we have waste wood for co-generation, and we have a lot of solar heat. All of those things are possible. We do not have to sacrifice rivers throughout the country.

Ko te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Whaea Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare, ā, me ngā mema katoa. I acknowledge Madam Speaker, and also members of the House.

Kei te tū atu ki te tautoko I tēnei wiki, arā, tumanako kia whakaatungia te reo Māori ki te motu katoa. I stand up to support Māori Language Week.

Ko te tumanako, ko te wero ki a tātou ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata kia kōrero Māori tātou I ngā wā katoa. Pēnā whara kau tātau e mohio ana ki te kōrero Māori, me haere ētahi o tātau ki te kōhanga reo. I invite our colleagues and all members of Parliament to take up the challenge and learn the Māori language. Perhaps I could help them by advising them to start off with kōhanga reo.

And also ngā wero katoa ki ahau, ki ngā tari katoa a te Kāwanatanga, ngā tumuaki katoa, kia mōhio ai rātau, kōrerotia te reo Māori I roto ā rātau mahi katoa. The challenge is also to Government departments right throughout the country, to inspire them to be able to speak Māori in their communications, not just with Māori people but also with all people in our country.

I rise to talk about Māori aspirations, ambitions, and visions for Māoridom. I want to share with the House that there is virtually no difference between the visions and desires of our Māori people and those of non-Māori and Pākehā. We all want good jobs, and we all want sustainable employment so that we can earn money to put kai on our tables. We also want a decent roof over our heads. We want education and employment for our children. We are really no different to the rest of New Zealanders. In fact, our people want to participate in the opportunities that are available for them, and to that end this Government has prepared a landscape in order for our people to achieve.

I want to make a few comments about that. When we are talking about the Māori language, we are talking about the Government appropriating something like $4 million over 4 years for the Māori language programme. That is something unique.

But the other thing I want to talk about is the emergence of that other party. I tell the House that I am prepared to put my name down, right beside the achievements that have been made by the Labour Government. I am prepared to put my signature to the achievements that have been made by the Labour Government in terms of its aspirations to move forward Māoridom in its entirety, and in its commitment to Māori social and economic development. I will name some achievements.

I will start first in Kaitaia. We put $9.5 million into Kaitaia Hospital. No other party, not even this new party that has emerged, has come out and said that it would put in any money. I challenge any party, including this new party, to deliver for the Māori people. I say to them: never mind about the rhetoric, never mind about flying the tino rangatira flag, never mind about blocking up the Auckland Harbour Bridge—produce the goods and deliver for our people!

I will stand with my colleagues here, and we will put our signatures to the things we have delivered for Māori. We have the lowest unemployment rate in a decade in Te Tai Tokerau: 9.4 percent, down from 17.5 percent in 3 years. We are delivering. We have 6,000 apprentices—young Māori training in building and engineering—in Te Tai Tokerau. If any others can match our aspirations they should deliver. I do not care what name they call themselves—this party or that party, having a party—who gives a hoot? Māoridom wants a party to deliver, and I tell members that this Labour Government has delivered—plus. We will stand on our reputation.

Every Māori member and every member of the Labour Party and of this Government will put their signature to the treaty of delivery. That is a new treaty—the treaty of delivery. Never mind about the rhetoric. Never mind about jumping up and down, doing the haka, having the hīkoi, or flying the flag. That will not put kai on our table, put a roof over our heads, or educate our children. All that people have heard is utter humbug, because at the end of the day our people will say: “Which is the Government that will deliver?”

I say to this House that the treaty for delivery rests with this Labour Government. Our people understand that the party to deliver has to be either the Labour Party or the National Party. National will deliver the abolition of the Māori seats, the abolition of Māoridom, and the abolition of the treaty. That is what the National Party will deliver—humbug!

One of the reasons this Government will go out on its ear next year is the way in which it has dumped responsibilities and costs on local government that have resulted in a record increase in rates. In the figures that have just been released by Statistics New Zealand, the rate increase for the first year of the new local government legislation is 10.4 percent. That is over a 10 percent increase in rates, and Dover Samuels talks about what they have delivered! What that delivers is increased costs for families on fixed incomes and a reduction in the competitiveness of New Zealand business. It amounts to an extra $200 million taken out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders so that we can pay out for the political correctness and bureaucracy that this Government has imposed on New Zealand.

Let me explain just how bad that 10.4 percent increase is. If we go back over the Statistics New Zealand records for the past 10 years, the biggest increase in any other year was 4.6 percent. That was a Labour year, too. In fact, rates have gone up in this country by 32 percent since Labour has been in Government. Over the same period the consumer price index has moved by 12 percent.

So what sort of rhetoric do we get from Government members, who say they care about the poor people? What about the poor people who have to pay rates? The Government hands out Government grants for business when businesses are having to fork out tens of millions of dollars more in rate bills. How has it done it? Well, let us reflect back on the Local Government Act 2002, which is one of the biggest statutes passed by this Government. We asked for assurances from the Minister that the Government would not put up rates. Yet exactly the opposite has happened. In the very first full year of that Act we saw rates go up by four times the consumer price index over the June 2003 to June 2004 period.

