General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is roughly 6 months until an election has to occur in New Zealand. At this stage New Zealanders are asking themselves a question: not just who is the Government, but, where is the alternative Government? Not who it is, but where it is. There must also have been the question: where is the Opposition? Because if there is no Opposition there cannot be an alternative Government, and there is not an Opposition.

This Labour Government has proved that it can work with other parties in the House, and shortly we will achieve the longest-lived successful coalition in New Zealand’s history under MMP, in terms of the support from United Future. We work with our friends in the Greens. We work on occasions with New Zealand First. The National Party has nobody to work with at all. It is a party whose members yesterday, when offered the chance to debate the issue of the day, the vaccines, instead chose to spend 2½ hours trooping into the voting lobbies, most of them on the wrong side, to lose time after time after time, with poor old Pansy Wong ending up voting on both sides for a brief period of time.

What we see around us now is a National Party with no friends. There is no other party in this House that wants to work with the National Party. The National Party is reduced to Dr Lockwood Smith and Pansy Wong sitting together. Talk about the odd couple! Look at the ACT party. ACT was buddying up to National only a short time ago. Now we see the savagery of the cornered beast at 2 percent. They have to take a chunk out of the National Party’s legs, and the mad dogs have been let loose on the National Party as a consequence. National loathes ACT. Look at the comments it makes about the ACT party because ACT has the courage to say what the National Party only dares to think in the privacy of its caucus room.

Where has Dr Brash gone, the great man who admired Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas, the archpriest of the ultra-dry right? I can remember the morning when I received a breathless phone call from the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He said: “I’ve got a shock for you, Michael. I am resigning, to go into politics.” I said that I did not remember choosing him for our list. He said: “No, I’m going to the National Party because there’s things I’ve got to do. I’m a man with a mission; a man who wants to follow on the great tradition of Richardson and Douglas.” He is the man with no tolerance for recreation without purpose, as his biography says.

He thought we were wrong. Labour was all wrong because it believed in not selling State assets. It believed in supporting modern industrial relations law. It opposed increasing inequality. It supported public investment in health and education. It was saving for the future by means of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and it was nuclear-free. It was all wrong for Dr Brash. It all had to change, under a National Government. There he was, in his pyjamas, vacuuming out the concrete garage floor, saying: “This Government’s got to go, this terrible left-wing Labour Government. We’ve got to get back to the programme of Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas.” He said: “All these programmes will be tough, and we will be tough now.”

Where has that strong line of the far right gone? Now it is all: “How do we close down the issues? The Superannuation Fund now is wonderful. We will support it. We are not really that much in favour of selling State assets, just a bit here and a bit there, and maybe in a second term, maybe a little bit more. And of course we now do not favour all those terrible other things we said we were going to do. We were not really that much in favour of being not nuclear-free any longer. In fact, what we are going to be is a kind of Labour Government with a slightly friendlier image amongst the business community.” That is what Dr Brash is trying to say. He is really saying that he is a kind of social democrat in drag, or at least in pyjamas, I think it is fair to say.

Well, nobody believes it. Nobody believes that Dr Brash has undergone this conversion. He gave up 80 percent of his salary when he came into this Parliament, merely to echo the policies of the Labour Government. ACT is right to say to National: “Stick by your principles and don’t throw them away.” Who is waiting in the wings? The person who is waiting to come out of the freezer is Mr English. Mr English is quietly working away, promoting himself, asking three times as many questions in the House as Dr Brash, making four times as many speeches as Dr Brash, and being five times as visible as Dr Brash, and he waits because he will be the next leader of the National Party.

What an extraordinary amount of bluster from a former history lecturer who purports to be a finance Minister. He is a man who taxes and spends. There have been over 30 new taxes in 5 short years under this Government. The final tax take in 1999 was $32 billion, and 5 years later it was $42 billion, yet the average take-home pay in New Zealand, after tax, has not increased one iota.

I want to talk about a very important health problem. When the Chief Executive of Pharmac, Mr Wayne McNee, phoned the Minister of Health on 28 February and told her there was a problem with the flu vaccine, she should have immediately found out what the problem was and told the New Zealand public. She should have asked the key relevant questions. But what did the Hon Annette King do?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Nothing.

She did absolutely nothing. She sat on the problem for over a week, and told the House on 7 March that she still did not know what the problem was. Yet for months the Ministry of Health had been warning that an influenza pandemic in New Zealand would be very serious. It would cause up to 3,700 deaths, it would involve more than 20,000 hospitalisations, and it would result in the need for over 1 million consultations. Surely, the Minister of Health would have realised the importance of that phone call from Wayne McNee on 28 February, but she did not.

The ministry also tells us that the flu vaccine halves hospital admissions and reduces death rates by up to 70 percent in high-risk patients. With all those warnings it is quite clear what the Minister of Health should have done on 28 February when she was first told by Mr Wayne McNee that there was a problem with the flu vaccine. Even the Prime Minister told us in this House yesterday that the Minister knew of the issues on 28 February. The Minister should have asked the fundamental questions as to why there was a delay in the vaccine—a vaccine that over 700,000 people were expecting by the beginning of March.

