General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Prime Minister has called in all the information from the focus groups. She has called in all the polling background information, and she has panicked because she knows that the message that Dr Brash gave this country in Ōrewa in January of this year is as resonant in people’s thinking as it was back then. So she has changed her views on all sorts of things and done what is commonly known in the political arena as a bit of triangulation and come up with the idea that we will have a new look at the New Zealand constitution. I think that when New Zealanders find out the Prime Minister’s record in this regard, they will be extremely worried.

I refer members to a speech given by Helen Clark just a few years ago, when she said: “We will want to work through with Māori over time the terms of the new constitutional settlement which will be necessary when New Zealand becomes a republic.”

That is what Helen Clark said just a couple of years ago, and it is the agenda she is trying to sneak in the back door right at the moment. Why is she doing it? It is because she wants New Zealanders to be distracted from the incompetence of her Government. It has made a complete hash of the seabed and foreshore issue. It will not be able to get that back in the House next week, because if it upsets the Greens and it does not get Mr Dunne or Mr Peters, then it has no capacity to pass the bill. The Government is in the unenviable situation—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would members who are carrying on other conversations please leave the Chamber.

That is an outrageous interruption of my speech, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry.

Those people were leaving in a quite orderly fashion. Goodness me! When does my time start again? I cannot be on my time now after that interruption.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, it has been stopped.

Is it starting now? Thank you. I will attempt to get back in my stride. If Parekura Horomia and the Prime Minister manage to trundle over to the Green Party and do a deal over the foreshore and seabed, they will lose the support of United Future. If they keep United Future happy, they will not get New Zealand First. If they get New Zealand First, the Greens are gone. So they have nowhere to go.

The only parties in the House that are not being captured by the Government or starting to fall for the Government’s flattery are the National Party and the ACT party. They are the only two parties that are saying we should make this a true constitutional issue, and that we should make this something that we go out to the people on, not some issue that we push into a tidy little committee of Parliament—a partisan committee of Parliament; a committee of MPs handpicked by Helen Clark, designed to inoculate this Treaty of Waitangi issue that is causing so much angst in New Zealand today.

We know that the Prime Minister is, right now, writing letters to prominent New Zealanders—or at least to people whom she believes are prominent New Zealanders—like Sir Paul Reeves and company, trying to get them on board so that they can be some sort of flying squad to go around the countryside telling New Zealanders that we will have new constitutional arrangements. We know that not only will Paul Reeves be supported by people like Gregory Fortuin, but that all manner of other Labour Party lackeys will be out there doing the same bidding for the Government. It is just not acceptable that something as important as this becomes the pet project of a few politicians of the left who consider their view of New Zealand far superior to that of ordinary people.

I want Mr Horomia to take a call this afternoon and tell us that Māori are not worried about this, and that Māori are quite happy to see the reference to the Crown removed from the statutes in this country. The Government is quite happy to see, as Helen Clark said, some latter-day discussion with Māori about the place of the treaty, once the new republican constitution is put in place. Mr Horomia will not take a call, because he is sitting in Cabinet. He is part of the collective responsibility—part of the group that will foist republicanism on to New Zealanders.

When we hear from Helen Clark on Saturday at the Labour Party conference, there may well be a soft side to the message, but it will be a thin veil over the desire by Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, and Parekura Horomia to turn New Zealand into a republic without reference to the people.

Members have probably heard of “The Sound of Silence”; that was Gerry Brownlee, the sound of irrelevance, speaking just then. As members know, we are coming to the end of the year—it is prize giving season. We are now trotting off to our various schools. I went to the Palmerston North Girls High School prize giving on Monday evening and watched talented, energetic young New Zealanders walk across the stage to take prizes, then go off to celebrate with their friends.

As I sat there watching those talented, energetic young New Zealanders, I could not help thinking of Dr Brash. Somehow, they brought him to mind. One year into his term, I wondered whether Dr Brash would have been on the stage that night if he had been at Palmerston North Girls High School. If we roll back a year, we would say that at the beginning of the year he began with high expectations. He said: “I want us to attack the Government with urgency, with vigour, with rigour.” Actually, he would not have said it like that—he would have said it a lot more quietly and a lot less energetically, but he would have said that. Secondly, he said: “We are going to develop policy. We are going to say what it is.” Thirdly, he said: “I do not want us to be afraid of the electorate and to water down our message.”

He began with such promise. The country watched and thought that at the end of year prize giving, he would be there. But by mid-year, the hope had faded, if not died. We found then the “er ah” flip-flops of the Dr Brash brand of politics. He said that he was not sure whether he could deliver on policy any more. He said that he had five speeches he was definitely going to do, but that now he definitely was not going to do them, and that he would definitely leave them until next year, or that maybe he would not. By the time he got through that, nobody knew what Dr Brash stood for, at all.

