General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Our country faces a cancer-treatment crisis, and the answers to questions in the House today confirm it. Thousands of cancer patients will die needlessly over the next few years because the health system cannot provide enough early treatment for them. The problem is getting worse, and here are the facts. Cancer is one of the biggest killers in this country; three out of every 10 deaths each year are from cancer. The number of cases per year will increase from 16,000 now to 22,000 by 2011, and 9,000 of those people will die from cancer per year. Those are unacceptable facts. In New Zealand we have unacceptable delays in getting treatment. There are strategies and guidelines, but they are meaningless and are bogged down in New Zealand’s bureaucracy. There is a dire lack of medical staff specialising in oncology, there is a shortage of research funding, and there are problems in acquiring drugs and equipment—in particular, First World latest-technology drugs. Māori and Pacific Island women, especially, face serious disadvantages.

The Minister of Health has spent the last 5 years blaming everyone else for the serious problems that face New Zealanders. She has called for more reports, more responses, more reviews, and more working-parties than any other Minister of Health in the history of New Zealand. There is more paper, more talk, more hot air, and more health management doublespeak from the Ministry of Health than from any other ministry, but nothing is being done to solve the crisis that we face over the treatment of cancer patients. It seems that the Government’s solution is to send sick New Zealanders to Australia, and that is a fact. As at 14 July this year, 165 New Zealanders have already gone to Australia for treatment. The way that the Government sees to solve the cancer-treatment crisis is to buy a patient an airfare to Australia. Top cancer specialists are on record as warning the Government of this crisis. They say that services are piecemeal, and that information is fragmented. The issue is simple: if cancer is detected and treated early, many cancer patients will survive; if there are delays, many of them will die unnecessarily. There are delays in radiotherapy and surgery. Those delays are costing lives, and I ask the Government to do something about it. The Minister and her officials are playing Russian roulette with cancer patients. Thousands will die unless something is done, and done now.

We urge the Prime Minister to intervene in the health portfolio, if she can drag herself away from being the “Minister of Political Correctness and Gender Bending”. She should take the health ministry by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into it. Thousands are dying, and they are dying unnecessarily. New Zealanders demand action to solve the cancer treatment crisis in this country, which puts us at the very bottom in terms of competing with similar countries. A recent Commonwealth Fund report put us right at the very bottom, in terms of cancer survival rates. An expert, Chris Atkinson, an associate professor at Christchurch Hospital, said: “New Zealanders need to get very angry about a dismal failure to plan for the rocketing burden of cancer”. This man, the clinical director of oncology at Christchurch Hospital said: “… with cancer forecast to jump by up to 50 percent by 2011, the lack of a coordinated approach to treatment was disturbing.” He also said: “We must get outraged. We can’t stand up in front of an international forum with this data and feel proud.”

Today we heard the answers given by the Minister, but the fact is that none of those answers can be squared with the facts and the opinion of experts. A recent article in the Listener set out exactly how bad it is to get cancer in New Zealand. The Listener article stated that people who get cancer in this country would be far better off if they lived overseas in Australia, and, worse, it also states they would be better off if they were living in any other country but New Zealand. After 5 long years, surely the Government must now accept responsibility for failing to keep experts here, for failing to keep professionals properly employed here, and for failing to bring in qualified people. When we have had 55,000 immigrants a year, how come we did not bring in some experts in this field? With 55,000 immigrants coming into this country in some years, why on earth did the Government not bring in somebody who knew what he or she was doing?

I want to use this opportunity to speak briefly about the adoption of a framework text by the World Trade Organization general council—a framework text to advance the Doha round development agenda. This is a very good outcome for New Zealand. Ten months ago at Cancun few would have predicted that the Doha round could have been put back together again so quickly; still fewer would have taken them seriously. What is remarkable is that what has been achieved is, in fact, a much better deal than was ever on the table at Cancun. The agricultural framework is at the heart of that.

In terms of our own New Zealand contribution, we have good reason to be satisfied. The outcomes reflect that. With Tim Groser in the chair of the agriculture committee we made remarkable progress, and I pay tribute to his particular skills. He also chaired the relevant sessions of the “green room”, and it was a remarkable display. Without him, I do not believe the “green room” process would have been successful. I also pay tribute to our chief trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer, who was with me in the “green room” and is a man with a huge reputation amongst his peers as a professional trade negotiator around the world. There is no doubt about it; New Zealand has a truly world-class team in that role. The rest of our team based in Geneva is also of an extremely high calibre, and the results that we obtained there reflect the investment that has been made in the quality of that trade negotiations team over many, many years.

Throughout the marathon “green room” process I was able to work with our friends to keep the prospect of a historic agricultural deal alive. We did play a key part in keeping the industrial tariff negotiations alive also, when it looked as though they could collapse in the same way, taking the whole deal with them, as happened in Cancun with regard to the so-called Singapore issues. There is no doubt that New Zealand comes out of this process with an enhanced reputation as a committed multilateral player and a credible arbitrator of conflicting interests.

