General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today I want to talk about the fraud that this Government is imposing on the elderly. This Government cares more about aberration than superannuation. This Government is more concerned about extending human rights to transsexuals, transvestites, and cross-dressers than it is about the plight of the elderly.

💬 John Tamihere: Ha, ha!

That member over there can laugh, but this Government will see a State television newsreader get paid $15,000 a week while the elderly pensioner receives less than $250 a week. That is what this Government stands for. This Government cares more about gay couples than about normal couples, who are told to get by on $383 a week. This is a Government of deception.

The Government’s own figures—I have them right in front of me and I will table them at the end of my speech—show that the elderly are getting less than 65 percent of the average wage. That is the rate the Government promised them, but they are receiving less than they were promised. On occasions, it looks to me as if it is significantly less. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The elderly not only are being ripped off by superannuation payments but are facing serious anomalies over the rates for couples, if one of the couple is over 65. They are inflicted with long hospital waiting lists—far longer than ever before—and face soaring power, telephone, and petrol prices. And the Government is going to increase those petrol prices even further. Frankly, this Government does not look after elderly folk. It regards them as some kind of problem.

Who are the people we are talking about? Some of the people we are talking about fought for this country in the war. They were prepared to take up arms for the good of this country. They looked after their youngsters with far less assistance than is available nowadays. Those are the people we are talking about. I say to the Minister—and I see he is not in the House—that the elderly are not fools. They will not be taken for granted. They are more interested in trying to survive on the pittance being granted them by this Government than they are in helping cross-dressers and transvestites. I challenge any Government member to tell me how many elderly folk have come to him or her and said that they are concerned about cross-dressers. I bet they have come in their hundreds to Ministers and Government members, and asked: “What are you going to do about my power bill?”; “What can be done about petrol prices?”; “What can be done about ever-increasing power prices?”. Do Government members know how many of the 1,200 people who died last year on the hospital waiting list were elderly?

💬 Darren Hughes: People don’t die because they’re on a waiting list.

The member is being quite flippant about people on the waiting list. He should go out and talk to some to these elderly folk and hear their concerns about how they are treated in terms of the hospital waiting list. It is just a circus, quite frankly.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Wake up before you speak.

The member can talk! I challenge him to come with me and talk to some of these elderly folk. It is quite moving and emotional to see the situation they live in. The member opposite makes flippant remarks and is dismissive, but I say that the way in which this Government is applying assistance to the elderly is just a circus. It is an absolute disgrace. In some areas of the country elderly people are struggling to survive. If one goes down south in the middle of the winter, one is told that many of them do not get out of bed in the morning because of the cold and power prices.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: When have the members on that side done that? They pushed prices up to the max.

I am not asking what people on this side have done. I have been to Dunedin and spoken to some of the elderly folk, and I asked them directly about their problems. This Government should look at their situation and help them.

I seek leave to table information, as a result of a question to the Minister. It clearly shows that the elderly folk in this country are being undervalued.

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

Over the last week or 10 days there has been considerable comment about the value that our society places on parenting, and, in particular, on the contribution of parents who choose to base themselves at home for the express purpose of attending first-hand to the task of caring for their children. In a few short generations we have shifted dramatically in our assumptions, from the “breadwinner” model of family life to a place where that option is fast becoming what members of Cabinet have referred to as a luxury for those who can afford it. The catchphrase, or slogan, that voters are meant to draw comfort from is that “It’s all about choice.” The Government wants to set before New Zealand parents a veritable menu full of the great choices they can make about the arrangements they can have for the care of their children. It is a great choice, unless, of course, they stubbornly choose to do the job themselves, because that is not on the menu.

A Government does not create a climate of choice by loading the incentives in a particular direction. Providing childcare subsidies for those choosing to return to paid employment, with no reciprocal subsidy for those choosing to parent at home, creates an imbalance. Parents do not feel empowered by that system; they feel driven. When the odds are stacked favourably in one direction, choices with limited benefits—due to limited incentives—quickly become viewed as the responsible choices, particularly when children are involved.

