General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We used to remember when the National Party was a proud and strong party—

💬 Government Members: When?

In the days of Holyoake. Remember those days? Remember back in the time of Marshall and Bolger? Those were the days when people knew what the National Party stood for. Members on this side of the House never agreed with their views, but we knew what they stood for. But that is not so now.

With that current bunch of members, the National Party is a shadow of its former self. No one knows what they stand for, no one knows what they believe in, and no one knows what their policies are. They are a hopeless, useless, lazy Opposition. They are leaderless, rudderless, and directionless. Don Brash, who is a part-time leader, is the epitome of all that the National Party now stands for. In the short time available, I want to remind members of some of the things that Don Brash, the part-time leader, has been up to. I refer them to National’s nuclear-free policy.

In January 2004 Don Brash said: “If the National Party was in government today, we would get rid of the nuclear-propulsion section today—by lunchtime even.” By lunchtime! Then he went on to say: “We had a range of views back then from both the party and the public and there simply doesn’t appear to be a strong demand for change.”, and: “I think that the likely outcome is that we will say we cannot make this decision pre-election.” Then he said: “The likelihood is that we put a proposal to the Americans, which they find acceptable, and that, of course, would be after we become Government. We would then seek a referendum for any change in the law.” So National’s nuclear policy is hopelessly uncertain and undecided.

What about the Employment Relations Act and employment relations generally? Of course, in October 2003 Don Brash said that National would scrap the Employment Relations Act, but yesterday he said: “I think the business community is broadly happy with that Act.”

💬 Darren Hughes: Flip-flop.

It is a flip-flop and a U-turn. In Parliament yesterday, when he needed a ladder and chose a spade, he went on to say that he thought he did support the Employment Relations Act. But then when asked today whether it lined up with the policy, he said: “Frankly, I haven’t recently reread our industrial relations policy from the year 2002.” So it is very hard to know exactly where the National Party stands on such issues.

On the Holidays Act, Don Brash said: “We will scrap 4 weeks’ holiday for New Zealanders.” Well, that completely ignores the fact that when Dr Brash was Governor of the Reserve Bank, 4 weeks’ leave was the standard leave package for people who worked in the Reserve Bank. So it is a question of: “What is good enough for me, is not good enough for them.”, and vice versa.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s had 40 weeks’ holiday a year.

He has had more than 4 weeks, actually, if we judge the presence of that member in this House.

On superannuation, Dr Brash said: “We will need to increase the age of eligibility.” Then he went on to say: “I think it should rise in about 10 or 15 years’ time.” Then he said: “I think the age for receiving super will need to rise in 2020.”, and then he said: “No Government of which I’ll be part will be touching the age of eligibility.” So it is very, very difficult to know what that member thinks about superannuation. Of course, he described the superannuation fund as “financial smoke and mirrors”, whereas John Key said: “I think there are elements of this scheme which are quite good.” So the problem with the National members is that we simply do not know where they stand.

I call on National Party members to tell New Zealanders where they stand on those things. It is important that New Zealanders know where they stand as an Opposition party. How on earth can people judge them when they do not know where they stand? They have no leadership.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think in the interests of decorum in the House, it would be better if the advertisement being shown by the Green member was put down on the seat beside him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that. He is not displaying it at the moment. I think he has just found a resting place for it.

Today New Zealand First wants to acquaint listeners with the extremely poor showing of this Labour Government and, in particular, the utterly abysmal performance of a number of its Ministers. It never ceases to amaze me how individuals, when in Opposition, roar like lions, but once they get their hands on the tillers of power and their backsides into the limos, they just revert to being sleepy little tame pussycats who sit in the comfort of their offices, curled up by the heater, and doing absolutely nothing.

I want to give a few examples. Annette King, the Minister of Health, has presided over a chaotic health service that has gone steadily backwards, and under her stewardship the system has failed dismally to bring about the improvements she promised when she was in Opposition. We now have longer waiting lists—we have waiting lists to get on the waiting lists—for surgery than at any time in the past. We are witnessing a failed health system, which she has built full of bureaucrats. Morale amongst health professionals has never been lower, and, what is more, no improvements are in sight. Her only success seems to have been in securing an excellent job for Mr King at the Hastings hospital, but recent publicity shows that even that enterprise is failing, and cost overruns of $50,000 a day have now been confirmed. No wonder there is no money for real health services—quite clearly it has been siphoned off into the pockets of highly paid and very incompetent bureaucrats and administrators, led by that Minister. Can members imagine what Labour would say if, under a National – New Zealand First Government, a charity hospital were built in Christchurch—a situation that is now firmly on the cards?

Let us turn to George Hawkins, our police Minister. What an absolute failure! What a disappointment he has proven to be. Criminals now have photos of George on their mantelpieces because he represents the best friend they have ever had. That failed Minister has devoted his years in the job to choosing the paint schemes of the cars that now make up his growing police traffic enforcement enterprise, which has become a huge cash cow for this Government. George Hawkins would rather deploy his police staff to jump out from behind parked cars and flax bushes to ticket senior citizens, on their way to church, for minor offences than apply himself to dealing to the thugs, criminals, and gang members that prey on our society. Far from becoming a threat to criminals, George has become their saviour.