The framework for agricultural market access is much better than that on the table in Cancun. Because it is a framework, it is not the shape of the final deal. That will remain the most difficult part of the forthcoming negotiations. Getting the text on this aspect was the hardest part of putting the deal together last week. But it sets the basis to get the deal done. It gives us the key elements to improve our access to important markets. Whereas the text in Cancun left everything vague, this framework spells out many of the elements that we wanted. At the top of the list is the historic commitment to eliminate export subsidies in agriculture. There will be long, tough negotiations to set the date and the pace of their elimination. But for the first time in more than 50 years the debate will be about when, and not about whether, that will happen.

The framework also sets the stage for big cuts in domestic subsidies. The rest of the negotiation will be about how far the cuts will go. But this framework will certainly help. It will help to put the pressure on, and to keep it on. This was actually the key target of the large G20 developing countries.

When the male vote starts to disappear for the Labour Party, what does it do? It brings out the red-blooded males of the Labour Party to set things right. Two of them came out of the woodwork to set things right with the New Zealand public. The Labour Party brought out big, tough Mr Tamihere, who said: “I believe that the pendulum of political correctness has swung too far. I am sick and tired of hearing about the deficit model, where, as red-blooded heterosexual men, we are supposedly the creators of all that is bad and evil in this world.” Well, what has Mr Tamihere done to change it? Not a thing. He has sat on that side of the House with the Government like a lamb. When Mr Tamihere and the one other red-blooded male from the Labour Party came out and decided to state their claim, what did we get? There was no change to policy, and no adjustment to the direction of the Labour Party. But Mr Tamihere was tough enough to have Helen Clark clear his speech first— he was very tough!

What did the other red-blooded males in the Labour Party do about it? Well, David Cunliffe went out and got his hair streaked. David Cunliffe decided he would join in the red-blooded male attack, went and got his hair streaked, and sits over in the corner with newly dyed blonde hair. Well, the electorate will not be convinced by that. Mr Tamihere should get out and fix the “rainbow desk” at the Ministry of Social Development, and start putting things right for the people he purports to represent.

What did the other red-blooded male from the Labour Party decide to do? Well, old Mr Trevor Mallard stepped out as the other red-blooded male and said: “I regard myself as an indigenous New Zealander—I come from Wainuiōmata.” There he is—Mr Mallard—about to take a big swing when he said: “There is a myth that the treaty gave Maori extra rights over and above those of other New Zealanders.” Well, I am sorry, but what he failed to do was to clear that speech with Dover Samuels and Parekura Horomia. Mr Samuels said that we are not talking about rights; we are talking about considerations that Māori are tangata whenua. He said: “I think perhaps my colleague should go and read the words of the treaty.”, whereas Mr Horomia said Mr Mallard was indigenous “to the extent that he was born in New Zealand, but he will never be tangata whenua because there is only one tangata whenua, and that’s Māori.” So while the red-blooded males of the Labour Party—both of them—are trying desperately to court the male vote and get it back to the Labour Party, the other members of the Labour Party continue to remind them that if they do not get their speeches checked by Helen Clark, the first thing they can expect is for Parekura Horomia and Dover Samuels to shoot them down in public almost immediately.

But what has changed? What will Mr Mallard do about the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, the decile funding system, primary health organisation governance and funding, capacity building grants, and all the other legislation that allegedly—or not allegedly, depending on which side of the fence one sits on—favours Māori and contain treaty clauses? If all New Zealanders are regarded as indigenous, what implications will Mr Mallard’s views have on those pieces of legislation? Well, I want to state for the record now that they will have none. There will be no changes to those pieces of legislation at all, because that Minister will not get those changes past Helen Clark and her band of merry followers. There is no way that the Labour caucus will let both the red-blooded males in the Labour caucus get their own way. They are in for a long, tough time under Helen Clark and her colleagues in that particular caucus.

What about Mr Piripi and his relationship with the Government, in terms of comparing what has happened to him with what happened to Kit Richards? Well, there is just no consistency in the way that the rules have been applied between those two cases. Two standards exist from this Government: one standard for Mr Piripi, and one standard for Kit Richards.

This afternoon Parliament will have an opportunity to debate and vote on my colleague Gordon Copeland’s bill to remove GST on rates—a tax on tax. Before discussing the GST on rates issue though, I want to take this opportunity to outline United Future’s policy on a number of issues that relate to local government funding. We do not consider the removal of GST on rates to be a silver bullet to solve all the financial issues facing local councils and their burdened ratepayers. It is one of a series of policies we have been promoting since entering Parliament 2 years ago this month.

Firstly, we support increasing the financial assistance rate, paid by Transfund for local roads, by up to 80 percent, to alleviate the burden that the cost of local road maintenance and construction places on rates, and therefore on councils. In addition, in the short term, we will be supporting the increase for a further 5c petrol tax, and a similar increase on road-user charges for light vehicles from 1 April 2005, which will be devoted entirely to the National Land Transport Fund and distributed regionally for local road construction. We made sure, in negotiations with the Government, that none of the 5c would be diverted to the Crown account, formally called the consolidated account.