This push by both the Government and the Opposition to improve workforce participation by both single-parent and two-parent families fails to understand what most parents actually aspire to. They want to be able to approach the parenting season in their life without feeling squeezed and constrained by inadequate income and by exhausting daily timetabling due to juggling work and family obligations that seem to work against each other, and without the guilt and anxiety associated with long hours of separation from their children. They want actually to enjoy this time, not merely survive it.

Sociologists are telling us that the new generation approaching parenthood is more conservative than the generation before, and included in this unique brand of conservatism are definite hopes and dreams about what they want parenthood to look like. They want to be more hands-on, and they are anxious about how they are going to be able to afford the brand of parenting that they aspire to. They are not comforted by the Government’s emphasis on increasing workforce participation, and they are terrified at the prospect of a National Party policy that would slam-dunk them if they fell on hard times as parents.

In an election year it would make sense that parties that want to woo these voters should be developing policies that made the choices about childcare arrangements a more level playing field. Telling these parents that they do not have to be anxious, because the Government is able to supply them with several international studies that say there is no advantage to their children in having the parents stay home, is cold comfort. Their parenting instincts tell them otherwise and they want to follow their hearts on this issue.

United Future is certainly attentive to their concerns and will be continuing to work so that the choices parents have are real and fair. The policies that we will be touting during this election will have little to do with dawn-to-dusk care in schools; we will be looking more at the kinds of aspirations and dreams that, particularly, our up-and-coming generation of parents are looking for.

One thing that has become clear since the House met last week for the first time this year, and in subsequent question times since then, is that the Prime Minister is very, very unhappy. She is very unhappy about the level of competency in her Cabinet.

National members had a major dilemma at our procedures meeting this morning. We were absolutely spoilt for choice. Our party was struggling with all the material this Government has provided to us in question time since this House met for the first time this year—and what a smorgasbord it is!

George Hawkins has become a joke. New Zealand now has two screenings of The Simpsons every day: one at 7 o’clock on TV3, and one at 2 o’clock at question time when George Hawkins gets to his feet. He is only in Cabinet because a Labour Party caucus faction is keeping him there. That is the only reason. I have noticed how busy Ministers are around George Hawkins when he has to answer a question. Suddenly, very important papers need to be looked at when George Hawkins is on his feet. Even his bench mate, Paul Swain, has given up chirpily sticking his head above his desk and saying: “That’s right, Minister. That’s right.” Now, even Paul Swain is looking for papers to mark and signatures to apply, to avoid being associated with George Hawkins. The Prime Minister finds her invisible lemon to suck on every time George Hawkins gets to his feet.

As I said yesterday, Ministers know they are in trouble when Michael Cullen asks them two supplementary questions in the House. That means they are in serious trouble, and George Hawkins is on the ropes and in serious trouble. This morning on radio, George Hawkins’ own police commissioner distanced himself from that hapless Minister. The Prime Minister will hang George Hawkins out to dry. That is my prediction, and I will tell the House why. It is because the Prime Minister does not want George Hawkins in Cabinet. If it were up to the Prime Minister, George Hawkins would be out of that Cabinet, but a small group of the Labour Party caucus is keeping him there. My prediction is that the Prime Minister will hang him out to dry, to show that faction in the Labour Party that she gets what she wants in the end.

It is not so for David Benson-Pope.

💬 Hon David Carter: The next Prime Minister!

He was the Prime Minister’s choice to be brought into Cabinet and to be made Minister for schools. In fact, rumours reliably come to the whips’ ears that she sees Mr Benson-Pope as her successor in the leader’s role of the Labour Party. I say to members opposite: “Good luck with that.”, because if it ever occurs, by gee, we really will have the most unpopular Labour leader this country has ever seen. That has to rankle with Harry Duynhoven, and Damien O’Connor and Clayton Cosgrove have to be sitting in that block of seats, asking: “Why is it that David Benson-Pope got promoted?”. But this time, there is no “hanging him out to dry” because the Prime Minister’s fingerprints are all over his promotion. John Tamihere knows it. Janet Mackey knows it.