Now he and his colleagues Phil Goff and Rick Barker have set in train a whole new plan to reward criminals by paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money, because the nasty police officers flicked tea leaves on to their hands during an interview, or, even worse, took away their teddy bears and comforters for an hour or two, thereby causing them serious trauma for which our fine human rights laws state they must be compensated. What absolute nonsense, and what an embarrassment those Ministers have become. Perhaps George Hawkins’ next plan will be to have the baddies paid so handsomely that they can travel off to the fleshpots of the world under the justification that whilst they are over there they will not commit crimes here. It is probably a good scheme! However, taxpayers will not suffer such stupidity for very much longer. The newly emerging practice of bowing to pressure from the human rights lobby for criminals is regrettable, and we only wish those same individuals could demonstrate the same degree of anger, frustration, and commitment towards helping the victims of crimes when they have had their rights subjugated by villains.

In conclusion, the people of New Zealand have had a gutsful of being poorly served by this team of poorly performing Ministers. Even the Prime Minister has now sent a shot across poor George’s bows, but he appears not to have heeded her warning. His job is in jeopardy. There is no doubt he will get the chop, and, what is more, he thoroughly deserves it. He has let the people of New Zealand down badly, and he is simply not up to the job for which he is richly reimbursed and the perks of which he richly enjoys. The Government came into office and told the nation that things were going to be different, things were going to be better, it was going to blitz the waiting lists, it was going to eliminate the gangs, and it was going to deal to crime. We now know that the Government picks and chooses who it will prosecute, for whatever obscure reasons, and that waiting lists are longer than they have ever been.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call the next member, I point out that members speaking should and must address other members in the correct way. The score of transgression so far is 4 to 2.

The score will stay the same while I am speaking, Mr Assistant Speaker. I have to tell the House that the Government the previous speaker has just described has been an enormously successful Government. The team of Ministers that the member was talking about has been part of an incredibly successful team. It is a team that has overseen one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD and the second-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, which, at just 4 percent, is better than that of Britain, Australia, Germany, France, the United States, and almost everybody else.

This team of Ministers has overseen a 50 percent increase in education spending, a 40 percent increase in conservation spending, an unprecedented investment in transport, including $1.6 billion over the next 10 years in Auckland, billions of dollars flowing into health, a reduction in waiting lists, a billion-dollar package in the last Budget to ensure hundreds of thousands of families have sufficient income to give their kids a good start in life, and the lowest crime rate in 20 years. This is the successful team that over the last 5 years has seen those sorts of developments.

This is a Government that acts swiftly when there are problems. Think of Air New Zealand. Our flagship carrier would have crashed and our billion-dollar tourism industry would have been ruined had this Government not acted quickly and decisively. It has seen New Zealand workers get 4 weeks’ holiday and it has restored the cuts that the previous Government made to superannuation. When this Government came into power, 160,000 people were on the unemployment benefit. Now there are approximately 70,000. It is still too many, but is almost a 50 percent reduction. That is amazing.

The previous speaker touched on the crime statistics. Under Police Minister Hawkins the crime statistics in this country have declined to an all-time low. There are now more police clearances, and we are seeing more criminals being put in jail—so many in fact that we cannot accommodate them all at the moment. We will have to do something about that very quickly. We have been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Longer sentences have come in because we have listened to the people. Those are just a smidgeon of the amazing things this Government has done over the previous 5 years. When the people come to judge whether this Government should be privileged to have a third term in office, those are the sorts of things they will be thinking about. They will be remembering that facts speak louder than words and that actions are better than just plain rhetoric.

In fact, one further reason why the people must vote this Government in for a third term is the extraordinary prospect of what the alternative would be. There is no alternative. My colleague the Minister of Immigration, Paul Swain, spoke about the failings of the leader of the National Party. I am a nice sort of guy and I do not want to get into personalities, but I would like to quote what some of the journalists have been saying. I have in front of me an article from Jane Clifton—somebody who is not always known to be very friendly to this Government. Recently she wrote: “When Brash was wheeled back to Parliament this week, even the comb-over looked more timorous than usual. Brash also needs to work on his parliamentary performance. Brash proceeds competently enough with his questions, but he seems never to expect any come-back or smart-alecry. He sits back, shaking his head and mouthing words of dismay, like a vicar in a lap dance club.” John Armstrong wrote recently: “Home or away, Brash is losing. The National Party has an awful dilemma. If it keeps Don Brash away from Parliament, it is slammed for doing so. When he fronts up, he is being slaughtered.”

I think Don Brash is a nice sort of guy. He seemed very pleasant the few times I talked with him. But what this country needs is leadership. Helen Clark has provided this country with extraordinary leadership, intelligent leadership, decisive leadership, strong leadership. That is what the people have seen—not words. They have seen actions. They have seen good governance, they have seen delivery on promises, and they have seen a leader whom we are proud of. Sometimes Opposition members criticise the Prime Minister. They say: “She’s going off to a job at the UN.” Has anyone in this House ever suggested Don Brash should be going to the UN? Did anyone ever suggest Jenny Shipley was going to the UN? Did anyone ever suggest Jim Bolger could go to the UN? But Opposition members often suggest that Helen Clark could go there. Why? Because they recognise the intelligence and the qualities she has. She has world leadership qualities. She is a leader to be proud of. Nick Venter wrote recently about the National Party: “National’s strategy has reduced the risk of embarrassment in Parliament. Dr Brash usually attends only once a week, and when he is there, he relies heavily on typewritten notes.”