With the announcement of the funding package for Auckland’s roads, I made sure in last-minute negotiations with Michael Cullen that all the funds being given to Auckland would come from a reduction in the 18.5c currently diverted to the Crown account from petrol excise, which will approximately equate to a 3c reduction. We will continue to push for another 2c reduction, to enable the increase in the financial assistance rate I mentioned earlier. In that way, motorists would see a matching of a 5c increase with a 5c reduction in the amount diverted.

We support and will be arguing for a review of the rates rebate level to assist those on fixed incomes. We applaud the initiative of those councils that have also prepared plans for enabling some ratepayers to defer rate payments on their estates, which enables them to remain in their properties in circumstances where they are asset-rich but cash-poor.

We are also supportive of the concept of central government sharing a percentage of GST revenue with local authorities on a regional basis, in a similar way to the new road revenue. I do not mean charging GST on rates, and then giving that revenue back to councils. No, that is a tax on tax, and it is wrong. The Government cannot be trusted if it collects that tax, because in a fiscally lean time the Government will take it away again—as happened in the beginning when GST was first imposed upon rates. It was to be given back to councils, but that promise was broken very quickly, which is why we find that the Hon Peter Dunne has now changed his mind on the issue.

We are talking here about central government sharing a percentage of the general GST it collects—perhaps as much as 1 percent—reallocating that to the communities it came from; and setting that process by legislation. One percent of current GST from that tax’s annual revenue of $9.57 billion for the year ended 2004 would amount to approximately $95 million, to assist local councils in the burdens they must face. We agree there may need to be some parameters around that funding, such as limiting it to infrastructural projects and not to operating expenses. That debate is something we can have in discussion with the Government when this proposal is fully put on the table, and restrictions can be listened to that will make sense in that regard.

Indications from the Government that consideration is being given to assist small councils with large infrastructure projects, such as sewerage and water treatment, would also have the support of United Future.

All this is necessary because we entirely agree that local government has been given more and more responsibility over recent years—without any additional funding except that which it raises primarily from property owners—and that is not just with the introduction of the new Local Government Act. That Act actually helps by giving a new power to councils to take subdivision impact fees, which enables councils to spread the costs of providing new amenities for our communities to new homeowners as well as existing ratepayers. But there are limits as to how far that power can be extended without it having a negative effect on the cost of housing, particularly for new families and first-time buyers.

It was precisely because of all the concern about the increased costs to local government that could be brought in by the new Act that I negotiated with the Minister for Local Government, Chris Carter, for a review of the Act to be done by the Local Government Commission in 2007, and for recommendations to be given to the Minister even as early as 2005—before the next national elections—if there were areas of concern. I think there are already sufficient areas of concern for that inquiry to begin now.

The Civil Aviation Authority is a very important organisation in New Zealand. It ensures what is most important—that the aircraft flying overhead in which we travel are safe for transport. In order to do that, it has extraordinary powers under the statute that governs it. I consider that the Minister in charge of civil aviation, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, is a friend of mine, but I have to say he has totally failed the transport sector in respect of the Civil Aviation Authority, and I believe that over this issue he should step aside. I also believe that the Director of Civil Aviation, John Jones, has to resign, and if he will not, he should be sacked.

I want to take members back to the Mercer Flight Centre and the investigation that the Civil Aviation Authority undertook. What happened was that the Civil Aviation Authority, under the leadership of its top flight operations inspector, one Mr Richard Cox, who was the lead auditor of this team, put the Mercer Flight Centre under covert surveillance. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, but then the problems started. We know from the State Services Commissioner that the Civil Aviation Authority grounded this airline, effectively, and then, blow me down, Mr Richard Cox turned up and said: “If you pay me some money on the side, I’ll help get your safety levels up so that you can meet the criteria.” Of course, the Mercer Flight Centre was somewhat alarmed at that. It rang the Director of Civil Aviation, John Jones. He said that it was OK—that he had authorised it. Not only that; he had authorised it in writing, in a letter. Of course, the State Services Commissioner and this Government thought that was outrageous. But, unfortunately, the only person who was sacked out of this was Mr Cox, who had been doing exactly as he had been directed to do by his own chief executive officer.

We then discover that the Civil Aviation Authority, while auditing the company, received stolen property. It then used that stolen property as part of its audit, returned the stolen property, then lied about it. That would be bad enough, but, unfortunately, the stolen property was an aircraft logbook, which had been taken out of a plane. I shall quote from—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: An aircraft logbook?

Yes, and it was taken out of a plane. Trevor Mallard finds it hard to believe, but I quote from the report of 16 June 2004, given to me by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. The young agent who was part of the team said: “Richard told me to take the book with me out to the aircraft, when I was going to do my inspection, and then I would ‘find it’ in the aircraft and bring it back with all the other documentation to the Mercer Flight Centre buildings. If anybody asked me, I was to say that I found it in the aircraft behind the pilot seat, under the carpet.” Why? Because the company was looking for the logbook, which it needed to maintain that plane. Here was the Civil Aviation Authority, in receipt of stolen property, returning it to the plane then lying about where it had been found and what had happened.