How has the Government done that? Well, it just keeps dumping extra costs on local government. I have been attending the Local Government New Zealand conference for the last 3 days, and there is a mood amongst the councillors and mayors of New Zealand that they have had it with this lot. The Government has dumped on them with dogs. It has dumped on them with new responsibilities under the Resource Management Act. It has dumped on them with new gaming responsibilities, and so it goes on. I was speaking to Darren Hughes’ councillors and they were saying that the rates bill responsibility should rest with that member and his Labour mates who have passed dumb legislation that simply pushes up the costs for ordinary New Zealanders.

I ask members opposite whether they will take responsibility for this record rate increase. There is silence. They will probably try to pass the buck to their mates in local government. Members on this side of the House say that we have to go back to the drawing board. It is not acceptable to dump 10-plus percent rate increases on the families and businesses of New Zealand. That is why we will reform the Resource Management Act. That is why we will revisit the bureaucratic politically correct nonsense in that Local Government Act. The story of the Wellington Regional Council having to spend over $200,000 in its first year on consultation with iwi is a story that is repeated up and down New Zealand. That must change. National is saying it must redress this nonsense idea with dogs—that we have every single dog microchipped in New Zealand without any thought for the cost that that imposes on ordinary New Zealanders. My colleague Lindsay Tisch well knows the sorts of costs that the Building Act is dumping on ratepayers and councils all around New Zealand. We will revisit the gaming legislation that again puts up all these sorts of costs.

The answer, which those members opposite do not understand, is that the citizens and businesses of this country are far more capable of spending their money wisely than the bureaucracies of central and local government. That 10.4 percent rate increase is the death knell of the Local Government Act that that Labour Government has imposed on the people of New Zealand. It is a failure, and Chris Carter should get down to this House and explain why a 10.4 percent increase in rates bills works.

The Government won its second term in office 2 years ago yesterday. Apart from the total disarray of the National Party at the time, which was helpful, it was a positive vote for the continuation of the good work of a good Government, whose members had said before an election what it was going to do, and who delivered on those promises after the election. National cannot stand that. Every time we deliver another pledge, it reminds people that National broke promise after promise all through the 1990s.

The bottom line is that this country is doing well. Areas of deprivation in the 1990s are today building growth rates that are higher than the national average, and the National Party cannot stand that either. Dr Brash says we are a lucky Government, which I suspect means that he thinks Ruth Richardson was just plain unlucky when she plunged our economy into recession with her “mother of all Budgets”. Maybe he thinks he would have better luck now, because he is really stuck in that ideological mindset of the 1990s, which this country firmly rejected in 1999, firmly rejected in 2002, and will firmly reject again next year.

My view is that we would see history repeat itself if National were to gain control of the Treasury benches. I was talking to an older constituent on Monday who said to me that Dr Brash would ruin the New Zealand economy if he had the chance, giving tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders and taking service away from the poorest New Zealanders. National will learn that it cannot fool the people even some of the time. The question I am asked is that if National is doing so well, why are so many of its members now leaving—deciding that they are not going to stand for the National Party? Obviously, Roger Sowry has made a good decision. It is better to jump ship than to suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of the National list-ranking committee. To decide to stay on would only be delaying the inevitable. Linda Scott was furious that Dr Brash could not bring himself even to include health as one of National’s top five priorities. No wonder they are going.

Although there is speculation about Georgina te Heuheu leaving voluntarily, and Richard Worth or Clem Simich being forced out, there is no speculation about the one member of the Opposition who should stand down because of the dishonour he has brought upon himself as a member of Parliament, the dishonour he has brought upon this House by being here, and the dishonour he has brought upon his party—Nicholas Rex Smith. Nick Smith was convicted of contempt of court, but not because he breached the privacy provisions of the Family Court, as his colleagues seemed to think. They gave that man a standing ovation in this Parliament for trying to force, in the most high-handed manner imaginable, a genuine litigant in a Family Court proceeding to withdraw from that proceeding. Nicholas Rex Smith rang the caregiver in a family dispute and asked her whether she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child. How dare he! He said to her words to the effect that he was a member of Parliament, that Parliament is the highest court in the land, and that everyone is answerable to Parliament. That is intolerable behaviour from somebody calling himself a member of Parliament.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is casting aspersions on the credibility of a member on this side of the House by referring to a court case that has been heard and is over. Her attack on Dr Nick Smith is uncalled for and unparliamentary, and I ask that she apologise and withdraw those comments.

Speaking to the point of order, I am quoting from the court case.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it is appropriate that we get into this sort of slanging match. The reality is that the court, at the end of the day, vindicated Dr Smith’s position, without a doubt. In fact, it is very clear that it was a politically motivated prosecution. There is no doubt that undue influence was brought to bear on various parties in this case, and Nick Smith, in my view, was totally a victim. I think for the Labour Party to have a member stand up now and talk like this is just outrageous.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members for those comments. The last speaker was simply furthering the information that was in the original point of order. I say to the member who was making those remarks that she is quite entitled to make them because they are from a court case, but I and the House would appreciate it if she desisted—certainly, in the tone that she was delivering them.