This man, David Benson-Pope, who has already messed up scholarship exams and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, is the Prime Minister’s choice and she will have to wear some of the responsibility. In fact, she alone is responsible for his elevation. The sad thing about all of this, of course, is that backbench Labour MPs are just loving it. They love watching David Benson-Pope being put on the rack every day in question time. My prediction is that David Benson-Pope’s failure will be the Prime Minister’s failure.

Poor old Mark Burton. Just when he thought things were coming right, it has all gone to custard with the Auditor-General’s report. All he ever wanted was the Speaker’s Chair.

Richard Long went into Don Brash’s office and said: “Don, I’ve got a cunning plan.”, and off Dr Brash went to put that cunning plan into action. Judith Collins believes that that cunning plan was successful, because sacking Katherine Rich got Helen Clark off the front page. That is what Judith Collins has been saying around the place. It worked. It got Helen Clark off the front page.

If that was the strategy, I say: “Well done!”, to the Long-McCully strategy team. It was a very, very cunning plan. They will be hoping for a very, very early election, because if their strategy is to sack National’s competent spokespersons in order to raise the party’s media profile, Dr Brash is in trouble because he does not have very many left. If we include his entire caucus, rather than just the competent one or two, and if he sacked one member a week, he would still be in trouble by the middle of August. Frankly, he would run out of colleagues to sack.

According to an increasing number of the National Party caucus, perhaps the sackings should start at the top. It is time for Dr Brash to face up to the fact that he has been a total failure as a leader. He is desperate, he is indecisive, and he is divisive. He does not know what to do, and he certainly does not know how to do it.

Brian Connell—who, apparently, is a National member of Parliament—almost got it right when he said that the decision to dump Katherine Rich was stupid. But frankly, it was more than stupid. It was just plain nasty. Simon Power got dumped, and he stayed on the front bench. Bill English got dumped, and he stayed on the front bench. Nick Smith got dumped, and he is on the front bench. Georgina te Heuheu got sacked, and she is on the back bench. Lynda Scott got dumped, and she is on the back bench. And then, out completely. Katherine Rich got sacked, and she is off the front bench. What is the difference?

What is the problem with women in the National Party? When Dr Brash was asked directly, on Nine to Noon, whether he had a problem with women, he said: “Ah, ah, I don’t believe that’s the case.” Then he was asked whether he was out of touch with women voters, and he said, in his usual decisive way: “Ah, I don’t believe so.” Then he enlightened us all by adding: “Well, Georgina certainly is a woman, and Katherine is as well.” Frankly, I say to Dr Brash that we had already noticed, and we have noticed his treatment of them.

The National Party historian, Barry Gustafson, said in the paper recently: “You had four prominent women I thought you could take to the next election, but it’s a bit like bottles on the wall and you’re down to your last bottle.” I do not think anyone in the House could have put it better than a Southland Times article that stated: “Replacing Mrs Rich with Ms Collins is hardly a case of taking an opportunity to trade up.” It was a big mistake—yet another on Dr Brash’s long list.

There is no more fundamental duty of a Government than the security of the nation. There is no more fundamental duty of a Government than the security of citizens in their own homes, in their places of work, and on the streets and byways of our country. The Helen Clark Government has completely failed in its management, administration, and vision of the protection of the people in New Zealand.

If Helen Clark were serious about defence, and if she were serious about law and order, she would not have her two most useless Ministers in charge of those portfolios. On the one hand, we have Mark Burton, who oversaw the purchase of 105 LAVIIIs, which, as the Auditor-General quite rightly found, we do not know what they will be used for. We do not know how we are going to man them. Contrary to the Minister’s arguments, we have not properly budgeted for their maintenance and operation.

The Minister was advised by his Chief of Defence Force to buy only 50 LAVIIIs. Who has ever heard of a Minister saying to his staff: “I will double what you want.”? The Chief of Defence Force pointed out these problems, just as the New Zealand First Party did, just as the National Party did, and just as the ACT party did, before the purchase. But Mark Burton knew better. So the taxpayer has been saddled with a $653 million capital purchase, as well as the ongoing costs, and the army is saddled with it. What was the trade-off? We have no combat air wing, and our air force has broken down. That is the state of our national security.