But, more alarming, the chief executive officer of this company explained to me that he believed that telephone was being tapped—that is, that the Civil Aviation Authority knew what he was saying on the phone. I said: “That’s impossible.” Well, I can assure the House that Richard Cox of the Civil Aviation Authority used taxpayer-supplied scanning equipment to listen in to telephone conversations, and used a tape-recorder to tape them as part of his covert surveillance. I believe that New Zealanders should be horrified to learn that civil servants are tapping people’s phones. I am amazed that this Government does not seem to care. I can assure those members that the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority fully accepts that private telephone conversations were listened into as part of a surveillance operation, and that the results of those conversations were recorded.

Shortly I will be releasing the first ever New Zealand urban design protocol, which will help make our towns and cities better places in which to live. A few weeks ago I released 14 national environment standards to improve air quality, and next week I will sign the packaging accord on behalf of the Government—another plank in our drive to reduce waste and increase recycling. Almost every week this great Labour-Progressive Government has provided solutions to some of New Zealand’s most pressing environmental problems. My colleagues the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Energy, and the Minister for Biosecurity have similar stories to tell about practical, wise, well-considered, and partnered policies to help them protect and enhance our environment.

That is in direct contrast to the actions of those on the other side of the House, both now and when they were in Government. Just the other day, at a select committee, Nick Smith told me that his only job was to oppose—that is all. He was not interested in environmental solutions. He was not interested in constructive arguments. Faced by the problems in the Waitaki Valley, this Government came up with a solution. We will ensure that there is a regional plan for water allocation out of the Waitaki catchment, which is something the people in that community have been wanting for a long time. As usual, the Opposition is prepared only to play politics, rather than support the solution the community wants. Opposition members oppose the bill. They have tried to play one part of the community against the other. Nick Smith and Don Brash were helicoptered up into the Mackenzie Country—I do not know at whose expense—and they promised to move amendments to the Waitaki bill to give water to one particular group of farmers, the Mackenzie farmers, but not to the Aoraki Water Trust farmers or the Lower Waitaki farmers—just one particular group of farmers. They said that, yes, they would see the bill amended to make specific allocations of water to the Mackenzie farmers. Don Brash said in the Otago Daily Times on 11 March, Nick Smith said on a number of occasions, and Sandra Goudie made it clear in this House that National wanted the Waitaki bill to reinstate those farmers’ water rights.

The problem is that they did not actually realise what they were promising. When I pointed out that their plans would cut right across the High Court case currently under way, and potentially involved a major interference in the property rights of existing water users, thereby setting a very dangerous precedent, they backed right off. Indeed, after getting those farmers’ hopes up, Drs Don Brash and Nick Smith then—after some phone calls had, I think, been made—changed their minds. Nick Smith is now reported as saying National will not move amendments to give specific allocations; it will just ensure that the farmers’ concerns are heard. What a way to treat people! These farmers do have valid concerns that should be heard, and I have already asked that the work be done so that that happens. It does not require amendments to the bill, but it also does not require getting people’s hopes up only to dash them when people who understand about property rights in this country pick up the phone and start talking to Dr Don Brash.

But the real question is what happened here. Could it be that Drs Don Brash and Nick Smith just did not understand what they were doing? Is it that Nick Smith had a good idea about what to do in the Waitaki, which poor, unsuspecting Don Brash did not really understand? When Nick Smith got Don Brash on the bandwagon—even if it was in a helicopter—and Don Brash found out it involved interfering with property rights, did Don Brash tell Nick Smith to back off? Did Don Brash have to rein in Nick Smith yet again? If that is the case, we have to wonder about Nick Smith’s future in the National Party. My colleague David Benson-Pope caught Nick Smith out in the House last week making allegations that have since proved to be untrue. He made a song and dance about Transpower needing special legislation. Transpower issued a press statement saying that no special treatment was needed. We have only to think about these things. Do members remember that bungled citizen’s arrest on some poor, unsuspecting piece of carpet here at Meridian Energy a few years ago? Nick Smith might not survive National’s reshuffle last month. Will he be the next? Sowry, Scott, Simich, and Smith—all casualties of “Dr Don”.

All those sideshows just hide the even sadder reality about the National Party, and that reality is that, under Don Brash, National members have turned their backs on New Zealand’s environment. Given half a chance, the high country would be gone by lunchtime.

I now know why Helen Clark sacked that Minister as Minister for Biosecurity, sacked that Minister as Minister of Broadcasting, and now has sidelined that Minister from her responsibilities for the Resource Management Act. She is such a joke.

But I want to talk about what really has New Zealanders laughing, and that is the amazing speech made by John Tamihere in which he said it is now OK to be a red-blooded, heterosexual male, and the amazing speech made by Trevor Mallard, who said that all New Zealanders are indigenous. That just shows how desperate this Government has become; it shows that it is on the rocks. Government members have done their polling. They know they are in trouble. They know they are going down the gurgler, so Mr Mallard and Mr Tamihere are trying to save a sinking ship. Their problem is that New Zealanders can smell a con a mile away. Helen Clark and her cronies decried the speech that Don Brash gave at Ōrewa, and now, 6 months later, Trevor Mallard is giving the same speech, although without the finesse and certainly without the style. Sending Trevor Mallard to patch up race relations is a bit like sending Dick Cheney to a peace conference on Iraq. The whole Mallard speech was a desperate sham.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member should use the member’s full name.