We have come to the end of the year, and we are asking why he finds it so difficult. Heading towards the end of the year, he would have to say that he has no policy. We are told that the policy process in the National Party has now completely collapsed. He has no talent. The best sort of talent he seems to have is Gerry Brownlee, who stood up before and gave us the sound of irrelevance. Dr Brash himself has said: “I guess what surprised me is the sheer enormity of the workload. I knew it would be tough, but I did not realise how demanding it was going to be.” It is not a pretty picture.

Meanwhile, this weekend a unified, well-led, confident Labour Party will assemble on the North Shore of Auckland. Its members will be going to the annual conference of the great Labour Party, the oldest party in the country. The country is run currently by a Labour-Progressive coalition. Those eager people at that conference will be celebrating under the following theme: Labour, with New Zealand, celebrating the achievements of New Zealanders.

Those members have only from Friday until Sunday to celebrate. I alone have to talk about the Bio Commerce Centre at Massey, the record drop in unemployment in the Manawatū, the heroes who assisted in the floods in the Rangitīkei and Manawatū, the apprentices who graduated this year, the successes of the Universal College of Learning, the high-tech businesses that are working in defence, and the Army and Navy, which are doing things all over the world. By the time I am finished, we will all have to go home. Mrs King will not have a chance to speak of all the things that can be celebrated in her electorate. Mr Swain will be angry with me for taking all the time. Ms Chadwick will be demanding another day to celebrate Rotorua. That will be the mood of the great Labour Party at its conference on the North Shore of Auckland. This year it will celebrate the achievements of New Zealanders.

In that context, I return to Dr Don Brash and ask whether he would get a prize. In my view, the only prize he would get is that of the pupil least likely to succeed. Looking at Lynda Scott’s glum face across the House, I can see that she agrees. She is ready to return and take over the reins of leader when he goes away.

Having just heard that very self-congratulatory speech made by the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Mr Maharey, and his discussion of all the things that the Labour caucus will be celebrating this coming weekend, I hope that the Labour Party and its members will be looking quite deeply at the situation for one group of workers in this country and the people they try to serve—home-care workers and the many people they provide health-care and personal services for.

We live in a society in which everyone acknowledges the growing number of older people in our community and our increasing longevity. We also live in a time when, thankfully, much more focus is put on the rights of people with impairments to continue to live independently and in their own homes for as long as they can. However, there is a big gap between the hopes and expectations of older people and people with serious disabilities, and the reality of the workforce that cares for them in an effort to allow their fragile independence to continue. From the many letters, phone calls, and other messages that the Greens are currently receiving from around the country—as I am sure many members are—and from the inquiry currently being carried out by the Health Committee, it is clear that there is an emerging crisis in the provision of home-care services that must be dealt with as a matter of extreme urgency.

Rural Women New Zealand report that as of late September they have been turning away an average of 12 clients per day, and that other providers are in a similar position. In another example, five paraplegics from Burwood Hospital are unable to return to their home district in the Manawatū—the Minister Steve Maharey’s own area—because there are no carers to support them there. Some industry sources say that staff turnover can be as high as 90 percent, with an overall 40 percent turnover rate around the country. The Parent and Family Resource Centre warns of a looming meltdown at Christmas, and states that home-care workers are dangerously overworked, to the point where the health and safety of both caregivers and patients are dangerously compromised.

As the Minister Ruth Dyson mentioned earlier, one of the consequences of lower unemployment is that many workers are no longer happy to work as home carers. Is it any wonder when those staff, who in many cases receive the lowest of wages, are asked to undertake casual hours endlessly, and often have to pay their own transport time and petrol costs out of their already meagre pay packets, thus reducing their wages even further. Some staff are working from 10 to 14 days at a stretch. Many are expected to be available randomly and on demand, at as little as 30 minutes’ notice.

Both the positive ageing strategy and the New Zealand Disability Strategy have a strong focus on a vision of older people and people with impairments being able to live independently for as long as possible. The gap between the Government’s intentions and the reality for patients and caregivers has become a chasm. I do not entirely blame the Minister for that, as I recognise that the situation has been brewing for a long time. I also acknowledge that the Minister is working really hard with her advisers to try to address the issues. However, what I am most concerned about today, and why I am raising it here in the House this afternoon, is the need to engender a sense of urgency in the Government that the situation is already in crisis mode, with many people missing out on the care they need today, and that it is only going to get worse the closer we get to the holiday season, when even fewer staff will be available.