To quote from the court case, the member concerned rang the caregiver in a family dispute and asked her if she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child. He said to her words to the effect that he was a member of Parliament, that Parliament is the highest court in the land, and that everyone is answerable to Parliament. He denied that in court, but the court did not believe him and found against him. If Nick Smith had one ounce of integrity, he would say he must stand down because he had led his own party and the wider public to believe that he was a martyr to the cause of openness in the Family Court, and he knew he could rely on the local media—apart from the Christchurch Press, which actually reported it accurately in its editorial—not to tell the real story. I invite members to read the decision of the Solicitor-General on Nicholas Rex Smith, TV3, and Radio New Zealand, and ask why such contemptible behaviour is acceptable to the National Party.

I want to quote from the supplementary judgment from the other two judges in the case: “The list of contempts just given demonstrates that what he did went well beyond simply making public details of a proceeding in the Family Court. It will have been clear to you from our judgment that we regard your contempts as serious ones, not the least because they occurred on four different and separate occasions. Your subsequent conduct is devoid of any expression of regret—indeed, quite the opposite. To be unrepentant is your prerogative. We find it disappointing and, for someone of your standing, surprising. On the more positive side we accept that your motives were a desire to help your constituents.” He did not achieve that end.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was the longest 5 minutes I have heard for some time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I accept that the member’s speech did go slightly over time.

New Zealand’s rate of family breakdown is a major concern. Current statistics indicate that one in three marriages will end in divorce, and, of these, approximately half involve children. A further 45 percent of New Zealand children are born to parents who are not married, which suggests that the real rate of breakdown is higher than the divorce figures indicate. Some families handle separation well, and the parents are able to handle disputes in a way that shields children from conflict. But, sadly, recent social research highlights that for many families who do not handle separations well, a significant measure of psychological and developmental damage is done to children.

Not only do children frequently experience considerable distress during the first year of their parents’ separation, but longitudinal studies tell us that negative outcomes of increased rates of school dropout, a lack of educational achievement, socioeconomic disadvantage, and relationship breakdown can follow the children who experience painful family break-ups right through into their adult years. Recent visiting speakers to New Zealand have told us that children of divorced parents are up to 300 percent more likely to have significant mental health problems, and that the children’s relationships with the parent they do not live with, which is often their father, takes a huge toll. This relationship is hugely important, particularly for boys. A number of children find themselves in an environment where parents are openly hostile, which is, obviously, most damaging. However, studies also indicate that even more common, yet still a major detriment to children’s development, is the situation where parents mutually disengage. Parents in this situation tend to resort to what is called parallel parenting, where two sets of rules apply, depending on where the child is staying at any given time. While the risks are high, it is not an inevitability that parental separation will have damaging consequences for children. Research and experience show that to the extent that conflict can be minimised or avoided, and children are protected from it, the opportunities for them to have a healthy development can be advanced.

In addition to Family Court counselling services, numbers of overseas jurisdictions, particularly through the US and Canada, have well-established parent education programmes for parents who are separating. These programmes educate parents about the potential impacts of separation on their children; help parents refocus their attention on the best interests of their children; give parents skills to manage their conflict, and cooperate with each other in providing consistent boundaries and discipline for their children; and also provide an idea of what parents can expect from the Family Court process. These courses generally comprise two to three sessions of about 2 hours each, and parents can attend separately.

Already, a pilot programme called Children in the Middle is being run by the Family Court Association of the North Shore, in line with recent recommendations of the Law Commission that such parent education programmes should be introduced into New Zealand. The goals of this programme on the North Shore are fourfold: that children are made the first priority; that the impact of parental separation on children is minimised; that parents learn positive communication strategies with both their ex-partner and children; and that families make better use of counselling and mediation services that are offered by the court.

Well, I am impressed by this pilot and the commitment of volunteers to see the intervention happen in the lives of these families at an early stage. It is my vision that this initiative would move beyond the pilot stage and become a mandatory part of the Family Court process. As a result, I have drawn up a member’s bill that would see all parties seeking a parenting order—following the passage of the Care of Children Bill—attend a parent education programme before their hearing is set down for trial. Like Family Court counselling arrangements, parents would also be free to attend at an earlier stage, but these measures would ensure that parents take a few hours out to learn about the process, and to stop and consider what they can do to ensure that children are not as detrimentally affected as they have been in the past. Those involved in the pilot scheme tell me that almost all of those who have initially been reluctant to attend the sessions say afterwards that they would wholeheartedly recommend them to others.

I have read that other parties are yet to consider what early intervention schemes can be employed to prevent negative cycles of family breakdown, youth justice problems, and family violence. I am pleased to say that implementation of this bill would see another plank of United Future’s policy of focusing on prevention, rather than merely throwing more and more resources into the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Along with my United Future colleagues, I am looking forward to this bill being drawn from the ballot. I particularly look forward to seeing this important initiative being placed on the agenda, in the hope that it is one that all of us, in the interests of seeing our families and communities change for the better, will get behind.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.