Let us consider our homeland security. I look around this House, and I see people of varying abilities and qualities, but I think that any member of this House picked at random—

💬 Simon Power: Paul Adams.

Any member picked at random—Paul Adams, or even David Parker—and put in the seat of the Minister of Police would do a better job. Why? Because they could not be as stupid as George Hawkins has proved to be. They could not prove to be more of a disgrace than George Hawkins has proved to be. They could not be more out of touch than George Hawkins has proved to be.

💬 Jill Pettis: 1.6 percent and falling.

We hear from Jill Pettis. She is a good example. I want her to support the Minister of Police in what he told this House yesterday in answer to a question. The Minister told the House and the people of New Zealand that the women of New Zealand are more worried about a speeding car than they are about being attacked in their homes. Does Jill Pettis agree with that? Oh, suddenly Jill Pettis is busy. She is very quiet. What about Lynne Pillay? Does she agree with that statement by the Minister of Police?

💬 Lynne Pillay: 1.6 percent and falling.

She does not agree with the Minister of Police. George Hawkins is so incompetent that he said: “That is what the poll shows.” Let us look at what the poll shows. This was a poll in—

💬 Jill Pettis: That is what the poll shows—1.6 percent.

Jill Pettis has a lot to say during everyone else’s speeches, so I will give her an opportunity. I ask Ms Pettis whether she agrees with the Minister of Police, George Hawkins, that women in New Zealand are more worried about a speeding car than being attacked in their homes.

💬 Jill Pettis: 1.6 percent and falling.

All she can say is that the great ACT party is on 1.6 percent. That is all she can come up with. Let us talk about a poll—the poll George Hawkins cited. The question had nothing to do with speeding. The question was about whether women were more worried about being sexually assaulted or raped than about being in a traffic accident—an accident caused not by speeding but by a drunk driver—and still the women said they were more worried about being sexually assaulted. George Hawkins is a disgrace and a liar.

Dr Brash was appointed to his position by a desperate National Party a little over a year ago, by a caucus that was reeling under the leadership of Bill English. At that time we and the rest of New Zealand—and, indeed, most of the press gallery—wondered: “If Dr Brash is the answer, what was the question?”. I have reflected on that. I have asked myself whether the question was: “Is it a man’s world? Are women adequately represented in National?”. I look at National and see that it has no women on the front bench, and only six in total. Let us look at them: Georgina te Heuheu was dumped, Lynda Scott was dumped, and Katherine Rich was dumped.

Dr Brash has advanced only one woman: Ms Collins, who, like Dr Brash, is a right-wing ideologue. Before Ms Collins came here to Parliament, what did she do? She was chairperson of the Casino Control Authority and chairperson of Housing New Zealand, appointed by National to continue its sell-down of State housing. Last year we saw her elevated to the shadow health portfolio. What else did we see? We saw her trying to wind back the right of young women to access abortions. What is Dr Brash’s response to criticism about the lack of women in his team? He says that he will not give in to political correctness. I say that allowing women to take their rightful place in Parliament and to take leading roles is not about political correctness. Next Dr Brash will be saying that it is PC to give women the vote. The conduct of Dr Brash in relation to women’s rights really is outrageous.

If Dr Brash is the answer, what was the question? Could it have been that he was appointed to unite the various factions within National? Clearly he was not. I am from the South Island. Let us look at National’s members from the South Island. David Carter was dumped as soon as Dr Brash arrived. Bill English was dumped by Dr Brash. Nick Smith was dumped by Dr Brash. Lynda Scott was dumped by Dr Brash. Katherine Rich was dumped by Dr Brash. Who is left? Only one person from the South Island is left: Gerry Brownlee. Dr Brash certainly does not have his caucus under control.