There are solutions to the problems around home carers. Some of them lie in what Ms Dyson talked about today—for example, more quality control and accountability from providers—but the blame cannot continue to be laid solely at their door. Government funding should reflect the actual costs of providing care, not just a price fixed randomly and vastly variably around the country. The training institution for caregivers, the Community Support Services ITO, should be enabled to provide its courses at no cost to either workers or employers. All home-care workers should be paid petrol costs and travel time between clients’ homes, not just those workers lucky enough to work for providers who make allowance for that. Government and district health boards should be working closely to ensure that in many more situations, providers are enabled to engage staff permanently for regular hours, rather than on an hour-by-hour, client-by-client basis.

All older New Zealanders and all people with impairments who are making a go of it in their own homes deserve a chance to receive the health and personal support they need. All the workers who provide their services deserve to be valued properly, not just through much improved wages and conditions but also by access to high-quality training. These issues must be addressed now, or we risk a crisis in the next few weeks and months that will become almost unmanageable.

The National Party has started to get that familiar stench about it again; there is no doubt about that. It had that kind of familiar stench when Bill English rolled Jenny Shipley. Do members remember that? A very, very bad smell started coming out from the National benches over there. Then it was there again when Don Brash rolled Bill English—the same familiar kind of smell wafting over from the benches of the National Opposition. And I tell members that they have it again now. We can smell it; it is coming over from that side of the House. Why is that? Well, primarily, those National members are just—plain and simple—hopeless. They are just absolutely hopeless and useless. They are hardly worthy of the name “Opposition”, with no policy and no leadership.

The speech last week from Don Brash would have been the worst speech from a leader that I have heard during the 14 years I have been in this House. It was probably—

💬 Darren Hughes: It was embarrassing.

Yes, that is right. It was the worst speech I have heard in this House from anyone in 14 years. It was embarrassing. It was embarrassing to the National Party as he stuttered, ummed and aahed his way through it. There was no conviction—he was like a possum in the headlights. But it was such a helpful speech for the Labour Government that he was given a standing ovation by its members. I have never seen that in my 14 years.

There is no policy from the National Party—except that lunchtime will be gone by lunchtime. That is the only thing we have heard. As my colleague Steve Maharey said, some of the things Dr Brash said last year in November 2003 were: “We are going to develop policy—um aah, um aah—we are going to say, um aah, what it is.” That is what he said, except that in September this year, he said: “The likelihood is that we, um aah, won’t do any other major speeches on things like, um aah, social welfare reform, education, and so on, until the beginning of next year.” So instead of coming at the electorate and telling us clearly what National is standing for, and instead of doing now what he said he would do last year, everyone will have to wait until next year.

The National Party is irrelevant. In the words of Kath and Kim, it is “so 5 minutes ago”. That is the truth about the National Party. But what about comparing it to the Labour-led Government? We are going into the Labour Party conference with great things to tell those supportive delegates at that conference. We will be telling them things such as in the last 5 years economic growth has been running at about 3.5 to 4 percent, which is absolutely unheard of. The OECD average is 2.4 percent, and we have 3.5 to 4 percent. We will be saying to delegates—and they will know this—that under this Labour-led Government, for the first time in New Zealand, there are now 2 million workers in New Zealand, which is 236,000 more since this Government was elected in 1999.

We will tell delegates staggering facts, like the fact that the unemployment rate in New Zealand is down almost to a 20-year low of 4 percent. But members should listen to this, because they will not believe their ears when they hear it. Under the policies of this Labour-led Government, Māori unemployment is down from 18.2 percent in 1999 to 8.8 percent, and falling. Labour delegates from all around the country will hear, for example, that the growth rate in Northland is 5.1 percent, Auckland 4.1 percent, Bay of Plenty 5.3 percent, Gisborne 3.6 percent, Waikato 4.6 percent, and down in the South Island, Otago 5.5 percent, Southland 5.1 percent, and—members should listen to this—the growth rate on the West Coast is 5.6 percent, under this Labour-led Government. Under the previous National Government, the regions were cast adrift. There was nothing happening in the regions. This is the kind of fabulous information that delegates will get.

We will tell the delegates to the Labour conference at the weekend about some of the great things that have happened under this Labour-led Government. We will tell them about the fact that we have reinstituted apprenticeships. They were “gone-burgers” under the National Government; the apprenticeship system was absolutely history. But now my colleague Steve Maharey says that we will have 8,000 or so modern apprentices by 2006. The Labour Party has great things to say; the National Party is totally and utterly irrelevant.