As far as we can tell, Mrs King just did not ask the basic questions. Did she forget, was she distracted, or was there a lack of competence by this health Minister? I think so! Despite the potential for one of the most significant public health crises in New Zealand, health Minister, Annette King, simply did not ask the relevant questions.

What was she doing? She was probably deciding on her next move in expanding the biggest and most complex bureaucracy that the New Zealand health system has ever seen. That is the legacy of this health Minister and this Labour Government. She favours theNational Health Service model in the UK. But that is the third biggest bureaucracy in the world—1.4 million people, second only to the Chinese Red Army and the Indian railways. That is the way the Labour Party wants the New Zealand health system to go. That would be a disaster, because, undoubtedly, she has created the biggest and most inefficient health system in the history of New Zealand.

While Mrs King has been so distracted with creating this huge and inefficient health bureaucracy she did not have the time to concentrate and to ask questions of her officials when they told her on 28 February there was a potential major public health crisis affecting 700,000 people. The Minister waited for a whole week. She denied the reality of what was happening. It was not until Friday, 11 March when I suggested there was a significant public health problem that she started downplaying it.

I point out, for people who do not know, that that was Dr Paul Hutchison—“Dr Paul”. I understand he was the doctor who used to be on the radio just before Portia Faces Life. The one thing I can say is that he is sitting on the bench that belongs to Dr Nick Smith, and it was the best speech that has come from that bench for several months. But that is not saying a lot. We know that if Lynda Scott had still been the Opposition spokesperson on health National would have had some energy, knowledge, and integrity in the position. She would not use her position as a doctor to mislead and scare people on the radio the way that that obnoxious member did earlier this morning.

Dr Hutchison deliberately scared old people and misled them. He did not know what he was talking about. He could well end up in front of the Medical Council for his obnoxious behaviour—if he still holds a licence; I do not know whether he does. That sort of approach from someone who says he cares about older people is just disgraceful. One of the most important things that a doctor has to do is tell the truth and be sure of the facts, and Dr Paul Hutchison did not do that on the radio this morning. It is absolutely disgraceful, but it is consistent with the approach of the National Party. He is following in the ways of Dr Brash. Dr Brash just cannot maintain his position. Using the term “flip-flop” is generous as far as Dr Brash is concerned. He is totally failing to lead his party.

It is not often these days that I agree with Richard Prebble. I used to agree with him a lot more in the past when he was a left-winger, but he is getting it right and Dr Brash is failing to lead his party. That is why the bets are going on as to who will replace Dr Brash. Currently, the odds are 4:1 on John Key and 7:2 on Katherine Rich—quite a canny little approach. We all know that Katherine Rich has been working her way around the country talking to the people who are likely to come in on the National Party list. She is working on those ones—she is ignoring some of the old fools in the House—who are likely to come in to replace some of the current members. She is getting her numbers together. We are told that the odds for Winston Peters are 5:1. I do not know why he would do it, but Winston Peters has been asked again by Gerry Brownlee to merge with the National Party. Apparently, he is turning it down. The odds for Bill English are 10:1. He got up to about 6:1 a couple of weeks ago, but at the point when he started to attack his old friend and funder Rongo Wētere the odds began to slip away again. People are just beginning to wonder. [Interruption] We are working our way through Dr Brash’s book—

💬 Darren Hughes: Yes, it’s a great read.

Well, it is sort of interesting. I wonder about chapter 8, page 202. I have not read all the way to chapter 8, but this bit has been identified for me. I know that for me it would create some tension at home if my partner said that getting into bed with me was like getting into bed with the guy in Steptoe and Son—the way Dr Brash’s wife said. The idea of getting into bed with that “dirty old man”—

💬 Jill Pettis: With false teeth!

No false teeth, actually. It is an interesting approach—that someone like Dr Brash would publish a book about himself in which his wife said that getting into bed with him was like getting into bed with the guy from Steptoe and Son.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I caution the Minister about bringing a spouse into the debate. That is not acceptable. I ask the Minister to withdraw.

I withdraw. I want to make it clear that all I am doing, and will continue to do, is to quote from the biography of Dr Brash according to Dr Brash.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It does not really matter what Dr Brash said in his biography. There is a convention—and I really would ask that the Government think hard if it is go down this course—that we do not involve members’ spouses in debate. That is a course of action that, as any sensible member of Parliament can see, could lead to Parliament being an even more difficult job than it is at the moment, and I would like you to caution the Government if it intends to continue along this line this afternoon. I think that would be a very grave mistake for the House to make.

Speaking to the point of order, I have reflected on what the member has said, and I accept that what I said was not in good judgment. I was quoting from the book, but it was probably inappropriate to do so, and I withdraw.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank Mr Mallard and Mr Prebble. I would certainly refer members to Speaker’s ruling 38/2.

Today I wish to raise in the House, once again, the question of John Albert Thomas Clarke.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh!

There goes the chief Government whip, a female who thinks that revelations about a man who raped a 15-year-old schoolgirl are boring. I tell that member that the subsequent molestation of three more women by that man, since he was placed on home detention and on parole, is not a boring matter to those victims. This Government, Jill Pettis, and Trevor Mallard, who is trying to interject, must take responsibility and be accountable for the situation. Last week I told the House that this man had been sentenced to a total of 44 years in jail.

💬 Jill Pettis: You’re obsessed!