If Dr Brash is the answer, what was the question? Well, does New Zealand need to have a right-wing ideologue running the country? Let us look at that. Since 1999 we have had 100,000 fewer people on welfare, 200,000 extra people in jobs, the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD, one of the highest rates of growth in the OECD—higher than Australia’s; we are doing better than Australia at present—and five increases in the minimum wage. In contrast, what does Dr Brash stand for? He stands for austerity, for higher interest rates, and for higher unemployment, which he favours so as to suppress wages and inflation—inflation being his great fixation. If Dr Brash is the answer, what was the question? It certainly was not about New Zealand wanting right-wing ideology. We see that in the polls. As Colin James says, since March 2004 National has dropped in a straight trajectory from 45 percent to 33 percent in the polls.

If Dr Brash is the answer, what was the question? I will tell the House what the question was. It was whether Don Brash could do a worse job than Bill English. That was the question the National Party caucus asked. The answer, to the surprise of them all, was “Yes”.

What does David Parker have in common with Jill Pettis? They will both lose their seats at the hands of the electors at the next election. What do Dover Samuels, Lianne Dalziel, Ruth Dyson, Marian Hobbs, Phillida Bunkle, John Tamihere, George Hawkins, Mark Burton, and David Benson-Pope have in common? They are all casualties, or are about to be casualties, of Helen Clark as she continues to reshuffle the deckchairs on her Titanic. The cracks are getting harder and harder to plaster over, and Helen Clark’s casualty list is getting bigger and bigger. We are only in the second week of Parliament this year, and we see Ministers floundering through question time day after day.

We see the incompetence of George Hawkins. Have we ever before seen a Minister on his feet embarrass not only his Labour Party colleagues but also every other member in the House? George Hawkins is only in the police portfolio because the self-proclaimed popular and competent Prime Minister could not bring herself, in her reshuffle last year, to do what she knew had to be done. So we get George Hawkins standing there day after day, trying to explain the failings of the 111 system. Someone phones the 111 system and the police dispatch a taxi. Someone phones the 111 system and the police are unable to get there, because they have highway patrols out collecting revenue with their speed cameras. And George Hawkins cannot explain it. He gets up in the House and suggests, stupidly, that women are more concerned about speeding motorists than they are about being raped in their own homes. Today he tried to explain why the number of infringement notices has doubled in the last 4 years—why the amount of revenue the Government is grabbing from offending motorists has doubled over the last 4 years. We in this House all know that the level of serious crime continues to increase, yet the incompetent George Hawkins still, as of today, holds his ministerial warrant.

Then we have Mark Burton, the Minister of Defence, who unilaterally decided to buy an additional 55 LAVIIIs, when the Auditor-General now says we do not have enough people to drive them or enough money to spend on spare parts. Where is the Minister’s accountability for that? We have an Auditor-General’s report that is damning of that Minister—the Minister who hoped to be relieved of his portfolios so that he could sit in the Speaker’s Chair. Even Helen Clark had the nous to know that he would be incompetent to do that job. The decision to buy 105 LAVIIIs will prove to be the greatest embarrassment for that Minister, with the huge expenditure of $677 million being wasted.

Yes, I will now come to the Prime Minister’s school favourite, David Benson-Pope, and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). I watched earlier when we had a snap debate in the House. In my time here I have never before seen a Minister—having been called in for a snap debate—the instant that the Speaker makes his decision, arrive, lo and behold, with a set, typewritten speech to read to the House. That has never before occurred in my time here. The Minister was so ill-prepared to handle his portfolio that his officials had to type out a speech for him to read. He had 15 minutes in which to try to explain the incompetent mess he has made of the NCEA, and he managed to read his speech for 6 minutes. He certainly did not satisfy the members of this House that he has that situation under control. David Benson Pope failed to recognise the way he has let down the many New Zealand students who worked hard for 12 months to sit the NCEA exams last year—slaved their guts out all year—and who now have a worthless qualification, because of his incompetence.

It is really interesting to hear another litany of misery from the National Party, because that is what we generally hear from it. We do not hear anything about the positive things that are happening in New Zealand. But we in the Government are proud New Zealanders. We believe the country has every reason to be very confident about the future and proud of what we have achieved, as a country and as a Government. In the last 5 years economic growth has been continuous. In the past year to September we had 4.6 percent economic growth. When did we ever hear of that under National? We heard lots of stuff in 1990 about what the wonderful new National Government would do. What a disaster that was for 9 years. We lost jobs in the economy in that 9 years.