The Labour Party is in a real mess this week over the industrial relations legislation that has been reported back to the House. The mess is of its own making. The Labour Party went out there, in the guise of one John Tamihere, the Minister for Small Business. When he got the job, he did an interview with the National Business Review on 26 March, and said: “… we’ve got to be a lot more straight, a lot less spin and smarm. Businesses will smell that a mile away.” I say to Mr Tamihere that businesses can smell it, and they are smelling that sort of smarm a mile away. That is why this week every single business organisation, every tourism organisation, and every lobby group in the country, bar the union movement, has come out and said that this employment relations legislation is no good, that it will harm business and employment, and that it will cost this country in growth. Every business person has said that. One can only assume that, to use John Tamihere’s words, “Swainy and the boys” were going to take control of it and we would see what they could get up to once the girls were out of the way. I presume that “Swainy and the boys” got rolled in Cabinet by the girls, yet again. The consequence is bad for business, bad for New Zealand, and bad for growth.

The particular people who lose in this are, firstly, the workers. Anybody who is one of the over 1 million workers in this country who do not belong to a union will find that he or she gets a lower pay increase than those who do belong to the union. It started with the State sector, with Mr Mallard giving a bit of a nod and a wink to the teachers union. It got an extra $500 for every teacher who happened to be a member of the union. It was tough on the rest. They are not as valued, according to this Government, as those who are members of the union. So when Mr Mallard goes into the staffroom, does he say to the staff member who is not a union member: “You’re worth $500 less than those who are in the union.”? They all got a payment of $500, and the private sector can see that that is what is coming down the tracks for them, as well. The unions will already be claiming extra money for those in the union movement.

The law is now quite explicit: if an employer passes on that same wage increase and the union deems its position has been undermined, then the employer will end up before the Employment Relations Authority. In fact, we asked in the select committee how that clause would kick in. The officials said that if one union member leaves the union and goes on to a private contract, then it will be deemed to have undermined the union position and the employer will be in the gun. That is what the officials said in the select committee. We know that this clause will be bad for non-union workers.

The other thing this bill is bad for is small-business employers, who will be dragged into multi-employment collectives. We will see small-business employers forced to pay the same wages and provide the same conditions as large-business employers. It was best summed up by Fisher and Paykel, which appeared before the select committee—and Lynne Pillay’s head nearly nodded off her neck; she was so excited, because they were saying nice things about the Government. Then that company’s representatives looked up, and said: “But this bill is bad.” She got very nasty then. She did not like that. They went on to say: “We can cope with this bill, but all of the small suppliers that supply us won’t be able to. It will make them less competitive. We may have to look to go off shore.” Heinz-Wattie said: “We wouldn’t bring the equipment here and manufacture and produce if this bill was law.” We know this is bad law.

One of the very best pieces of news that I have received since arriving in Parliament happened for me last week. It occurred when the Hon Ruth Dyson let me know that the Government was prepared to extend the amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act so that non-governmental organisations could be contracted to do some of the vital work that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has traditionally had sole responsibility for. This single decision has the potential to contribute to a real reduction in some of New Zealand’s more shameful negative social indicators affecting children and their families.

Eveline Herfkens, speaking at the 57th annual conference of the United Nations Department of Public Information and non-governmental organisations at the UN headquarters in New York, said that non-governmental organisations were the prime movers for change in extracting promises from Governments, and through their passion and energy provide a voice to the poor. She said: “Don’t let your Government off the hook to be accountable to its own people on how your own resources are being used.”

Recent New Zealand research indicates that for every dollar provided to a non-governmental organisation voluntary agency, between $3 to $5 worth of services are delivered to the community. The project on the value added by voluntary agencies reported that the annual accounts of these organisations did not adequately reflect their full value and what they added to social well-being and to the economy. New Zealand non-governmental organisations are staffed with highly competent, transparent, and accountable professionals, who are well able to provide quality services in a timely and cost-effective manner. The work of non-governmental organisations generally arises in response to specific needs perceived within a community. They have strengths in targeting resources and services where they are most required, and first-hand familiarity with the challenges faced by New Zealand families, resulting in creative and innovative solutions.

United Future’s proposal would see the staff of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services continuing to do the vital child protection work that occupies much of their present workload, while being relieved of the equally important intervention work when families present with medium to low-risk concerns. At present these needs are either neglected or responded to in an untimely way, due to the huge workload the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services carries.

Child protection needs to remain the statutory responsibility of a Government department, due to the intrusive nature of that intensive investigative work. However, preventive work can be, and should be, contracted out to the agencies that already have a credible track record in working with families who could do with a bit of extra support during a difficult season in their lives.

So what should we see start to happen as a result of a differential intake system? Firstly, we should see a reduction in the unallocated cases that sit in the in tray at the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Statistically, 99 percent of these cases are at the lower end of the criticality spectrum, and because the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services rightly prioritises its attention to urgent cases, they often get missed out.

Secondly, because Department of Child, Youth and Family Services social workers will have more time to devote to quality and to intensive casework, the numbers of renotifications to the department should decrease as it is able to give families the level of attention they need. Thirdly, and most important, over time we should start to see a marked reduction in the number of critical child protection cases requiring statutory interventions. The reason is that if non-governmental organisations can intervene in a timely way early on, before a crisis occurs, the demand for protection services over time will decrease. We should remember that a larger percentage of high-risk interventions are second and third notifications that, with earlier help, may never have had to deteriorate to such a serious level of abuse, requiring such devastating outcomes.