He said that all New Zealanders are indigenous. I have a question for Mr Mallard: is he going to change the Health Act, the Local Government Act, and the Resource Management Act? Of course not. Those members are just kidding. They are speaking with forked tongues. Trevor Mallard is out there telling one story to Pākehā New Zealanders, while Parekura Horomia and Dover Samuels are telling a very different story to Māori. Just what is the Government’s approach? Nobody is to know. All we know is that it has a set of PC policies on the one hand, and on the other hand it is trying to scoop up the anti-PC vote with the speeches from the likes of Mr Tamihere and Mr Mallard.

Then we had John Tamihere’s speech. It speaks volumes about how PC this Government has become when a Minister of the Crown has to stand up and say it is OK to be heterosexual—after he has had the permission of the Prime Minister. John Tamihere told us that all this PC stuff has gone too far, but my question is where was John Tamihere when all the PC legislation was passed. I do not remember his getting to his feet and arguing that any of that was wrong, which he would have done if he were a real man. His statements about the Family Court were even more extraordinary. He said that the Family Court is anti-men, that it is opposed to males. Is it not interesting that if an Opposition member criticises the Family Court, that member gets frogmarched over to the High Court and charged with contempt, but if one is a Government Minister criticising the Family Court, it is OK?

The problem with ”Johnny-come-lately” over these issues is that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot be a Minister in the most PC Government that New Zealand has ever had, then pretend that he wants to join the forces of opposition and cry foul. Mr Mallard cannot be a senior Minister, imposing all sorts of new and special legal rights for Māori as indigenous people, then hop around the country and say: “We are all indigenous.” Those two speeches show how divided and had-it this Government is. Trevor Mallard is saying one thing, and Parekura Horomia and Dover Samuels are saying something else. It is a Government that is not prepared to defend its record. Trevor Mallard is not prepared to defend the Government’s record on race relations. John Tamihere is not prepared to defend the politically correct record of this Government. We see that, when it comes to the crunch, they do not have the courage to stand up for the legislation this Government has been trying to pass.

What they are trying to do is steal the clothes of the Opposition, because they know that the values we stand for are those of New Zealanders. Those members have abandoned principle; they have abandoned defending what their Government has ever done, so desperate are they to cling to power. The voters see this fraud. They know that what John Tamihere and Trevor Mallard have to say has no substance, and that is why this Government will go.

Protecting our environment is a strategic investment in New Zealand’s future. So let me make it clear to members of those political parties—including the member who just spoke—that would like to see the Resource Management Act gutted, and development proceed at the expense of local communities and the environment: it will not happen. As New Zealanders we value our clean environment and the lifestyles we have developed around it. We in Government are not pretending that the Resource Management Act is perfect. We are currently reviewing that Act and I have said we want to find more certainty of process for those seeking consents and better decision making in general. But we will not be watering down the Resource Management Act’s ability to protect the environment.

National’s prescription for the Resource Management Act is to severely limit those who can have a say. Local communities would be bypassed with little ability for them to help solve the environmental problems that affect them. This takes us back to the days of the National Development Act and the Clyde Dam legislation where locals were shut out and projects half built before it was discovered they were not economical or environmentally sound. There are not many people in the southern cities of this country who do not remember being forced by the previous Government, whose members are now in Opposition, to sell the Waipori Dam, or the threats to privatise the roading system.

As a Government, our objectives have been to build a stronger economy, but not at the expense of empowering local communities to make decisions about local environmental issues. Cutting back on public notification, and fast tracking new roads and infrastructure, is a ticket to shoddy and haphazard development.

The National Party Resource Management Act spokesperson, Nick Smith, says the Act needs to be rewritten to close the gap between New Zealand and Australia. He says the Act is stifling growth. That is yet more nonsense from Dr Smith. The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom, published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, confirms that New Zealand is the third “free-est” economy in the world. The UK was seventh, the US was 10th, and Australia was 11th. In 2003 the New Zealand economy grew by 3.5 percent against an OECD average of 2.2 percent. Australia grew less than us at 3.3 percent. In fact, growth has been significantly higher in New Zealand compared with most other OECD members, for a number of years now.

Statistics New Zealand’s household labour force survey shows unemployment dropping to 4.3 percent—the lowest rate of unemployment in 16 years. That is 193,000 more New Zealanders in work since Labour came to office. Our unemployment rate is the fourth-lowest in the OECD; lower than the UK, Japan, the US, and—I say to Dr Smith—lower than Australia.

Dr Smith also says of the Resource Management Act: “There are some good features in the Act.” He went on to say: “The overriding principle of sustainability is also sound.” Mr Smith concludes, however, that: “Some New Zealanders are quite contradictory in their views”. Contradictory is too polite a word for Mr Smith’s rantings on the Resource Management Act. Earlier this month Transpower—the company responsible for South Island transmission, in part—took the extraordinary step of issuing a news release to distance itself from the wild accusations of Dr Smith. Dr Smith, having been corrected by those experts several days before his party’s national conference, would have been expected to stop repeating such ridiculous claims. Oh, no! Dr Smith’s regrettable speech on the Resource Management Act carried the same untruths, regardless.