I want it on the record that Jill Pettis is laughing about this man. That is why these sorts of people—people like Mr Jarden, who raped two schoolgirls—are out on our streets or released into home detention. I ask the member whether that is something else to laugh about. Is that a joke, too? She should try telling that to the parents of those girls.

This question has to be asked: who put Mr Clarke on home detention? How could that possibly happen? How can the Minister of Corrections say that Mr Clarke completed his home detention successfully, when there are now three new victims who have said that Mr Clarke was smoking marijuana, drinking, and was alone with children, consorting and associating with them—thereby breaching the three conditions that were part of his release? This Government is becoming legendary for being blind to, deaf to, and totally disinterested in the pleas of victims.

I ask Jill Pettis—on behalf of a young mother who is now on the run, who is somewhere in New Zealand, hopping from plane to plane and from home to home, fearful that this man, Mr Clarke, will be released back into the community, because that is what she has been told—why the police will not be charging him with threatening to kill? The Department of Corrections said that he had completed his home detention successfully. Rubbish! He was alone with children, whereas a specific condition of his home detention was that he was not allowed to be alone with children. And Jill Pettis, a member of the Government, laughs. Everyone in the gallery saw her laugh. It is a joke to her.

This young mother is still on the run. Mr Clarke has threatened her child and sends her text messages boasting to her and to his other victims—this same man who supposedly was reformed—what he did when he raped the 15-year-old girl he kidnapped. He has even gone on to say that the best way to get at people is to get their children, and he boasted that the 15-year-old schoolgirl he raped was a detective’s daughter. Is that true? Is that fact? Do we now have this Government letting out on home detention people who try to pervert the course of justice by attacking the children of detectives who are investigating them? Is that the truth? If it is, it is a sad indictment on this pathetic Government—a Government that purports to care about children, purports to care about solo mothers, and purports to care about victims. Yet right now, this very minute, a young woman with two children is on the run because she fears for her life and for the life of her 13-year-old son who has been threatened by Mr Clarke.

Mr Clarke is up before the Parole Board today. The sad tragedy is that it is the same Parole Board that let him out. So what do we have to ask it? If the board thought it was such a smart idea to let this remorseless sexual offender out on to our streets, what will it do today? I have asked the Minister of Corrections, but he does not have answers. So far, all the answers he has given me have been wrong. He tried to tell me that I was wrong and that this man was not in a social services home on home detention, being cared for by a 76-year-old woman. The Minister was wrong. The man was there. Why did the Department of Corrections not tell that woman, and all the other vulnerable women who were going into that house and subsequently preyed on by Mr Clarke, about Mr Clarke’s past? He was, and still is, a remorseless, predatory, high-risk sexual offender who has now added three more scalps to his belt. And I do not hear a peep out of this Government, because it thinks it is doing wonderfully well.

For those people at home, they have just been listening to a speech made by a person who I think is a true Opposition spokesperson, Ron Mark. He has assiduously followed a range of policies in this House that are close to his party’s interests and his own interests. I do not happen to agree with his characterisation of the Government in relation to its concern for old people, about crime, and so on. I know that as he is sitting in his seat now considering the possibilities of maybe one day working with a Government—one never knows—that he himself knows his speech was full of rhetoric. However, the member has been, assiduously, a powerful Opposition spokesperson.

That brings me to the central point of what the Government is concerned about today—that is, it is the Government’s role to keep the Opposition honest. In the case of Mr Mark, we can say he is doing his job. In the case of the National Opposition—the party that is called “the Opposition”, the party whose leader is called the Leader of the Opposition in the House—we have to say, if we are to keep its members honest, that it is time they admitted they are hopeless. The election is now only 6 months away. One might expect a sense of urgency to be building in the National Party. [Interruption] Lynda Scott pipes up to say that she is leaving soon. She is a first-term MP.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: No, I’m not.

A second-term MP.

💬 Darren Hughes: It feels like first term.

It feels as though she has been here for only a short time, because her impact has been low. But she, along with Roger Sowry, is leaving. She is leaving because she knows it is a waste of her time being here. She is a doctor, for goodness’ sake! She can help people. She can do something for the older New Zealanders of this country. She knows that the choices between doing something and sitting here for another 3 years—

💬 Darren Hughes: Miserable years.

They would be long, miserable years, as the junior Government whip—or intermediate whip, as he is now known—said.

Lynda Scott sits there, knowing that the National Party will never be the Government. I will show members why. We know, for example, that Murray McCully wants off the election campaign committee, because the National Party cannot win. Actually, Murray McCully never wins campaigns—never. He has been in charge of campaign after campaign. It is no wonder Lynda Scott is leaving—if he is to be in charge of the campaign she knows it is a foregone conclusion that National will lose. But Murray McCully has said that things are so bad that even he wants to get off the campaign committee. We know that Gerry Brownlee has been to see that wise member, Winston Peters—who would have been the father of the House, but unfortunately he has a broken record of being in Parliament—to ask whether their parties could work together in a coalition. Unfortunately, Don Brash has already ruled that out. So we now know that there is a complete division in the leadership—between the deputy leader and the leader—as to what to do in relation to coalitions. We know that Katherine Rich was demoted by force from her position on the front bench, and she has never ever looked happier. She is absolutely beaming about the possibilities after the next election and about coming back on to the front bench with a new leadership team.