While United Future is delighted at this step forward that the Government has agreed to take, we continue, and will continue, to advocate for the full implementation of other aspects of our policy. Ultimately, we would like to see the de-stigmatisation of what it means to get help for one’s family and ensure that families have access to the wide range of services available, without having to resort to becoming an emergency.

At United Future’s recent annual conference a party member described his interest in our party by saying that we influence outcomes through positive relationships. This is truly one of those moments.

Yesterday I sought leave to table an article from the Melbourne Age about the Thai Prime Minister. It was headed: “No Room for Losers in the New Thailand”, with a subheading: “Woe Betide Those Who Challenge Thaksin Shinawatra, Asia’s New Political Strongman”. The Deputy Prime Minister and many of his Labour colleagues denied leave for that article to be tabled. Members might ask why; I believe that it was because they do not want the truth about Thailand to be revealed in this Parliament. The Government does not want members of Parliament and the people of New Zealand to know that it is negotiating a free-trade agreement with a corrupt Prime Minister and a corrupt Government.

Neither, it seems, do the New Zealand media want the people of New Zealand to know about this trade deal; no New Zealand paper has reprinted that article here, especially that apologist for free trade, the New Zealand Herald. I have to admit that it is owned by APN and this article appeared in a Fairfax publication. But, at least, I would expect the Dominion Post and the Christchurch Press to run this article as a point of balance to some of the more sycophantic coverage they have been giving to free-trade agreements.

I want the people of New Zealand to know more about what is at stake, because I believe that Kiwis need to know exactly who Labour is doing deals with. As Mark Baker wrote in the Melbourne Age on 3 July: “Prime Minister Thaksin is a tycoon turned politician who runs a large slice of his country’s media, and who essentially bought his way into power with the tactics of a hostile corporate takeover. Like Berlusconi’’—the Italian Prime Minister—“he is an obsessive autocrat, impatient with the checks and balances of democratic Government, a publicity seeker averse to press he does not own or control, and a leader with an alarming propensity to shoot from the lip.” He goes on to quote from the Thai Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who said: “Thai democracy is being eroded. The Election Commission, the Anti Graft Commission, the Constitutional Council—all these institutions are being stacked with Thaksin supporters and the independent media are being undermined.”

He highlights one of the most obscene examples of corruption and nepotism in Thailand, which is Thaksin’s hard-line approach to the drug trade sitting alongside his cosy political relationship with the Burmese military junta. There is a partnership between a subsidiary of the Shina Corporation, which is a Thaksin family corporation, and a company owned by the son of the Burmese Prime Minister, Khin Nyunt, which holds a virtual monopoly on Internet and mobile phone services in the country. No wonder he is keen to see free trade with New Zealand!

I ask this Parliament whether that is the sort of regime New Zealand should be negotiating a preferential trade deal with. Why does the Labour Government want a country that exploits half a million child workers and flouts International Labour Organization conventions on child labour to be New Zealand’s third-favourite trading partner after Australia and Singapore? Why is the Labour Government strengthening the right of New Zealand workers to collective bargaining—which we support because we believe that it is a positive step forward for workers’ rights in New Zealand—but at the same time deliberately destroying the jobs of those workers by turning a blind eye to Thailand’s refusal to ratify International Labour Organization Convention 98—that is, the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively?

I was extremely disappointed with Prime Minister Helen Clark’s answers to my questions about the Thai trade deal yesterday, but I am even more disappointed with Lianne Dalziel, Mark Peck, Taito Phillip Field, Mark Gosche, Paul Swain, Rick Barker, Lynne Pillay, Helen Duncan, and Dave Hereora. Why? Because those members of Parliament all used to be trade union officials. I see Mr Mallard has put his hand up to be added to that list of members. That was the official list from the Parliamentary Library; he had better give the library an update of his former occupations. Those members were all trade unionists, according to what they have admitted to the library, before they came to Parliament. How could they go along with that deal? Why did they not turn up to hear Sritai Nonsee, a young Thai worker who is in New Zealand at the moment to talk about the impact of that trade deal and how bad it will be for workers in Thailand?

I am very pleased to join the debate this afternoon, but I have to say that, as a proud member of this Parliament and a passionate believer in democracy in New Zealand, I am very worried about the girls in the National Party. I think the girls are being given a bit of a rough time over there. The boys are in the ascendancy, and the girls are getting a bit of a hard time, really.

We have poor Katherine Rich, who sits in the front and gets shorter and shorter by the day as she tries to cope with what I would say could be termed bullying. We girls on this side of the House would certainly refer to it as bullying, because she just cannot seem to get her views through. Mr Brash refuses to listen to them. I feel a bit sorry for Katherine Rich, because she was a bright light on the horizon originally, but her star has faded and, sadly, she is looking a bit wan of late. I always suggest, as a mother, that a good dose of iron does wonders for anybody; that is a bit of collegial advice for that member.

I also have to say that one of the other girls I am concerned about is Lynda Scott. She is a mere shadow of her former self. In fact, she is so much of a shadow that we never see her these days—but moving right along! I have to say that Lynda Scott, a qualified doctor, an experienced geriatrician, an experienced general practitioner—

💬 Darren Hughes: A member of the Millennium Club—

What’s that?

💬 Darren Hughes: Simon Power’s think tank.