What has happened under Labour? More than 250,000 jobs have been added to the economy since the Labour-led Government came to power. The crime rate is at its lowest level for 21 years. That goes against all the horror stories we hear from the National Party. Those are not figures that are just plucked out of the air; they are official police figures used to compile statistics. That is not done by the Government; it is done by independent agencies. It is the lowest crime rate for 21 years. What about the Working for Families package?

Benefit numbers are down and apprenticeships are up. The Modern Apprenticeships programme has already exceeded the target set for completion in this parliamentary term. We have over 7,000 new Modern Apprentices already, and we are well ahead of target. I am delighted with that. As one of the very few tradespeople who has ever been in the House—I was originally an electrician by trade—I am absolutely chuffed that we have made a huge turn-round in that sector of the economy. Without those 7,000 Modern Apprentices, and 126,000 people in other industry training initiatives, this country would be heading for an economic disaster. Instead we have turned that round. Let us remember it was the National administration in the 1990s that got rid of the Apprenticeship Act. It took away the signal that apprentices and tradespeople were important to the economy. But they are the people who produce and make things for the economy.

Let us contrast the two approaches of Labour and National. We have had significant boosts in health and education spending. Labour is delivering and New Zealand is succeeding, while National is sitting on the sidelines and whingeing. In Taranaki, where I come from, the fine city of New Plymouth is moving ahead like never before. In the time that I have been a member of Parliament, it has been only in the last 5 years that my problem has been to find the extra people we need, rather than the problem we had under the previous National-led Government of keeping the people we had in New Plymouth and keeping the jobs to keep them busy. The problem that we now have is to find the extra people we need in order to keep up with the growth in the economy and the demands for new skills and new, skilled people for our economy. I think that is a terrific turn-round, and I am really proud to be part of a Government that has achieved that.

I contrast that with what is happening in the National Party. Last month we had the Ōrewa speech and the fall-out that occurred afterwards from Dr Brash’s speech—[Interruption] What fall-out? Where is Katherine Rich? That is the fall-out. She was National’s most popular member—its best front-bench member, I guess—and certainly one of the best women that the National Party has had for a long time. Let us not look just at the current members of Parliament. Members should think about Belinda Vernon. She was another good woman whom National got rid of. There has been a whole chain of folk who have been discarded as a result of the myopia of the National Party. I say to National it should get positive about New Zealand, start applauding the positive things we have done, and start telling us what its policies are, instead of whining and whingeing.

I draw the House’s attention to a communication: “On 4 July 2004, at about 12.03 hours, we had a P1 domestic job and another P1 assault, apparently involving an off-duty cop. All units were at jobs so I directed the dispatcher to call”—get this—“CHWS4 and any W units. There were three logged on and out of service since they logged on this morning.”

In this email, the dispatcher shows that he got no reply to repeated calls. He said: “I see no reason for them to be logged out of service and not listening to their radios. My reason for wanting them was to stop an offender who had taken a 2-year-old child away from her mother. We had to pull three units from P2 jobs.” In response to that, and in the discussions we have had in this House, what did this Fawlty Towers Minister of Police have to say? He said today that there were no highway patrol units available. That sums it up, because the email does not mention highway patrol units; it talks about “W units”. That means any police patrol of any description that is assigned to traffic duties.

The Minister can come into this House, obfuscate, and say that a vehicle was finally dispatched after 4 minutes. I say to him that to a mother whose child has been abducted, 4 minutes might as well be 4 days. The point is that the dispatcher, knowing the gravity of the situation, wanted to dispatch a car immediately. He knew he had three cars sitting there that were not engaged. But the Minister now says that the Government is happy to have officers who have been sent to another emergency pulled out of that emergency. They can tell the victims: “Sorry, I’ve just been listening to you complain about a burglary. I know you’re traumatised, I know you’re in trouble, I know you’re upset but I’m shooting through. I have got to go and do another job.” The police officer can then jump into his or her car and drive away.