Then we have what I think has broken the spirit of the National Party, the hagiography of Dr Don Brash. Let us be clear: this book is not a biography. This book was an effort by a writer to write something that was absolutely page-turningly positive about the leader of the National Party. It is a hagiography. It is supposed to be something that people say praises this person. It is an admission. That is what it is about. It was written so that Don Brash could be promoted in election year. But the poor old Simon Powers of the National Party have to pick up this book and, no doubt, read a page a night; it is too boring to read more. What they read is that they have a leader who is obsessed with the speckles in his carpet, who cleans the garage floor, and, as it says at the back of the book, was so excited when he went to a dance in Latin America. But on page 62 there is one line about the episode in Latin America. It states: “I quickly realised I was out of my depth with the Latin beat.” That is it! That is as exciting as it gets. He could not dance the Latin beat.

One goes through the book to find out that he developed “considerable pulling power when it came to girls at university”. Now, as everyone knows, he has considerable pushing power. I would be depressed if I were the National Party. I would know I had already lost.

I rise on behalf on the ACT party to speak in this afternoon’s debate, and to say as kindly as I can to Mr Maharey that he is mistaken—it is not his job, as a Minister of the Crown, to keep the Opposition honest or to be a book reviewer. What we would actually like him to do is be a good Minister for Social Development and Employment. I hate to draw it to his attention, but at a time of record employment, the numbers of able-bodied adults on the unemployment benefit are going up. I would like to have heard a contribution from him as to what the Government intends to do about it, but I suspect we will be waiting a long time for that.

I would like to talk about a matter that, I think, is of great concern to our Parliament. This Parliament is actually a better Parliament than we often give ourselves credit for, and one of the best things we have done is to reach a bipartisan agreement that we will have better government if we have transparent accounting.

I first became a Minister in the 1984 Government, when we discovered that Sir Robert Muldoon had been able to use cash accounting to hide the fact that the Government was in a terrible financial state. That was a great shock not just to the incoming Government but also to his former Cabinet Ministers, who had no idea of what had been going on. We then said publicly that we should improve the accounts. The Labour Government, I am afraid, then got into a bit of trouble and in 1990 David Caygill produced a set of accounts in which he claimed that there was a surplus. In fact, it turned out later that there was not, because he had sold a forest and he put it down as income, and he had not accounted for the fact that in double accounting he should have allowed for the fact that he had actually sold the forest. He did worse than that, of course. He then discovered that the BNZ was in trouble, and he kept that fact secret not just from the country and the caucus but also from his Cabinet colleagues.

The Labour Party felt a bit ashamed about that, and when Ruth Richardson came along and said we should have the Fiscal Responsibility Act, it was voted for by all members in this House. I think that is part of the reason—not all; the Government can take other credit—that the Government’s accounts are better. It is because they are more accurate. But no longer. Dr Cullen is now cooking the books. He has gone back to cash accounting.

One would think that the media would ignore such nonsense as the claim that capital items, such as new buildings—new hospitals—should be deducted and do not actually count towards a surplus. We actually have—and the Government ought to be proud of it—a surplus of over $5.5 billion, yet it is trying to tell us that the surplus is lower. That is a load of nonsense. Does it matter? It does, actually, because the Government has now put a cash line in. It first went in 18 months ago on the bottom of the accounts, then it was at the middle, and then it was at the top. But worse than that, Treasury is now putting out press statements as if the net cash surplus is a meaningful statement. It is not. I say to Mr John Whitehead, who is the head of Treasury, that he is now acting more like he did when he was the Treasury adviser to the Labour Party in Opposition than as the head of one of our most important departments.

It is a matter of great concern that when the last lot of accounts came out, the press gallery did not report the fact that there was a record surplus, but instead reported that meaningless statement. And I say it is meaningless because if the Government is prepared to deduct assets from cash—and if the “Cullen fund” is not an asset, why are we saving it? It is deducting that. It is deducting student loans, yet Government members get up in this House and point out, accurately, that the vast majority of students are repaying their loans, so they must be an asset.

Most people would think that hospital buildings are an asset, yet according to the net cash basis, the Government would have us believe that none of this expenditure is in fact assets, and that the expenditure on a hospital is the same as the expenditure on the unemployment benefit. What a load of nonsense! I say to the House that Dr Cullen and Treasury should be ashamed of themselves. I think it is a great pity that we have moved away from a bipartisan agreement that gave New Zealand the best accounts in the world.

It is always a pleasure to follow Richard Prebble. I did, after Sandra Lee beat him and then I beat her. I also note that he has—sadly, in his last few months in Parliament—resorted to attacking public servants, making up statistics, and blethering. I really feel very sad for somebody who has tried his hardest to make a contribution to this country. I point out to Richard Prebble that unemployment is down 54 percent under this Government, and that there are 100,000 fewer New Zealanders on benefits in total. I am proud of what this Government has done, and if the failed MP for Auckland Central, who is also the failed MP for Wellington Central, and who cannot even attract any of his own colleagues to listen to him in the House, wants to talk nonsense like that—presumably in support of the National Party—then I just say that the Opposition is in a really tragic state. It has no dignity, no policies, no loyalty, and no decency. It is a failed Opposition on every level.