Well, she is a member of the Millennium Club, which is obviously so high-profile that I have never heard of it. She was completely passed over as the health spokesperson. But I have to say that a bit of gender balance has come in there, because also passed over was Dr Paul Hutchison, who has considerable experience as a private gynaecologist—he got his finger into everything—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even the Minister of Education was appalled with that comment.

Well, he is; the member has not listened to the rest—

💬 Simon Power: The member should sit down and listen to the point of order.

Well, I wish the member would listen to the rest of my sentence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask Jill Pettis to sit down.

💬 Simon Power: I think it is fair to say that a number of people in the House would have taken offence at that last remark of Mrs Pettis. In particular, even the Minister of Education was, shall we say, baffled by the context in which it was said. I think you should warn the member to be a little more careful with her use of descriptive language.

Well, I am not going to apologise for something that was completely misinterpreted.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Would Jill Pettis please sit down. The member should either speak to the point of order, if she wishes, or wait for an indication from me.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Although some of us did express some shock at what might be coming, I think we should not anticipate, and we should let the member finish her sentence. In that way we could work out whether it was really offensive, or whether we were jumping to conclusions—as some of us jumped to the conclusion that Simon Power would be National leader one day.

💬 Simon Power: Are you going to let him get away with that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I am not going to let him get away with that, but I think there was a fair element of anticipation there, and it is really all in the mind, and is to do with the state of our minds at the time. I think Jill Pettis was having a lot of fun, and I did not take offence.

💬 Simon Power: Well, it was still insensitive.

Well, I have to say that Mr Power should not be so quick off the mark in future, and as a mother I could add more but I will not. [Interruption] Quite right, Mr Williamson.

What I was going to say about Mr Hutchison is that he was very premature in some of the comments he made about the health field. I felt considerable sorrow for him, as he also is an experienced doctor—I will not use the other description of his profession that led some members over there to get excited. But I would have to say that his being passed over by Dr Brash was foolhardy in the extreme as far as I am concerned. National has a health spokesperson who has probably never done anything more than take a temperature. What does Judith Collins know about health? I suggest that what Judith Collins knows about health could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a carpenter’s pencil. That is about the extent of her knowledge on health.

So I think, all in all, there is a fair amount of discrimination going on across the other side of the House. Some of the members have been given a hard time, particularly in relation to the health area.

One of the other double standards that is occurring over there that I want to refer to is with regard to the Department of Corrections. There has been a lot of heat and angst, and much chest thumping, from National Party members this week, but I remind those members over there who have senile decay that their memories are very, very short about what they have said in the past about corrections.

That was one of the more remarkable contributions to the general debate that I have heard in my brief 2 years here. I put it down as the single biggest waste of 5 minutes that I have ever heard in my life. I know that the Labour Party members take their general debate slots on rotation. I know that the Minister of Education was cringing when the senior Government whip got up to make that contribution. I know that many other members of the House were embarrassed to have the senior Government whip on her feet, speaking such a load of drivel. It was a complete and utter waste of time. Even under the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, that speech would not have got a pass. What a load of drivel it was from the soon to be former member for Whanganui! My advice to the member for Whanganui is to get out the situations vacant part of the newspaper, because if that was her contribution to the general debate, she will need it.

The Government has introduced a proposed amendment to the Employment Relations Act. What is it? It is a nationwide recruitment drive for union members. That is what that bill is all about—a nationwide recruitment drive for union members. It is so blatant that it is up there with the $21 million that the Government decided to spend on promoting the Budget, which even the Auditor-General found offensive. That is how blatant it is. That amendment is simply one thing, and one thing alone: payback time for the unions—those flaky unions that that party wants to come to the House and represent. The Council of Trade Unions is getting its payback.

Who is right? Let us ask the obvious question. Is it this arrogant, “We know best.” Government, which is going on a crusade for its union mates? Is it right? Or is it the hundreds of submitters who came before the select committee and said that the bill is bad and is sending New Zealand in the wrong direction? I see Mr Benson-Pope shaking his head in agreement, and I want to thank him; he does not have the guts verbally to agree with me, but at least in spirit he agrees with me that the bill is bad.

What is the Government trying to do? I know: it is trying to force the 1.7 million New Zealanders who are not currently in a union to join one—to convince them somehow that it is a really good idea. A proposition that those people have spent years deciding is not a good idea is somehow going to become a great idea, because the Labour Party Government has decided to go into cahoots with its mates and force those people to join a union.

💬 Darren Hughes: Give us a policy.

Oh, the member should not worry; we have plenty of policies. [Interruption] When we do it will not be 42-all in the polls; mark my words, a number of members over there will be looking for a job.

One of the useful things that members of the Labour Party could do is to have a look at the growth rates of Germany and Japan—two of the most inflexible labour markets in the world. After 20 years Japan’s rate is still not recovering, because it has inflexible labour markets. Members should see whether they can find a Virgin megastore in Frankfurt. The answer is they cannot. Why? Because Germany is the only country in the world where Richard Branson could not run a megastore. Do members know why? Because it has the most inflexible labour market in the world. That is where this Government wants to take us.

It is all very well for the Prime Minister, in the foreword of various documents, to tell the country that by 2011 we will be in the top half of the OECD—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Is that what she said?

That is what she said—mark my words. Members can put a ring around it: she said that in 2011 we will be up there in the top half of the OECD. I say we will not be there if we have the proposed amendments to the Employment Relations Act—if we have the sort of drivel that is going down.