Contradictory was exactly what his own party leader, Don Brash, was on the Resource Management Act. The very morning that Dr Smith was saying the Act had some good features, Mr Brash was telling the media that the whole Act might need to be scrapped. The evening before, National’s economic spokesperson, John Key, said much the same thing. He said the Act was anti-progress. Well, there is a euphemism: progress! Is that what one calls National’s plan to create the bureaucratic monolith called an environmental protection authority? That is yet another copycat policy from National’s buddies, the Americans and the Australians.

We should not be surprised as it turns out that most of National’s flimsy policies are about taking the policy of the US or Australia, twinking out those countries’ names, and writing in the phrase “National Party” instead. Only yesterday Dr Smith tabled such feeble material in the House. If anyone had any doubts about the degree of contradiction on the Opposition’s side of the House, let me read these remarks. Mr Connell said: “I would rather support a few discreet coal-fired plants, located exactly where we need them, than put up with the noise pollution from windmills.” Paul Hutchison said: “We are proud that Simon Upton led the initiative for New Zealand in the initial work at Kyoto. National supports any effective reduction of greenhouse gases.”

It is the arrogance and ranting of that member, David Benson-Pope, that is the reason the public of New Zealand is switching off this Government. I will refer firstly to some decisions that I was involved in in the late 1990s when the National Government sensibly gave the ability to the West Coast to sustainably manage its beech forests. During that time I met on a number of occasions with an honourable New Zealander, a man called Kit Richards. This man had strongly held views on the sense of sustainable management of the beech forest and happened to send those views privately to a few of his colleagues. Those views were not the same as the Prime Minister’s and he was unceremoniously fired from Timberlands because he was not allowed to have views to which the Prime Minister did not adhere. Mr Richards was fired.

Then along comes Mr Piripi, the chief executive of the Māori Language Commission. He is prepared to publicly predict civil war if the foreshore and seabed legislation proceeds, and at this stage of proceedings the Prime Minister accepts his comments. Now we have a revelation that the chair of the commission, Dr Hōhepa, not only supports the comments of Mr Piripi, but was himself shown on national television chanting on the steps of Parliament in support of the hīkoi that opposed the Government action. At this stage he too still holds his job. So where is the justice when two Māori New Zealanders can criticise the Government and remain in their job, and Mr Kit Richards, a white New Zealander, cannot?

The Government polling shows that it is in trouble and in terminal decay, so out it comes with two speeches—one day after another—from Mr Mallard and Mr Tamihere. Let us first look at Mr Tamihere’s speech. This is the man who roars like a lion when he is away from Wellington, and then sits at the feet of Helen Clark as she pats his head and his ego and tells him that his speech is OK. It is unbelievable that before he is allowed to speak, this tough man has to have his speech checked by the Prime Minister.

In that speech he proudly admitted he is a red-blooded heterosexual male, and that comment was OK'd by the Prime Minister. I guess the man would be an endangered species within the Labour caucus; there are not many red-blooded heterosexual males popping up—[Interruption] I could not possibly comment on that one.

Then we move to the surprising speech from Mr Trevor Mallard in which he declared a new definition of indigenous people—he is an indigenous New Zealander from Wainuiōmata! People asked him what rights that gave him under the Resource Management Act, or to special access to healthcare, or to decile funding for children in schools with a predominance of Māori. Here we have a Government saying the things that Don Brash said in Ōrewa. When Don Brash made those comments he was called a racist, but now because the Labour Government knows that New Zealanders genuinely care about race relations in this country, out come Mr Tamihere and Mr Mallard trying to make similar comments.

But did the New Zealand public believe them? Not likely! These two speeches were the feeblest U-turns we have seen yet from a Government that is now in terminal decay. This Labour Government has had its time. In summary, New Zealanders have woken up to the social engineering and the political correctness that has occurred over the last 4 years. It has gone on for far too long and New Zealanders are finally saying that enough is enough.

It is another sad, sad week for National. Despite the controversy of foreshore and seabed, where is that party going in the polls? Down, down, down! Why is that? National has no principles and, added to that, no depth. The bunch on the other side is a talentless and depthless bunch. When Dr Brash is compared with Helen Clark, there is overwhelming support for Helen Clark. Dr Brash, the pale comparison that he is, is pallid and unsupported in the electorate.