I will speak briefly about the idea of an Opposition being the Government-in-waiting. We all accept that the Auckland region is the economic powerhouse of the country. We all accept that if Auckland is working well, it is to the benefit of all New Zealanders. If Auckland wastes money on failed policies and failed infrastructure, on congestion and on difficulties, then I say that every dollar wasted in Auckland is 66c not available to the country. This Government is the first in history that has accepted that we have to work with Auckland as we do with the rest of New Zealand.

I have looked, with great care, at what the National Party is offering for Auckland. I will look first at infrastructure. The National Party will sell State-owned enterprises. Dr Brash has said that National has to pedal softly on this, because it will not tell the truth about what it will do with infrastructure sales—with State-owned enterprises. It will still bring back the Better Transport, Better Roads so-called policy, which would have sold roads. It would sell the roads outside our houses and our businesses, and make us buy back access. That is what National’s policy was up until 1999.

What does National’s policy mean for energy supplies? It means National would flog off Transpower. So how on earth would we get better investment to ensure security of supply to Auckland and the rest of the country if National flogs off Transpower? Presumably, it would also flog off the major energy generators, so in a dry year, we would not be able to say to Meridian Energy or Contact Energy that they should taihoa on using all that water in our lakes so that we do not have to burn coal. National would want to burn coal because that is the bottom line. It would flog off those State-owned enterprises that ensure we have some security in energy.

It would flog off the roads and will stop the investment into Auckland’s motorways that this Government has seen. It would stop the investment into public transport. Maurice Williamson said that we should not do anything about public transport. We should not do anything about helping poor people getting on buses. They should get taxis. People with disabilities should get paid to use taxis, because that was more efficient.

What would National do in health? It would take away the coordination and support that this Government has put into primary health care, not because it thinks that would help people’s health but because it does not care. It wants a country like America, where if someone is too poor, that person’s kid goes around with a club foot because that is what happens in a market health system.

Who in the National Party will speak for Auckland and Auckland businesses? Will Dr Brash do it? Will he do anything about better export opportunities? No, he went to Australia and trashed us. He went to Australia, our biggest market, and trashed New Zealand. He said that New Zealand is on the road to becoming a banana republic. Who else? Maurice Williamson? We have already heard that Maurice Williamson does not believe in spending money on motorways or on public transport. Maurice Williamson will presumably be Auckland’s transport spokesperson. Perhaps we could have Richard Worth. But, of course, Richard Worth is a sacrificial pig.

💬 Darren Hughes: Lamb.

Lamb, I am sorry. The National Party would be a failure for Auckland, but this Government has made Auckland a great place to live.

From the beginning, the purpose of the Foreshore and Seabed Act was manifestly clear to the Green Party: the Government would acquire full legal and beneficial title to the seabed to enable it to better exploit marine resources. Why did it need the Foreshore and Seabed Act to do that? It was because Māori customary ownership was the last constitutional defence for the retention of the foreshore and seabed in the hands of New Zealanders in perpetuity; the last constitutional restraint on the power of the Government over the marine environment. The common law of our country provided Māori customary ownership that was governed by tikanga Māori, that could not be taken arbitrarily by the Crown, and could not be sold, yet remained subject to regulatory regimes. Customary title would have required the Government to deal with Māori on a decision-making basis, not a subservient one.

But the Government choose to override the rule of law, discriminate against Māori, and ignore thousands of New Zealanders. Even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recognised the foreshore law as discriminating against Māori, because it removed the right of Māori to go to court to have their legal rights clarified, and took potential property with no guarantee of compensation. The law is an international disgrace, and is deeply embarrassing to this country, especially to a Prime Minister who prides herself on her international reputation. Yet the Government pursued that law.

Why did it do that? It was because with the last constitutional restraint gone, all regimes relating to the marine environment are now fully within legislation and completely under the Government’s control. New Zealanders are effectively cut out of the picture. Māori clearly identified that serious risk, and thousands of Pākehā agreed with them, but they were all ignored, and fierce exploitation of the marine area is now under way. Legal ownership of the seabed is now in the hands of the Government.

The Government has altered the tax regime to remove barriers to offshore exploration companies, making the exploitation of those resources more economically attractive to foreign-owned companies. The Resource Management Act amendments currently before the House include, firstly, the explicit removal of any duty to consult in the resource consent process, so that local communities and environmental organisations will not be heard on potentially devastating environmental impacts, and, secondly, an extension of the Minister’s powers to call in projects—a further and greater erosion of the principle of community consultation in resource management. Also before the House at the moment is an amendment to the Overseas Investment Act, which will loosen the criteria for obtaining Overseas Investment Commission approval and perhaps even go so far as to not require a foreign-owned offshore exploration company to obtain Overseas Investment Commission approval before it begins mining New Zealand’s seabed.

Looking at the full Government legislation programme, we see that the Government clearly wants to enable greater mineral and resource exploitation of our marine environment, with nothing more than the most superficial consideration of Māori views, the total exclusion of local communities, and the most minor mitigation of the devastating ecological impacts. The Green Party holds environmental sustainability and protection as a fundamental principle. We want controls on the Overseas Investment Commission tightened in order to keep New Zealand land in New Zealand hands, and not loosened to enable foreign countries to buy up our country. We consistently argue for greater community consultation and decision making. We believe that Māori customary ownership would have protected our natural resources, not eroded them.