Today I have good news and bad news about the foreshore and seabed. The good news is that the 99 percent of New Zealanders who will go to the beach this summer can be safe and secure in the knowledge that they own it and will own it forever. The bad news is for the doom merchants and mischief-makers, the alarmists and extremists, and the unhappy band of the bemused and bewildered, to my right and to my left. It does not matter whether people are going to the beach for a barbeque or a boil-up, for sausages and eggs, or pork and pūhā, the Crown will own the foreshore on their behalf for ever and ever. This was an issue that should have united Parliament to act in the interests of all New Zealanders. It was a chance for MPs to show the people who elected them that they could put aside their prejudices and act in the common good. Is that really too much to have asked for or hoped for? As members know, New Zealand First has an enviable record for fixing things, and this foreshore and seabed issue is going to be fixed—and fixed next week. Can we fix it?

💬 Hon Members: Yes, we can!

That is what we are going to do—all next week. The beach will not, cannot, and will never be sold to a bunch of foreigners—full stop! Port companies will certainly get security and certainty of tenure. We are confident that they will be happy with the outcome we have secured for them.

Customary rights will be protected. Māori have nothing to fear, and anyone who says otherwise is simply making mischief. The only people who will miss out will be the stirrers and the radicals, and the shroud-wavers and prejudice pedlars in the National Party and ACT. National has apparently agreed with the concept of customary rights. Its minority report says so. National agrees with the concept of customary rights, but in its case it will be more like its last rites. This is just another signal, another piece of evidence, of National’s weak and confused leadership.

There was a time when the National Party used to act in the national interest. Now it is little more than a puppet for the interest groups that prop it up, and it cannot even do that very well. For the past few weeks and months we have been subjected to the wildest nonsense about the foreshore and seabed—nonsense peddled by people with a vested interest. It is time to set the record straight. It is time for some straight talking and for some common sense. Watch my lips: New Zealanders will own the foreshore and seabed for ever and ever and there will be free access for everyone.

While others tried to make political gain out of this issue, we worked towards a constructive approach and one law for all. Those who have played politics at the current stage and all stages of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, including the select committee, have lost the chance to act in the interests of all New Zealanders. There have been no special deals. There is one law for everybody. Some talk and some act.

Today we celebrate and commemorate the return of a soldier who died in Europe 88 years ago. All such soldiers gave their lives or fought for one country and one law for everybody, whether they were Māori or European, in both of those wars. I cannot imagine anyone at the Battle of Monte Cassino thinking that, as a Māori, he was somehow fighting for exclusive rights for his people back in New Zealand. They never thought that way then, and we in New Zealand First do not think that way now. I am proud to announce that what we in New Zealand First set out to do with this legislation was fix it up, correct it, and make sure it became the law of this country.

A number of speakers this afternoon have been keen to tell the House about the Labour Party’s annual conference, which is being held on the North Shore this coming weekend. I am not surprised that they are keen to share that news with the House, because it will be a great conference. We have a great story to tell. The Labour Party is providing strong, stable leadership for New Zealand. We are providing opportunities for all, fairness and security through policies like the Working for Families package, fairer employment laws, and quality education for all. People are able to access affordable health-care, and more New Zealanders are in work than ever before. It is a real good-news story that we have to tell.

Of course, the people at the conference will be debating Labour Party policy. We have reams of policy to debate. The Labour Party has policy on all the important issues of the day. I ask members to contrast that with the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about policy at the end of 2003 and earlier this year. In November 2003 Dr Don Brash said: “We’re going to develop policy. We’re going to say what it is.” New Zealanders waited with bated breath. What did they get? In January 2004 Dr Brash said: “Over the next few months I plan to give a major speech on each of my five main priorities.” In July 2004 Dr Brash said we would increasingly see major policies being rolled out. We are still waiting.

Dr Brash tells us now that he has abandoned plans to deliver five king-hit speeches this year on his five priority policy areas. In September 2004 he said: “The likelihood is that we won’t make any other major speeches on things like social welfare reform, education, and so on until the beginning of next year.” This is the dynamic policy development he talked about. Again, he said that he and his advisers had decided to hold fire until next year. So we are not going to get those major policy announcements on areas so important to New Zealand, except—and this is another flip-flop—that after having decided to hold fire on policy, Dr Brash announced National’s policy on Kyoto a few weeks ago. He said that National’s policy would be to follow the United States and Australia. Goodness, gracious me! Is that not wonderful? Where the United States and Australia go, we will go, according to Dr Brash. That is the extent of National’s policy development. What a pitiful example it is! Of course, it is in total contrast to the Labour Party, which has a lot to talk about on policy in terms of major achievements and where we go from here.