What sorts of things do we see in that bill in terms of the way in which a business can be bought and sold? I would describe the bill as the “goodwill gobbler”. That is what it will do to any business out there. Even the Minister for Small Business in his heart of hearts knows exactly what I am talking about. The hundreds of thousands of small-business people in New Zealand who work hard to build up goodwill will have their wealth destroyed with a flash of a pen. They may be nodding and agreeing out there, but when it comes to polling day they will not want a bar of that very, very bad legislation. That legislation will put employer-employee relationships back to where they were in the days of the 1951 waterfront strike. That is the sort of stuff the Government is trying to do. Employers will not be able even to have an honest conversation with their employees, for fear of being seen to point them in what is not the right direction—to give them advice that might lead to their not being part of a collective agreement.

ACT scraped home with just above 5 percent of the vote in the last election—it got about 6 percent. But its vote has since collapsed. ACT is down to between 1 and 3 percent, depending upon the poll, and it is likely that it will disappear at the next election. I ask myself why.

💬 Hon Member: Rodney!

No, it is because National is now ACT. That is why Mr Franks wants to join National—we all know that. Dr Brash makes his own feelings transparent. He is one of the few New Zealanders who expresses admiration for Mr Hide. They even holiday together. What jolly good times they must have together—not! But it does emphasise what the electorate knows: ACT and National share the same extreme, fundamentalist ideology.

The extreme right-wing views of Dr Brash were most recently highlighted in his reshuffle. Granted, a reshuffle of National is a difficult job; if one shuffles the National pack, the chances of turning up an ace are lower than the chances of winning first prize in Lotto. If one shuffles the National pack, one gets a misère hand—misery. Nothing demonstrates Dr Brash’s ideology better than his choice of spokesperson on health. National has two people with training in the medical sciences, and Dr Brash is not one of them. He makes people sick; he does not cure them. But he does have two doctors there. One is Dr Lynda Scott. Did he pick her? No, he dumped her. He had an alternative in Dr Paul Hutchison, a medical specialist. Did he choose him? No. Why not? Because he is not interested in moderate health policies; he is interested in extreme ideology.

Who did Dr Brash pick? He picked a lawyer, Judith Collins. Judith Collins is not even a moderate lawyer. She is a former chair of the Casino Control Authority, which approved two casinos for the little town of Queenstown, which is in my electorate. She is not a person of good judgment. She is a right-wing ideologue, which suits Dr Brash’s purpose. Her right-wing extremism has been well illustrated this last week. For the last 30 years in New Zealand, young women have had confidential relationships with their doctors. When it comes to pregnancy and abortion choices, they have had confidential relationships. Those young women have had independent advice from doctors, which is privileged communication between them and their doctors. That rule has stood the test of time. It was imposed after an independent inquiry; it was imposed by this Parliament. What would Mrs Collins do? She would scrap it and have us return to the old days of backstreet abortions and unwanted pregnancies for young girls. That is disgraceful.

What did Dr Brash do, after having inflicted that upon us? He shuffled off to Australia, which has a higher rate of unemployment, lower growth, and higher rates of beneficiary dependency. What did he do while he was over there? He bagged New Zealand. He ignored the reality, bagged New Zealand, and compared us with a failing Pacific State. What balderdash! We have incomes thirty times those of the Pacific States, we have strong, democratic institutions, we have health systems that are the peer of any in the world, and we have good educational institutions, yet he compared us with those States. He can say things in New Zealand; he can come to Parliament and argue his case, and as the Opposition leader he should try to put down the Government, but does Dr Brash do that effectively? No, he goes to Australia and bags his country there. That is absolutely disgraceful! He bangs on about compliance costs and how difficult it is to do business in New Zealand. What happened? An international survey by the World Bank showed that to be a complete untruth. In reality, we were the top country out of the 146 countries surveyed. We were not tenth, ninth, eighth, seventh, sixth, fifth, fourth, third, or second; we were first, and that is absolutely outstanding.

As Mr Swain said earlier, the electorate wonders what the National Party policy is. It wonders, because National will not come clean. It is about privatisation and a return to the failed policies of the 1990s.

A revelation was made in this House today, by Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton, that 25,028 patients are on waiting lists. They are patients who have been booked for treatment or who have been given certainty of treatment within 6 months. Whether they get treatment is another story. However, that revelation follows 2 years of fudged figures, deception, new definitions, and misleading information that today have been exposed by Jim Anderton. I do not know whether the Minister of Health, when she gets back from her trip to China, will be very pleased about that revelation, because she has spent all her time as Minister of Health for this Labour Government in trying to hide those figures.

Residual waiting lists had just on 50,000 patients waiting for treatment when Labour was elected. Mr Anderton admitted today that the number of patients on the real waiting lists is now about 56,000. So this Labour Government has totally ignored the number of patients it has been sending back to their general practitioners because there is no hope of their ever receiving treatment or surgery—it has totally ignored the tens of thousands of patients on those lists. We know that all this Labour Government has done for Kiwi patients is see a huge rise in waiting-list numbers.

Today, speaking on Ms King’s behalf—and as I said, I am sure that she will not be happy about that when she finds out about it—Mr Anderton revealed that those 25,000 will be added to the 31,000 patients on active review—a little-known category that New Zealanders have no knowledge of. Active review is the waiting list one goes on when one is waiting to go on the waiting list. It is the waiting list for the waiting list. With the figures put together, the total of 56,000 patients is much larger than the number on the waiting lists when Labour came to power.