It goes further. The whole of National’s front bench is weak. When Gerry Brownlee is compared with Dr Cullen, New Zealand knows the difference. Dr Cullen is capable; Mr Brownlee is a buffoon. Lynda Scott compared—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say. That is a personal reflection, and under Standing Order 116—

I withdraw and apologise. Lynda Scott compared with Annette King! No wonder Lynda Scott has resigned! Then we go further down to the juniors. So many of National’s front bench are under 40, with little life experience or experience in Government. We heard from one of them today. Simon Power, an expert in male-patterned baldness, gave us a speech attacking John Tamihere’s speech about concerns for men, particularly some young men. Simon Power has a problem with that, so he attacks John Tamihere for it. Well, why? There is nothing wrong in supporting groups within our society. That is where National goes wrong. We know that New Zealand is made strong by supporting any of its groups that need help, be they young men with problems, or other minorities. National does not support minorities, and is afraid to do so. Then we heard from Dr Smith. I quote him: “New Zealanders can smell a con a mile away.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

He says that is right—and they can. Nicholas Rex Smith is a con. He was convicted of contempt of court. He was found guilty by the High Court of New Zealand this year. We in Parliament are in the privileged position of being able to change laws. Until we change them, we, more than anyone else, should know we are bound by them. Earlier this year Dr Smith was found in contempt of court by the High Court. He is contemptible. He was represented by Queen’s Counsel, and he had his day in court. Did the court believe him? No, it did not. It found him to be in contempt of court, because he had phoned the caregiver of a child and accused her of stealing the child, despite the fact that she had the care of the child with the authority of the court. Indeed, at the time the court order was made, it was with the consent of the natural parents. Dr Smith asked that caregiver whether she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child, but he denied making that comment. Did the court believe him? [Interruption] Do you say that you did not say that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Dr Smith said—

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s a long 5 minutes.

It is a long 5 minutes. Well, his actions were contemptible, and he was found in contempt of court. What did the National Party do—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but although he is making a hard-hitting speech, and although some interjections can be expected, they should not be such that the member cannot be heard. The Speaker will not allow that.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That places us in a difficult position, because if the member opposite is intent upon making inflammatory remarks during the course of his contribution to the general debate, then he invites disorder from the Opposition side of the House, and invites members on this side to protect Dr Smith’s position in respect of those comments made by the member. If it is now the case that inflammatory remarks made by Government members are not able to be challenged by interjections from this side, then by my reading of the Standing Orders, I say that that is a complete change to the historical position.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry if the member misunderstood. I am saying that I cannot allow a member to be drowned out. Interjections are considered to be OK if they are rare and reasonable.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think you have ruled on Mr Power’s point of order, which was to deny that I am able to call Dr Smith contemptible, and to use language that suggests—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In every general debate I have participated in so far this year, Government members have interjected very loudly all the way through every single speech. So I have some difficulty because of the fact that Speakers need to be consistent in the standards they are setting. I had a constant barrage of shouting all the way through my speech, and you sat there silently. My colleagues did not take a point of order, for the very reason that with just a 5-minute speech it ends up breaking the flow. I simply ask Speakers chairing the general debate to be consistent, because I put up with a continuous barrage, yet with a few points made on Mr Parker, suddenly the Assistant Speaker wants to protect that member.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. I really do not need any help on this; the member will please be seated. The Speaker will not allow a member to be drowned out. Now, I recognise that this is a vigorous place, and that we should have vigorous and passionate debate. I do not have a problem with that—in fact, I welcome it. But when it gets to the stage when the Speaker cannot hear the person on his or her feet, then the Speaker will intervene.

For the sake of listeners, I say that I am not being—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I tell the member that I have already ruled on this.

💬 Rodney Hide: I know. This is a new point of order. I think one of the things you should reflect on, Mr Speaker, is that when you are considering these points of order you do not enter into the debate. I do not think it is correct to say that there was some inflammatory language used, or to describe the speech as being hard-hitting. I do not think that that was the complaint. To say that that was a hard-hitting speech suggests to members on this side of the House that red-blooded, heterosexual males over there are in danger.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has made his point.

Having put pressure on that caregiver by saying that it was State-sponsored theft of a child, Dr Smith then said that that person should be concerned because Parliament was the ultimate court. Well, Parliament is the ultimate court, in that its members have the ability to change laws. But we, more than anyone, should know we are bound by the law. That conduct was disgraceful, and it was made worse when the National Party gave that man a standing ovation as he walked back into Parliament. Having been found in contempt of court, Dr Smith was given a standing ovation by National members. It is no wonder that the Otago Daily Times on 20 July 2004, after celebrating the indication that Mr Sowry will not stand again at the next election, stated: “It would have been more useful for Dr Brash if one or two other brat-pack members, such as Nick Smith and Tony Ryall, had found it timely—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table my statement that I was happy to have a by-election with the people of Nelson on the issues raised—

Document not tabled.

I seek leave to table the decision of the High Court of New Zealand, which found Dr Nick Smith to be in contempt of court.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Hang on. I will put this first. Is there any objection—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to speak to that quite specifically. [Interruption] It is speaking to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, the member has sought leave, and the House is the master of its own destiny; it can either reject it or allow it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, no. There is a very important Standing Order in this respect, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a longstanding Standing Order that we cannot seek leave to table a document that has already been tabled. The document that Mr Parker seeks to table was tabled by the Speaker when it was delivered by the High Court in May.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

I seek leave—and anyone can decline it—to speak to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. If what Dr Smith alleges is correct, then that is where the matter will rest.

If Dr Smith is giving me an assurance that that document has already been tabled, then I am happy with that.

I often praise the actions of the Labour-led Government, but today I cannot do that.