The Minister says that it is perfectly acceptable for three officers who were actively engaged on three different jobs to tell the victims at those crime scenes that they had to get going to do another job, whilst W units were available. What are W units? W units deal with excess blood alcohol, and also include the commercial vehicle investigation unit, the highway patrol, the strategic traffic unit, Christchurch City traffic patrol, and Christchurch rural traffic patrol. I wonder whether members are aware precisely how many different types of traffic patrol units this Government has ring-fenced out there. I would make a guess that at any time of the day in this country 50 percent of the front-line units are doing nothing but traffic duties. How do I know? I know, because of a couple of things.

Today we read reports that the Government has set its priorities in such a way that it allocates 2.7 million hours of police time to traffic duties. That means that every one of the 7,000 uniformed officers—including the commissioner, the deputy commissioner, the assistant deputy commissioner, and the deputy assistant commissioners—has to dedicate 386 hours to traffic every year; every one of the 7,000 of them. When Robbie Robinson, the commissioner, does not do his 386 hours it means that some other bobby has to pick up that work. If someone is sick, or if Steve Hines

or Stephen Long—those high-ranking officials who sit in national headquarters—do not do their 386 hours, it means that some other bobby has to pick up those hours. So that means when Iraena Asher—[Interruption] I know that Mr Cunliffe does not care about the case, which is why he is being so flippant in the House now. When Iraena Asher called for help there was no car available for her. The Government has a responsibility, because its ring-fencing of traffic patrol units was the reason why no car went to Iraena Asher when she called for help. The warning was sounded in July last year. If it had been listened to, it would have saved Iraena Asher’s life. I have only one question for Mr Cunliffe, who seems to think that Iraena Asher’s disappearance is a joke, and it is: where is she? Where is she? Who is responsible for failing to send a police car to her, and for sending a taxi instead? Who is responsible for taking the three officers away from the duties they were performing, and rededicating them when a mother wanted assistance?

I congratulate my colleagues on their articulate and informed criticism of the National Party—the poor old National Party! However, enough of this criticism; I will focus on more positive things. I am not going to stand here and criticise the National Party; I am going to talk about our Government’s outstanding achievements. I will talk about such things as the really high economic growth, and the lowest crime rate in 21 years. Let us also consider our young people. There are 7,000 young people in apprenticeships. We have the biggest health and education spending ever. Paid parental leave? We know we have that. And we know we have introduced 4 weeks’ holiday. No—I have changed my mind. Dr Brash knows all about changing his mind. I think I have to say something about just how bad the National Party is.

Dr Brash’s record is absolutely appalling. There has been gaffe after gaffe—whether it be overseas, whether it be at home, or whether it be within his own party. What is his rule for women in the National Party? It is: “Agree with me, or you will be gone by lunchtime.” I commend Pansy Wong. I think she has been so stoic. She has put up with so much. She has seen women demeaned in this country, but she has managed to keep quiet. I think that takes a lot of courage. She was not gone by lunchtime.

Let us look at the record. Georgina te Heuheu was gone, and then, exactly 1 year later to the day, Katherine Rich was gone, and Linda Scott resigned in between. Why? Because they could not agree with dumping on Māori, or with dumping on women, or with passing judgment on single parents, or with depriving children. Who was the woman who was talented enough to replace Katherine Rich? Judith Collins was that woman. How dumb is that? Why was she chosen? She was chosen because she shares Don Brash’s vision. She vehemently opposes anything to do with women or with family values, including the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I think that it is a sad day for the National Party. It was pretty sad before, but it is even more sad now.

Labour members, who are so proud of the Labour Government’s achievements, could not even speak for 5 minutes on them. Today is a very important day. Kung Hei Fat Choy, Gong Xi Fa Cai. I wish everyone a prosperous Chinese Year of the Rooster. Today marks the arrival of the Chinese lunar year 4,702. I welcome the statement issued by the National leader, Dr Don Brash, that the Chinese New Year is a time for New Zealanders from all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds to celebrate cultural diversity. Indeed, the many celebrations that have been held in the past 2 weeks—and no doubt there will be many more still to come—show that many New Zealanders are taking part in these celebrations. It appears they have decided to have fun and a good time—it is not limited to any race or cultural community.