Those figures are an absolute disgrace. Cutting waiting lists was a key Labour election promise, not only in 1999 but also in 2002. But what has happened to those figures? They have gone up. It was a key Labour election promise, but 5 years on, and after huge surpluses, this Government today has admitted failure.

In February 2001, the deceptions began. In February, 2001, the Minister of Health announced—on a quiet Sunday afternoon when there was no news—that, hallelujah, the country’s waiting lists had dropped by 20,000 people. Fortunately for the country a couple of smart journalists were around who thought: “Hang on a minute. These people can’t have just been swallowed up. Where have they gone?”. They were all transferred sideways on to active review—every last one of them. Those patients had been transferred to a category where they were then destined to wait to go on to the waiting list, and today we have been told that 56,000 people are now waiting for treatment.

The deceptions do not stop there, either. Labour has deceived us over health spending. Last year, there was a $500 million underspend. Of a $9.6 billion budget, half a billion dollars was underspent. Of that, $188 million was operational, and another $320 million—[Interruption] Members can argue all they like. I have a parliamentary question answered by the Minister of Finance, which members would not let me table today, showing that exact figure—$500 million underspent. The spending only becomes clear well after the years have gone by. It is only now that the Government is admitting—as Mr Anderton did today—that there was a real spending drop in the 2001-02 year.

So the Minister of Health’s legacy to health is an increase in the number of patients needing treatment in New Zealand. They have been assessed and told by doctors that they need treatment, but most of them will not get it. That Minister of Health will be held accountable at the next election; her days are numbered.

Firstly, elective surgery and waiting lists are in serious trouble, despite Labour’s deliberate policy of providing misleading or incomplete information. Members should view the Ministry of Health’s website and try to work their way through that. Secondly, new health operational funding for this financial year is tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, less than the Minister of Health has spun. She has been standing up and telling the country about all the new funding going in, when we know now that $188 million of last year’s money was underspent. Thirdly, the Minister of Health has seen a cut in real per-person funding.

I wish to address some comments made by Ron Mark and others. I want to address my comments to others in the House, especially to members of New Zealand First and particularly the conspiracy theorists like Mr Mark and Mr Peters, who have made continual calls for the Minister of Police to, firstly, intervene in high-profile criminal cases and, secondly, pull and review police files. I raise the issue because such irresponsible and politically motivated calls go to the heart of New Zealand’s constitutional conventions in respect of the separation of powers, as between politicians and the police, or, specifically, the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police.

I say to the House that it would be a very sad and dangerous day indeed if those constitutional conventions were broken, as some members opposite would like to see. For the edification of certain members over there, I remind the House that the Minister of Police is specifically prevented from interfering in police and operational law enforcement matters. In fact, I quote from the then Solicitor-General, J J McGrath, who in 1993 spelt out the constitutional relationship between the Commissioner of Police and the Minister. For the edification of that amateur law lecturer, Mr Mapp—I would have hated to be in his law class; he should shut his mouth and listen to this—I point out that the then Solicitor-General observed the following: “For many years it has been accepted that operational decisions made by the Commissioner are for that person and no other.” In his view, the Commissioner of Police is an “independent statutory officer with his or her own authority in respect of law enforcement decisions in a particular case. It is not authority that is delegated by a Minister. The Commissioner of Police cannot lawfully be made subject to ministerial directions in such matters.” Mr McGrath goes on: “The Commissioner thus may not be subject to binding policy directions in respect of the enforcement of the criminal law in any particular area or type of offending.”

I invite members opposite to clam up for a minute and consider—and I know we have some former police Ministers in Parliament—what would happen if those constitutional conventions were broken. In summary, a Minister of Police is prevented absolutely from pulling case files, whether they be individual or collective, even if they are high-profile cases and even if the bleatings are loud from members of the Opposition.

Let us look at another famous case. I refer specifically to Mr Mark’s case, when one Major General Dodson inappropriately and wrongly pulled the personal file of that member of Parliament. Major General Dodson was not a Minister. He was in a senior executive role. I say that was wrong, and I note what Mr Peters said of it at the time. He called it an “intrusion” in the Dominion of 26 November 2001. He wanted Major General Dodson suspended and a High Court judge to be appointed to head an inquiry. I think Mr Peters was right then. The problem I have is that Mr Peters and Mr Mark now continually call for a breach in the constitutional separation of powers and those conventions, and want the Minister of Police to wrongly and unlawfully intervene and review case files of individuals. I say that the day we get to that position, when politicians can intervene in the lawful process of our police, is a dark and dangerous day for Parliament and for this democracy.

I say to Mr Mark, Mr Peters, and others, including the bush lawyer over there, Wayne Mapp, that they should consider this. Politically motivated attacks that attempt to undermine those constitutional conventions—being the separation of powers between the Minister and the commissioner—should be seen for what they are. They should be seen as irresponsible and motivated simply by cynical, political motives. I see we have in the Chamber another member who knows of those conventions, and who once, I believe, was a Minister of Justice, or had his fingerprints over partial law enforcement in this country—one Tony Ryall. I say to members opposite that in George Hawkins, they have one of the best, most ethical and professional police Ministers—one who does not breach conventions, one who does not intervene in operational matters, and one who has put more police on the streets of this country than any other in our history. I invite members to reflect on those constitutional issues.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the relevant Standing Order that deals with MPs who stand in this House and say things that, by their very record in Hansard—and to prove that, I am holding in my hand a file that contains every word of the Hansard of—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: What’s your point of order?