I want to talk a bit about fairness and security for all, which is a major Labour Party policy, and I want to talk about what we have done. We have made holiday provisions fairer for all workers in New Zealand. We have given time and a half for work on public holidays, and 4 weeks’ annual leave will come into effect from 2007. Something I am really proud of is that we have increased the minimum wage for workers five times in 5 years, after it stagnated totally for 9 years under the previous Government.

We passed the Employment Relations Amendment Act to strengthen the Employment Relations Act’s key objectives of promoting good-faith collective bargaining and effective resolution of employment relationship problems, and we have a brilliant industrial relations record. All the doom and gloom that was forecast when the employment law came in under this Government has been proved to be totally wrong. We have had great industrial relations—fewer strikes, fewer stoppages—and things are really going well. We passed the Companies Amendment Act and the Insolvency Amendment Act, which give workers more protection when a business fails—none was offered to them by the previous Government—and we have set up a task force on pay and employment equity, which will be really good for New Zealand.

It is little wonder that we have a generation of illiterate young New Zealanders if that member used to be the president of the primary teachers’ union.

I would like the House to spend some time today looking at what is being proposed in the Government’s constitutional review, which is just a smokescreen for a Government desperate to look as though it has some new ideas and a new agenda. I will tell the House what the agenda is: Helen Clark wants to sack the Queen. It is as basic as that. It is worse, though. If that happens—this secret agenda of this Government’s review—I say to the House that we do not want people like Helen Clark as president of this country. We do not want someone with a separatist agenda as the president or the leader of this country. We do not want someone who commits art fraud as the president of this country; nor do we want someone who is happy to travel in a motorcade at extraordinary speeds to make a rugby game she really does not want to go to, and then who drops the police into the whole issue.

The fact is that the constitutional review is a smokescreen. When one goes to any part of this country and says that the most pressing issue for the Prime Minister is a constitutional review, the people wonder why the Prime Minister is not concentrating on important issues for all New Zealanders.

Mrs Duncan touched on one when she talked about fairness and security for all New Zealanders. Today in the Law and Order Committee the Commissioner of Police raised a question that I asked in this House in October. I asked whether a woman has to be screaming when she dials 111 in order for the police to come to protect her rather than to send a taxi. The Police Commissioner told the Law and Order Committee that it helps to scream.

💬 Simon Power: What?

On the issue of 111 the Police Commissioner told the committee: “It helps if you scream.” That says a lot about where this Government has the New Zealand Police—completely strung out like a rubber band, with no resources to provide a decent 111 service. The Police Commissioner even tells people that it helps to scream.

I do not think that it would have helped my constituent Mrs Bentley if she had screamed. She was on a 111 call while hiding in the bushes from the men who were undertaking a home invasion, where they bashed her husband and her nephew who was visiting from Scandinavia. But under this Government, when someone dials 111 it helps to scream. I wonder whether we will hear any explanation of that from a member of the Government.

We were also surprised to hear that the review of the 111 system will be all about how the calls are handled at the call centre, but not about the outcomes of those calls. There does not appear to be any commitment by the Government to ensure that rural New Zealanders’ concerns with the 111 system are being dealt with.

There was also bad news at the select committee today for the people of Rotorua. For the last 4 years Rotorua has had a relentless increase in crime. Rotorua is now the most crime-infested city in New Zealand short of downtown Auckland and downtown Christchurch, according to official figures made available by the Minister of Police in this Labour Government. The number of front-line police in Rotorua has been progressively cut since 1999, and there are now more burglaries, car crimes, crimes of violence, drugs, and increases in overall crime in Rotorua than existed 5 years ago, and that is on a per head of population basis.

So I asked the Commissioner of Police—and I would be the first member of Parliament from the Bay of Plenty to do so—“What about extra police for the people of Rotorua?” We know that Mrs Chadwick does not support that position, because she says that unless the police tell her they need more police, she is not prepared to fight for them. The fact is that there is more crime, more burglary, and more violence on a per head of population basis in Rotorua—but the Police Commissioner says: “No more police in Rotorua.”

I rise to speak on behalf of this very successful Labour Government, and I am very proud that we have done so much for the people of New Zealand. I want to talk about the quality education and opportunities that this Government has provided for all New Zealanders. This afternoon we have heard about the scholarship that this Government has started this year for level 4 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. That shows the commitment that we have to providing quality education and promoting merit among students.