The essence of Chinese New Year is a celebration of relationships: ancestors are remembered, elders are respected, families get together, friendship is renewed, and goodwill is shown to all. In the good old days, the Chinese New Year celebrations lasted 15 days, on which the seventh day is designated to be the people’s day. Relationships cannot be taken for granted and need to be nurtured. We need to embrace, respect, and value each other. Only then will world peace have an opportunity to emerge.

However, strong relationships can be sustained only through treating each other with honesty and integrity. Patronising attitudes especially shown to minority groups will only serve to stereotype and minimise the contributions and integration of those groups. The growing size of Chinese and Asian communities has ensured that they are no longer just visible, but they are vocal as well. In a democracy like ours, this is good news, because it is essential that every citizen should feel comfortable, and compelled to participate and integrate effectively. Some might feel uncomfortable, but so be it.

However, Chinese New Zealanders are very nervous on this very important day, because they are well known for valuing educational achievements. The debacle over scholarship exam results, alongside the concerns over lack of funding and the incompetent implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement system, has certainly put a damper on this very important day. Chinese New Zealanders are not very pleased, especially when the Associate Minister of Education, David Benson-Pope, who has in his portfolio the compulsory sector and special education, simply refused to take responsibility for this debacle. A request for another inquiry and more spin would not solve this very important issue.

Chinese parents alongside other New Zealand parents share the same aspirations for their children. Their children are entitled to have a first-class education to ensure that they have a good head start in society. But it does not look like this will happen under the Labour Government. It has been 5 long years, and we have seen problems in our education standards, and the funding issue in our education sector, continue to spiral. None of the Labour members who have taken part in this debate have given a satisfactory answer to the public about the future of our children’s education. Do they not deserve a Government that will treat them with respect and will ensure that the funding and standard of our education sector is well maintained? I am looking forward to the next Labour member who takes the call not wasting the public’s time, but to giving specific answers about the future of our education system.

I want to start my contribution to this debate by offering my condolences to the Opposition whip. What a job that person was given! How would one like to have that job? National’s caucus members will not even sit together in the Koru lounge. The leader is in one corner and the other members are over there, and will they speak to each other? No. How would one like to try to manage that lot in Parliament, when they will not even speak to each other in the Koru Club? The poor member who was demoted to National’s front bench to be the whip has a horrific job. All the National members will be asking why Don Brash still had his job, because if someone disagrees with the leader of the National Party and that person is a woman, then she is out the door, quick smart, but if one is Don Brash and one disagrees with oneself, then one is still the leader. Once Don Brash said that National would do away with 4 weeks’ annual leave, and then he disagreed with himself and said that it would keep it. National was going to give tax cuts to the rich, and then Don said no, they would be given to low and medium income earners. So he disagreed with himself, but he still kept his job. I do not understand that, nor does Georgina te Heuheu, nor does Lynda Scott, and nor does Katherine Rich.

The powers of observation of Dr Brash are legend. This is what he said when he was asked about his dealings with the women within his caucus: “Oh yes, there are a number of reasons why Lynda Scott is leaving. Georgina is certainly a woman, and Katherine is as well.” What powers of observation that man has; they are astounding. Don Brash said that he thought he could work with women, and the National Party then went to work. For 2 weeks its members hunted high and low around New Zealand to find a woman who could testify to that, but they could not, so they went to Switzerland. Now we have a woman in Switzerland who will testify to the fact that Don Brash can work with women.

We on the Government side of the House can just sit and laugh, and ask what sort of advice that man is getting and what sort of political leader National has. We really feel for poor old Simon Power. He has a terrible job. National is split into factions within the factions. There is the Gerry faction, the Don faction, the Bill faction, and the other fella, O’Connell is a faction all on his own. Members fight each other within those factions; that is the state of the National Party.

We want to reward some of the National members. We think that Murray McCully should be given a life membership of the Labour Party. He should be kept on by the National Party even after he is dead, because who else would let his or her leader sit with this line-up: Brian Tāmaki on one side and Tame Iti on the other? What a nightmare! We say to Murray McCully that he should keep up the good work.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.