Are you going to throw the member out for speaking during a point of order, Mr Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): This is the last warning for speaking during a point of order.

These extracts from Hansard contain every word that Mr Peters and I have said in this House on the Edwards/Shaw issue. Mr Cosgrove has been allowed to get away with saying that we have actively sought for the Minister of Police to intervene directly. I listened to it on the radio. There has not ever been a call for that. That pretender, who is aiming to take George Hawkins’ job by flattery today and bidding to knife him in the back tomorrow, will not get away with that sort of nonsense in this House. He will be held to account in the electorate for the little lies he tells.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Mr Mark will withdraw that reference to lies.

I withdraw and apologise. Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I am going—

This is a separate point of order.

After I have said something you may raise another. That was not a point of order. It is a debating issue. What was said or not said about yourself or any other member is purely a debating issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am fully aware that in this House members are honourable members. Their word must be accepted. It is not acceptable to say that they tell lies or porkies. But what recourse for redress is there for a member of Parliament when another member of the House goes to a Grey Power meeting and says something about that member that is patently, obviously untrue and is outside this House considered by all who were there to be a lie? Is there any recourse for dealing with Mr Cosgrove for telling Grey Power things about me that are untrue? I know I cannot deal with it in this Chamber. I am looking for your advice as to how we might be able to deal with people who make such blatantly incorrect, untrue statements outside the House, as well.

I thank Mr Mark for raising those issues. Neither was a point of order, but the member was able to have his say. There is no remedy in this House for the issue the member raises. It is a debatable matter. The member can seek his remedies elsewhere. I cannot advise him.

There can be no area of Government policy where the differences are so stark between the left and the right than that of labour relations. I say to this House that in 2000, just after the Labour Party won the election at the end of 1999, it introduced one of the most draconian, disgraceful pieces of industrial legislation this country had ever seen.

💬 Darren Hughes: Don Brash likes it.

I tell the member that I will deal with that, but he needs to hear this first. The Labour Party introduced one of the most disgusting, draconian, and outrageous pieces of labour legislation this country had ever seen. During the course of 2000 we went through what is now well known in political circles as the winter of discontent, to the point that by the end of that year—I still have the date: 8 November—a Colmar Brunton Television One poll showed the National Party ahead of the Labour Party, which had cleaned us out at the election the year before. That result was down to one piece of legislation—Margaret Wilson’s obnoxious Employment Relations Bill.

So what did Helen Clark, the ever-vigilant, “knowing I am going to stay in power at all costs” leader, do? She moved in and gutted the legislation. What was finally passed at the end of 2000 bore almost no resemblance to the bill that had been introduced. Businesses breathed unbelievable sighs of relief. Up and down this country, business people were falling on to their leather couches saying: “Thank God! All the evil bits have gone. In fact, we actually think that what has been left—it ain’t much—of the ERA is pretty OK.” I heard that up and down this country, from that point on. I have heard it for the last 4 years.

What was fascinating at the select committee hearing was that the first comments of nearly all the businesses that came, one after another, to submit on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill—that is right, an Act that had been working brilliantly since 2000 somehow then had to be amended—were to ask why we were doing that. They said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” They said that employment relations in this country were as good as they had ever been, strikes were almost not heard of, wages were growing faster than the consumer price index, and the unemployment rate was down to the lowest it had ever been, so why were we considering the amendment bill. If I had a dollar for every business that came before that committee and said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”, I would have made enough for my retirement. Good companies—decent companies that were trying to get on with their jobs—sat there, looked through the legislation, and said: “This smacks of The Empire Strikes Back.”

Margaret Wilson had the absolutely obnoxious elements of her bill gutted in 2000, but she has wheeled them back in as her swansong for departure—for depart she will. She did not get the vice-chancellor’s job at Waikato University, even though—[Interruption] Well, she was down to the shortlist, but they said they could not afford to have that. I know she is going. She has gone from the labour relations portfolio already. She was got rid of because of the unpleasant odour the business community felt was in that portfolio. But, as a dying shot, she thought she would bring in those obnoxious bits of the legislation—plus a bit, actually. This amendment bill is the old employment relations legislation’s obnoxious stuff on steroids. It has all the bad bits, plus a few more.

Let me tell members what a couple of decent companies said to the select committee. A young Māori man from Ngāi Tahu who was running the Shotover jet operation in Queenstown—a really first-class, well-educated lawyer who was making a phenomenal success out of a business; a Māori this country should be proud of—asked why we needed this amending legislation. He was another one who said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He said there would be real implications for his company when he employed casual or part-time labour, and brought staff in and out. He said: “Please don’t do it.”

💬 Opposition Member: He pleaded.

He pleaded. Do members know what Labour members on the committee did? They sat there and laughed, and they did not answer him. Then, what was really interesting were the submissions of Dunedin’s best restaurateur, the man who runs Bell Pepper Blues. He said we could go to his restaurant later on that night. We all paid our own bill, so there was no scandal like that of the Kermadec or anywhere else—

💬 Opposition Member: Did the Labour people pay?

I think even the Labour members paid, but what might have been put in their dinner was probably what they did not like. That man said: “Look, I run this fabulous little restaurant. My greatest asset is staff, and this bill will gut my company.”

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.