The Greens fought against the Foreshore and Seabed Act because we also predicted the risk the Act would pose. Māori customary ownership was actually our last defence. The constitutional te tiriti protections that were successfully used in the 1980s to protect our forests, fisheries, and land have now been legislated away through ignorance and arrogance. Those who argued in favour of the Foreshore and Seabed Act are now seeing the disastrous results of their mistake. Those who enacted it—the Labour Government and New Zealand First—will very soon be held to account by the people of this country.

I know that in the last little while—in the last couple of days—people at the fringes of politics have become very excited about a report from a United Nations committee regarding the Foreshore and Seabed Act. But I think it is very important to put on the record that that overseas committee considered that important matter for simply 35 minutes, and that it was not a committee made up of countries that we could say have a better race relations record than New Zealand does. Indeed, if we look at what the New Zealand Government did in relation to the foreshore and seabed issue, we see that Government members travelled for 18 months around this country, holding public meetings and hui, trying to engage with all New Zealanders from all cultural backgrounds in order to raise awareness on that issue.

It was not easy. The foreshore and seabed legislation was a difficult challenge for the Government to try to address, but after 18 solid months it came together with legislation that I think most fair-minded people say achieved a balance of what all New Zealanders, Māori and Pākehā, said they were looking for. For the first time in this country, Māori customary interests are recognised in law. Never had that been achieved before the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In terms of delivering for Māori, I know that the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, has worked very hard on aquaculture issues in order to ensure that there is a space for Māori in that exciting new economic development. So let no member come to Parliament and say that this Government does not deliver to Māori, as it delivers to all New Zealanders.

In the next 6 months the Government will have to hold a general election. We go to this country with a clear record about the economy, having one of the highest growth rates in the OECD. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, our crime rate is at its lowest since 1982, 7,000 young New Zealanders are working as Modern Apprentices, giving them a chance to go ahead in their life, and 100,000 fewer New Zealanders are relying on welfare for their main source of income—the figure was 400,000, but under the Labour-Progressive coalition Government it is now 300,000. So we will go to the polls not having delivered perfection in New Zealand, but having a record that we can be proud of. We have achieved some real gains for ordinary New Zealanders.

What do the Opposition go to the election with? Well, 6 months out, one would have thought that the National Party—the once-great National Party—would have a very clear policy and approach. But we now know that the entire National Party strategy rests on one book written about Don Brash. Let us be fair: Don Brash has achieved a lot of things in his life. But I never thought he would be interesting enough to have an entire book written about him. I personally thought it would be a struggle to get a pamphlet out about him, but, sure enough, a book has been written. It was written not by some independent historian, political commentator, or political analyst, but by a National Party candidate—somebody very keen to ensure that he is shoved up the National Party list come the general election.

We have found out all sorts of things about Don Brash by way of that book. I would think that if I were the leader of a political party, I would say that if I was going to do a book, I would make sure it was perfectly timed for the election so that it showed me in the best possible light. But having looked through that book, I cannot see a single positive thing that has come out of it for the National Party. I cannot see that National Party members could look at that book and say: “Thank God they wrote that book about Don Brash, because we’re really taking the country by storm now.” In fact, when he states in the book that he quickly realised he was out of his depth with the Latin beat, we see that it is not only South American music the man has a problem with but with staying in beat with New Zealand politics and being able to put himself across to our country.

We know from the story that he is a man who vacuum cleans his garage, which is slightly odd, but people can do their own thing. The strangest thing about that book is the things the man was prepared to reveal: “At the Australian National University in Canberra, Brash befriended Jack Dowie. Despite their differences, they became close and developed a small daily ritual—almost sacramental—where they would sit and eat oranges together in their rooms. Surrounded by orange peels, they would debate the issues of the day, and life. It was an intellectual fellowship of the sort dreams are made of.” Of the sort dreams are made of! When one is sitting around with orange peels, trying to talk about the future of a country!

The book is a huge embarrassment. It must have the work of Murray McCully behind it. Murray McCully has, of course, managed five National Party election campaigns. When Murray McCully took over National Party strategy, that party used to have 48 percent of the vote in New Zealand, but after Murray McCully’s genius-like strategies he has now driven it down to 21 percent—and that was before the book came out. This book about Don Brash is the only book in the country for which, when people front up at the shop to buy it, the bookseller insists they take an exchange card. Booksellers know that people will be so disappointed. It is an absolute disgrace. Don Brash now has his book on one side and his hidden agenda on the other, as the only things he can go to street-corner meetings around New Zealand and try to talk about. He actually says at one stage: “Almost all of us—me often included—forget what a fantastic country this is.” It is a fantastic country, and it is a great place to live, but Don Brash is having to hide his true agenda for New Zealand concerning asset sales—the selling off of our family silver—and concerning what he would really do about superannuation for people over the age of 65.

We know that he cannot decide whether he would have gone to the Iraqi war. The man is a joke!