Let me recount some of the commitments and achievements that we have made in this Government. In the 2004 Budget, we have committed an extra $2 billion overall towards education for the next 4 years. That brings the total commitment to over $9.2 billion by 2007-08. In early childhood education we have committed $365 million to be spent over the next 4 years. That is certainly a landmark. From 1 July 2007, 3 and 4-year-olds will be entitled to 20 hours’ free education per week, and that is a great achievement by this Government. The Budget also provides $1 million over the next 4 years for the implementation of the national professional standards for kindergarten teachers, head teachers, and senior teachers, as agreed between the Government and the New Zealand Educational Institute.

In the area of compulsory education, funding has increased by 3 percent for base funding and per pupil funding, and has increased by 2.75 percent for most other operational funding components, in excess of Treasury’s inflation forecast for 2005. Since 1999, we have increased overall school operational funding per pupil by an average of over 10 percent in real terms. Schools are now receiving over $85 million more in real terms than they were in 1999. That equates to an extra $82 for every pupil in the country, after accounting for inflation and real growth.

In terms of teachers, the Budget provides an extra $37.86 million over 4 years to provide English for speakers of other languages for schools. That includes more resources for principals, improved support material for teachers and students, and intensive revision for high-needs students in the English for speakers of other languages programme. We have extended the laptops for teachers scheme to more primary teachers. We have committed an additional $12 million to allow 7,000 primary school teachers, of years 4 to 6 in about 2,300 schools, to become eligible for that scheme. In addition, 400 primary school teachers of years 1 to 6 at area schools in rural areas have been added to the scheme. Since 1999 we have put more than 2,000 extra teachers into classrooms, over and above the number of extra teachers required for real growth. From 2005 we will put an extra 460 teachers into other schools; again, over and above the number required for real growth.

In terms of school property, the remaining 400 schools have joined the 5-year property programme, as well. Between them, they are to receive $100 million in funding to upgrade and modernise existing school buildings.

This afternoon I want to talk about hospital waiting lists. It falls upon me as an Opposition spokesperson on health to talk about hospital waiting lists because the Government does not want to, and it does not want to for a very good reason. Today there was a question about the first specialist assessment. That is the assessment that we have after our general practitioner refers us for further treatment. We have an assessment, and the specialist then tells us whether we qualify for surgery or further treatment. In the House at question time today the Minister of Health finally confessed—after months of my asking her this question—that there are now 110,879 people waiting for their first specialist assessment. That figure applies from the end of August 2004, so it is up to date.

So the question is whether this is a serious matter. The Minister of Health says that it is not. She says: “Oh, the figures, when we compare them, don’t tally up. They were not the same.” But in a press report in 1998, the then Labour health spokesperson, Annette King—now Minister of Health—commented on a Health Funding Authority report showing that 96,000 patients were waiting for their first assessment. Annette King said that the situation was “criminal”. She did not say that it was bad, or of concern, or worrying—no! She said that 96,000 patients waiting for a first assessment was “criminal”. Yet today, over 110,000 patients are waiting for that first assessment and, suddenly, it is not criminal any longer. In her 1998 press report she warned that people would be dying while they waited to have their first assessment. She blamed the previous National Government, but today—when her figures are much worse—they are not considered “criminal”. She does not seem concerned that people could be dying while they are on that very same waiting list, which now has 14,000 more patients on it, waiting.

The Minister’s only answer is that the list is now somehow different. Well, it is not. She was happy to comment on a list that was 96,000 long then. She did not make any complaint that the figure was wrong in 1998 when she was in Opposition, but suddenly today the figure is no longer accurate. In fact, today she said that it cannot be relied upon. The 96,000 might not have even been at that point; it might have been lower.

She also said in her defence that 22,000 of those people—only 22,000—had been waiting for more than 6 months, as if that were good news. I challenge her to ask any one of those 22,000 people who have been waiting longer than 6 months for a first specialist assessment, whether they think that is good news. I doubt it. Some of those people will be at the Labour Party conference this weekend. They will be sitting there with their osteoarthritis, waiting on the hip replacement that some people, I am told, have been waiting now for 4 years, and they will not want to hear the Minister of Health bluff and bluster. They will want to know why they have been waiting so long, and why they are not getting the treatment that she claims she is getting to people faster, and why the lists are longer now than they were when she was in Opposition and was so critical of them.

So the comments that Annette King made in 1998, when in Opposition, were about first specialist appointment waiting lists, which were lower then than they are today. She said in the same press report that these 96,000 patients were the “hidden waiting list”; and that is exactly what they are today. We never hear the Minister of Health talking about the first specialist assessment wait. We hear that waiting times have come down. Well, we are looking at a tiny portion of a very big list of patients who are waiting, most of whom are hidden away from public view and who have no idea how long it is going to take them to be seen. This Minister of Health and this Government need to be held accountable for the fact that there are now more people on this list, 5 years down the track, than there were in 1998.