💬 Government Members: Aw!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Today I think, “Yes, it is Wednesday.”, and today I think the Government needs a clip around the ear. The very issue where this Labour Government promised much, and that it takes most pride in, is the issue it is failing in, and that is race relations. I speak on race relations as a member of a party whose caucus is almost 50 percent Māori, of which I am proud. This Government promised much as far as race relations was concerned, and it has delivered nothing. In fact, we are in need of some clear direction and leadership.

I speak out of disappointment, I guess, rather than anger, because I thought that, after the past years when, under both Labour and National administrations, much was done to address treaty issues, this Government, which had promised large, would go out there and start to deliver in a progressive fashion those things that remain to be done for our Māori people. But that has not happened, and I think that is because at the last election this Government raised expectations to a point that they could not be delivered on. With due respect, I would suggest that Don Brash is doing a similar thing in exactly the opposite way at the present time. Part of the problem is that when one raises expectations then fails to deliver on them, it creates an anger in the country, and that anger is manifest at the present time. That anger disappoints me, and it is an anger that I have not seen in my lifetime. We are hearing talk of civil war, no less, at some time in the future. I know that the man who said that has retracted to a degree those statements, but that does not alter the fact that they were made. I have never heard that in my whole life in this country, and it saddens me to hear it now.

I believe that this issue started before the aquaculture situation, which brought about the foreshore and seabed issue, arose. I believe that it started at the last election, when too much was promised. I believe that this Government now needs to stand back from some of the things it has promised, and take a realistic look at what can be and should be achieved in this country, and then, I think, the problem can be resolved. But unless the Government does that, I think we are in for a messy, messy business. As I said earlier, I say that in disappointment rather than in anger, and I hope the Government will see fit, in the time remaining before the next election, to readdress this issue and get on with it in the fashion it promised to do at the last election.

Anyone who cares about New Zealand’s natural environment, or the industries that rely on the health of New Zealand’s natural environment, or in fact New Zealanders’ quality of life, should be very concerned at the prospect of a National-ACT Government. Why? Because those members are short-term thinkers with short-term policies. Let us look at some of their policies.

I start with superannuation. In the short term we might be OK under the National Party, if we believe what it says—and history tells us to be very wary of the National Party fulfilling its election promises. Those members say that in the short term we might be OK, but if we are under 50 we should not count on a National Government giving us any support. Well, that could be another dismal attempt by the National Party to grab the youth vote—we have seen it before. But if we trust those members’ promises, the bottom line is that if we are under 50, the National Party says not to count on any Government superannuation when we retire.

Let us look at law and order. The National Party says: “Lock them up and build more prisons.” Under the National Party, there might be a prison on every corner, but those members know that they will not be around to face up to the consequences of their policies. They will not be around to accept the blame for them. They do not want to have policies that stop there being more victims of crime. No, they just want to lock criminals up, and to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and not the fence at the top. What will those members do? They will abolish parole, despite the fact that evidence shows parole reduces the incidence of reoffending. No, they will ignore that evidence, because it is not politically expedient to admit that when people released from prison go straight back into the community, they are not likely to rehabilitate very well. But those members will add a period of supervision before prisoners go back to their communities—they will add parole. So those members will get rid of parole, because it does not work, and replace it with parole. Well, that is brilliant, and it shows how short term the National Party is in its thinking towards law and order policies. The public of New Zealand should be very concerned that the best thing that a major party that, potentially, could lead a Government can say on law and order is: “We will build more prisons.” That is not a long-term vision for New Zealand, and New Zealanders should be very concerned.

On race relations, what is those members’ long-term vision? Well, they do not have one. They stir up the pot on race relations. Dr Brash comes out, all guns blazing, and has the audacity to quote Dr Martin Luther King in his speech in opposition to affirmative action. Six months on, where are the solutions? Well, those members do not have any, because their short-term vision was just to create a divisive society, which they would benefit from. They do not have any solutions, and they do not care. I think probably the only thing that they are regretting, in terms of their short-term vision, is that they did not do it a little bit closer to the election.

Regarding our nuclear-free status, in the short term those members hope—despite all evidence to the contrary—that their policy might win them favour with the Americans. When the Hon Bill English was leader of the National Party he went over to the United States, and when he came back he said that what he had found, in terms of a free-trade agreement, was that what matters most was what benefits the Americans—not the foreign policy of small sovereign nations. But, no, those members ignored that. In the short term, they do not care about the impacts on New Zealand. They do not care that New Zealand is a sovereign nation. All they care about is that, hopefully, in the short term, they might get a few kind words thrown their way by the Americans.

What will those members do in terms of welfare? Well, they will just beat up on beneficiaries again. We have seen it before and we will see it again. It is a short-term vision. They hope to starve beneficiaries out of benefits, and that by doing that they might end up with fewer beneficiaries. Those members do not care about the long-term impacts that their policies had in the 1990s, and would have again if they became the Government.

We heard today that, in terms of health, when those members were in Government they ignored a call to train more radiation therapists—and we are paying for it now. We are paying for the short-term vision of the short-term thinkers in the National Party. One might ask why they are short-term thinkers. The answer is quite simple: they do not care about outcomes. There is only one thing National Party members are concerned about, and that is power. It is all they care about.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.