United Future has serious concerns about New Zealand’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners. Despite an avalanche of newspaper and television reports recently, which give the impression that every scientist in the world now accepts the so-called facts about greenhouse gases and global warming, I think it is important to maintain a healthy objectivity, and even scepticism, about all the so-called facts. A visiting speaker to the transport conference in Wellington said recently that every doomsday prophet he had ever heard had been wrong so far. It is not so long ago that we were being warned about global freezing; in the 1970s a new ice age was just around the corner, apparently. An example of the danger of relying too heavily on assumptions rather than on empirical data is that usually those assumptions turn out to be wrong.

For example, I saw an article the other day entitled: “Hydroelectric power’s dirty secret revealed”, which claimed that even hydroelectric generation is not environmentally friendly, as far as climate alarmists are concerned. That may also provide a clue as to their real agenda. In the article a consultant to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the famous and illustrious “IPCC”—by the name of Eric Duchemin said that contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate.

Mr Duchemin stated: “The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false. … Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.” Just so that we do not write off Eric Duchemin as one lone, loony voice amongst all the wise scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there are statements from Philip Fearnside from Brazil’s National Institute of Research in the Amazon at Manaus, who stated: “Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam. But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about.” In fact, he estimates they are as high as 3½ times more than the emissions produced by generating electricity from oil. If members want to know more about that article, I will table it after my speech so that they may have access to it.

What will we do if hydro stations are not really part of the answer but part of the problem? What we should do, of course, is to be sensible, use our heads, and remain calm. We should not give in to the fearmongering and doomsday prophesying of the Green environmentalists, who would have us all making decisions that would ruin our economy and send us back to the Dark Ages. Or is that their real agenda? Maybe it is not a concern for the environment per se that drives them, but rather some kind of loony, left-wing agenda to eliminate one by one all the reliable energy sources upon which our entire industrial and military structure and, in turn, our modern society, depends. While the debate goes on regarding the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change, and as we study new data and consider its interpretation, we need to remember that we are not as smart as we think we are. Scientists are very important, and we have much to thank scientists for in our lives. But we are all on a learning curve, and we need to study the facts carefully.

It is therefore prudent, perhaps, to take reasonable steps to reduce emissions, pursue new technologies, and plant more forests in the interim as the debate continues, but we should not impose draconian measures such as carbon taxes on our industries and economy. Having been led into Kyoto and its treaty obligations by this Government—and by a previous National Government, too; we must not forget that—we must all do our utmost to make sure that we at least have net credits under that crazy system, so that as a country we do not find ourselves having to buy credits from Russia. United Future will act constructively in that regard, but we are deeply concerned about the growing tendency to refer to carbon dioxide as pollution, and to demonstrate against coal-fired power stations, which in the light of the science I discussed earlier from that New Scientist article may be less greenhouse gas - emitting than our hydro power stations. Someone will soon be telling us that oxygen is bad for us and that we ought to stop breathing.

If we are serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, we should encourage forestry—not see forests converted to dairying land—and consider ideas like encouraging the planting of native forests along all our waterways and around our lakes, in riparian strips. That would help in our battle against pollution in our rivers and lakes, and would produce significant carbon credits to guard against the possibility of ever finding ourselves with an economic burden from the bureaucratic nightmare of Kyoto.

We can always tell when the Government is under pressure, can we not? What did we hear from Mallard and Cullen today? We heard personal abuse. We hear personal abuse every time they come under pressure. Every time they have a hard question to answer, do they answer it? No, of course they do not. What they do is just personally abuse anybody in the firing line. That is what we heard from them today, so we know that this Government is under pressure—serious pressure.

We have seen the Government under pressure on education. It is spending huge amounts of money on low-level courses, while special-education kids receive no improvement. I had two mums in my office the other day, and both of them said that the schools were sending their children home. The children were not getting the education they deserved because there was no money. There was no money to pay for the carers needed in order to have their children at school full-time. We know that this Government is under pressure on law and order; Tony Ryall has seen to that. We know that it is under pressure on the issues of taxation and the economy. We know that families in New Zealand are hurting every time they go to the petrol station.

We also know that the Government is under pressure on health. What is the Minister of Health doing? On 28 February she was told there was a problem with the flu vaccine. Members of Parliament were all booked for it actually, but we were told we could not have it. Even I asked why—

💬 Simon Power: Simple question.

It is a simple question. That woman, Annette King, has been the Minister of Health for 6 years. I will tell members why she did not ask the hard question: it is because that Minister does not do that. She has a deal: the Ministry of Health will protect her so long as she does not bother to ask any hard questions. When she was told there was a bit of a problem with the flu vaccine, what did she do?

💬 Simon Power: Nothing.

That is right—absolutely nothing.

💬 Simon Power: Sat on her hands for a week.

She sat on her hands, did not ask the hard questions about what was going on, and did not tell anybody until she came under pressure to tell them. Why is that such a concern? Well, the concern is that it is the Wellington strain of the flu that is causing the problem with regard to the vaccine.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Mallard flu.

Mr Mallard’s flu. That is the one we actually do not have the correct potency for. The protection the vaccine provides against the other two strains is OK, but that is the strain we do not have adequate protection against. That puts at risk 700,000 New Zealanders.