Then we move on to a press report in July 1999 from that same Labour spokesperson on health. She said that 110,000 patients were still waiting for their first specialist assessment.

We have heard about the five big issues from our colleagues today on this side of the House with some degree of pride. I just want to make a point of clarification for the House, in answer to Tony Ryall on law and order, and security in people’s homes, as I am the member for Rotorua. Crime is at an all-time low in this country, the lowest since 1982, but the figure for my district is not good enough. I give the assurance to the House that I am working on a daily basis to improve that figure with the Minister of Police, and already there has been a response of two extra police coming into Rotorua to help us work together to get our crime rates to the same level of successful resolution as the rest of the country. Law and order is one of the issues. We have heard about Working for Families, we have heard about the booming economic success, unemployment levels, and labour relations, but I will talk directly on health.

Health is one of the big issues for us in Government, and Dr Brash, as the Leader of the Opposition, ditched Linda Scott, who knew all about health. I am sure she tried to make health one of the five big issues for National, and I congratulate the member on that. But what happened as a result of that? Dr Scott, who was the one who knew about health, lost her role as Opposition spokesperson on health, and Judith Collins was given that role. She has to be coached by the two doctors in the National team, and the whole of the country knows that. Health is still not one of the big ticket items for the Opposition as it goes into election next year, and that is a disgrace. It shows incredibly weak leadership from the Leader of the Opposition.

Health to us is a biggie. Now, 3.7 million New Zealanders are enrolled in 77 primary health organisations around the country. We are fighting disease with the successful roll-out of the meningococcal vaccine. We are putting interventions in place when they are needed. In answer to Heather Roy, the health spokesperson for ACT, I point out that we have doubled the number of surgical operations for people needing knee and hip surgery, and that is because we listened to the community. We did review the waiting times, and there is now a much more transparent and robust system. We acted on it. What is more, we are making access to health more affordable for New Zealanders, and 2 million New Zealanders are now really enjoying being able to go to their doctor and their health practitioner more cheaply.

What else are we doing? I want to talk today about accident compensation. We brought in the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights in 2003. We put $35.5 million into accident compensation to boost treatment for injuries, and we are bringing in a new accident compensation bill that looks at treatment of injuries. I have to say that senior medical specialists have said that this new legislation provides an environment in which doctors can discuss mistakes without fear of recrimination, which ultimately insures against further misadventures. That is a good Government.

That brings me to the current position of National’s health spokesperson on the Care of Children Bill. Her position on that bill showed me everything about her complete lack of understanding and ignorance on how doctors work in this environment. She failed to listen to entreaties from the medical professionals themselves, who understand, are caring and practical, understand about a code of ethics that drives their practice, and understand about a code of conduct. It is so naive to have a health spokesperson who undermines that very position of trust and the valuing of clinicians that we in this Government are working so determinedly on in order to make the health environment more open, more transparent, and less vulnerable to mistakes.

I am amazed by the action of Judith Collins, with her two amendments, and as she spoke during the debate she squawked away. Fancy saying that doctors cannot make a clinical assessment about a young girl’s condition without involving that girl’s parents! These are the most vulnerable women in our society—the most vulnerable. How undermining and demeaning it is for doctors to hear the Opposition spokesperson on health say that they do not care and they do not know what they are doing.

The arrival of the Unknown Warrior, who lies state in the Legislative Council Chamber, is an opportunity to reflect on the values that New Zealanders espouse. Most of us think little about these issues, but I would say that the hallmarks of being a New Zealander include a commitment to tradition—both Māori and non-Māori share that value—a ruggedness and a self-reliance that characterise the settler tradition, a belief in law and order, a commitment to the family, and, in the wider context, a commitment to friends and comrades.

The present Government simply does not support those values, and that is manifested in so many ways. It is seen in the pursuit of the social engineering agenda, which the Government pursues relentlessly. The change is insidious. A good analogy is the fate of the frog: when it is dropped into boiling water it hops out, substantially unscarred; when it is dropped into cold water and the water is then brought to the boil, the frog is boiled alive. That is why these changed processes of the Government are so insidious.

Social change is all around us. It is to be seen in the legalisation of prostitution, which has removed the criminal sanction from that activity. It is to be seen in the steps that the Government has taken to advance the course of republicanism, and I echo the statements that Tony Ryall made on behalf of National in that regard. There are a lot of indicators of that social change. There is the decision to stop appeals to the Privy Council, when around the world countries are looking outside their jurisdictional boundaries to resolve disputes. It is seen in the degrading of the honours system. It is seen in the decision, for no good reason, that Queen’s Counsel should be renamed Senior Counsel.

That is really only where it starts, because in the context of the family, the Care of Children Bill moves the focus away from parental rights and responsibilities to a wider group of caregivers who may have the most fleeting relationship with the child in their care. It seems the Government is determined to pass the Civil Union Bill, which will provide State sanction for same-sex couples. It will allow people in marriages to reassemble their relationship as a civil union, and it will mean that the responsibilities of married couples will be invested in de facto couples, when de facto couples have deliberately opted out of the more formal structure of marriage.

We need to reflect on whether our traditions, which are very much part of the New Zealand heritage, are being advanced by the present social agenda. I think they are not, and I would ask some questions, which would include the following. Who really believes that the police should send taxis in response to 111 calls? Who really believes that it is not justified to take the life of an intending killer who enters a farm house? Who really believes that a criminal should be compensated for his or her experience in jail? Who really believes that the problems of a mother on the domestic purposes benefit are solved by having more children to serial partners? National does not. We stand against that.

In most cases, those who went to war and did not return left mourning families behind: wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and parents. They died for a cause that reflected the traditional values that I have referred to. Whether they volunteered for reasons relating to the enthusiasm of youth, or the duty of service, they were, on any view of it, warrior figures, who were prepared to commit their lives to the cause they believed in. I assert that the values of society over long time frames have an immutable quality, and that that quality is worthy both of nurture and of maintenance. If we salute the Unknown Warrior we must also commit to perpetuate the values that that warrior stood for, and that our society should unstintingly support. That is where National is.

I want to talk today about the issue of YouthLaw, and the question I brought up in the House yesterday with the Minister of Justice, in which I asked about a couple of issues. One of them was quite easy to deal with and had to do with the fact that tax dollars were being funnelled through his Government to fund YouthLaw, a website that deals primarily with how to get around the law if one is caught on various kinds of infractions. I have had a very close look at that website and, although a lot of the information on it is actually very good, there is a tone in the information being disseminated that effectively gives tips on how to circumvent the law.

My initial question about the financial side was fairly easily addressed. There is a money trail, which we sort of followed, and the responses to written questions from the Minister of Justice himself are that YouthLaw is being funded on a 3-year contract by the Legal Services Agency to the tune of $1.19 million. According to the website, the Legal Services Agency is a Government-funded agency responsible for promoting access to justice for all New Zealanders. Answers to written questions from the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) reveal that YouthLaw has also received $114,000 from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services since 1994-95. So there is a link between taxpayers’ money and what is going on in YouthLaw. For the most part, I have no objection to that. It is the tenor of some aspects of what the YouthLaw website is dealing with that I have a major problem with, because there is a fine line between letting young people know their rights, quite legitimately so, and giving them advice on how to avoid being convicted. It is a distinction that is blurred by the information provided by YouthLaw on its website in certain very critical aspects.

The first thing to note is that the section on drugs, for example, is accompanied by a graphic of a young man taking a hit from a glass P pipe, which hardly gives the impression that dispassionate advice is on offer. It is almost a cartoon. But the site does give advice under the various segments, which I think go round, or skirt, what I would call dispassionate advice. I have a few examples, one of which is: “If you are found drunk in public, or really out of it as a result of drugs, then the police will not take you home if you tell them not to.” Another example: “If you are under 17, then it is possible, but unlikely, that you will go to prison for dealing drugs.” Are those really the messages we want to send to youths? Do we want to tell them the minimum they can expect, or do we want to tell them the maximum the law allows? Another example is: “It is not considered dealing to give Class C drugs to someone aged 18 or over, only to sell them.” Basically, what this is saying is: “If you are caught in an environment where you are selling the drug, tell your mates very quickly to put their money away. Say you’re giving the drugs, and you won’t be charged with these offences.” It is a tone—a tip, if you like—in the way YouthLaw is trying to exhibit examples of the law, effectively giving youths an idea of how to circumvent it. For further legal advice on drugs, for example, the website directs young people to NORML New Zealand, a lobby group for the legalisation of cannabis.

Either this Government is interested in doing something about drugs or it is not. It cannot have it both ways. A lot of progress is being made with the drug P. There have been increases in drug busts, and so on. Of course, one of the biggest problems we have had in terms of P—this is almost a side issue, but it is quite relevant at the moment—is that it took 7 years to change the classification, and now we want to introduce another classification for another group of drugs, party pills, and so on. We are talking here about the slippery slope of drug classification. What we need is a police-led approach that allows police to deal with the situation of drugs out in the public in an effective way and that allows them to have the final say.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.