It is estimated that 400 people per year die of the flu, but what did that Minister do? We know that influenza is a serious problem, especially with the elderly. She can insult my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison as much as she likes, but we know that he knows more about this issue than someone who was a dental therapist. I was a geriatrician, and I know that aged care in this country is under crisis. Because aged care is under crisis, people know that getting the flu in a rest home is an incredibly serious situation. It passes from patient to patient very quickly, and the staff also get it. The aged-care sector is under crisis; it says it is 20 percent underfunded. If people living in rest homes get the flu, we will have serious problems. There will be patients banked up in hospital beds, and we will see deaths if people cannot get the correct immunisation. It is protection against the Wellington strain that developed last year—H3N2, which mutated around September last year—that has been added to the strains the flu vaccine protects against in the Southern Hemisphere. That strain actually mutated here, and we saw quite a serious epidemic at the end of last year. If we do not have a vaccine that works against the H3N2 mutation, we will have a nasty winter.

The Minister says she is really glad that the ministry is out there trying to get more of the correct vaccine, but we need to look at the role of Pharmac. For 7 years Glaxo Smith Kline was the supplier of the flu vaccine. This year the supplier was changed. Why was it changed? To save money. This year the supplier was changed, and that decision has had these ramifications. We need to look at how Pharmac makes its decisions on sole supply for medication. It is fair enough to say we have always supported Pharmac. But it is time to reassess that policy.

I am very happy to take part in this general debate. I am proud to be part of a Government that has one of the best health Ministers this country has ever seen—a Minister presiding over a portfolio that has been such a problem for National Ministers in the past. It has been such a problem that health has been at the forefront of all New Zealanders’ minds at every general election. In this House we have had days when the Minister of Health has been asked a question in question time and the National Party has not even asked a supplementary question. I do not think that that is very common for such a high-profile portfolio—high-profile for the Labour Party, which has the Minister of Health on its front bench, but not quite so high-profile for the National Party, for which health is now such a non-issue that it has demoted the health spokesperson to the third bench of its caucus.

I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that has presided over some of the best unemployment and crime statistics that we have seen in over 20 years. We know we have an Opposition under pressure when it touts Tony Ryall as the answer on law and order—a man who was Minister of Justice in the last National Government, and who did none of the things he now says should be done by the current Minister of Justice. I have to say that Tony Ryall is a lion in Opposition and a dead mouse in Government. It is not good enough: New Zealanders must hold him to account at this election and ask: “If it’s such a great idea now, Mr Ryall, why didn’t you do it when you were in Government?”.

We in this House are being asked to perceive Dr Don Brash as a potential Prime Minister of this country. Unfortunately, when one wants to be Prime Minister one sometimes has to make decisions without Murray McCully, and I think that that might be an issue for Dr Brash. Sometimes to be merely uncomfortable with a position or a situation is not a firm enough stand to take on the international stage.

Members should spare a thought for Dr Brash’s poor family. Imagine how many more obsessive-compulsive, Oedipus complex, tell-all biographies we, and they, will have to endure if Dr Brash ever gets within a stone’s throw of the Beehive. Dr Brash is described by his biographer—a National Party candidate—as a “true New Zealand patriot”. Let us look at that.

Dr Brash is a man who stated last year that he often forgot what a fantastic country this is—a true New Zealand patriot? He is a man who thought that New Zealand would become just another Pacific Island State. He is also a man who thought young New Zealanders were so shallow that the only thing that would get them to go to Gallipoli—the only thing that would get them to go to a place where thousands of New Zealanders died—was a rock concert. Dr Brash dropped the ball on that one, because he did not know that young New Zealanders go there in droves already. The ironic thing about Dr Brash trying to seem in touch with contemporary young New Zealanders is that this is a man who, when he was interviewed on 95bFM, could not name a single New Zealand band—a true New Zealand patriot! Is this the man we want advocating for this country, and representing this country on an international stage?

Here at home, how can New Zealanders have any confidence in what the National Party stands for today? It seems that the only principle that holds today’s National Party together is the arrogant, born-to-rule, Tory assumption that it deserves to be in Government without earning the position. That is probably why the National Party seems to consider, in an election year—6 months out from an election—that policy is an unnecessary luxury.

In chapter 10 of Dr Brash’s biography, on page 247, he is quoted as saying of the 2002 election: “We made two serious mistakes. First, there was too much policy.” Well, there is absolutely no chance of the National Party being accused of having too much policy this year, unless we count all the Labour Party policy it has nicked over the last 6 months.

A case in point is the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. What will National do with the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? Bill English has the gall to stand up in this House and tell this Government that we should be spending more money on Modern Apprenticeships, when on his own side Max Bradford said of the Apprenticeship Training Bill: “This legislation is pathetic, just like the scheme that is behind it, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.” That is what the National Party said about the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. [Interruption] Georgina te Heuheu pipes up. Does she agree with Mr Max Bradford? Tony Steel, another fine National Party MP, said that all that money was being spent on 3,000 apprentices who would not get any work. Well, what will the National Party do with the Modern Apprenticeships scheme now?

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the allocation of calls. In the general debate schedule I have in front of me, the last call was to be taken by the Progressive Party. Moana Mackey, a Labour MP, took that call, and I assume there is no difficulty with that. What I seek from you is some guidance as to whether in the next general debate Labour will have one call fewer, and the Progressive slot will be inserted into that debate.

That is a matter for the parties.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.