Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I move, That this House has no confidence in the Government led by the Rt Hon Helen Clark because she leads a political party that has shamelessly ransacked the public purse to fund its election campaigns, and has absolutely no coherent programme to lift the living standards of all New Zealanders. This is a Government that has hauled down the flag of political integrity and, instead, run up the Jolly Roger of political piracy. It has done so without any sense of shame, without pausing to consider the damage it has done to the cause—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but, as members know, in this particular debate the party leaders will be heard, if not in silence, with respect. Interjections are permitted but not barracking. We wish to hear the statements from the party leaders.

The Government has done so without any sense of shame, without pausing to consider the damage it has done to our democracy, and without any restraining sense of decency moderating its quest for power.

We have just heard a speech bereft of ideas, bereft of vision, and bereft of any policies that might give us some cause for optimism for the future. Here we are, at the start of a new parliamentary year, wondering whether, despite the evidence of the last 6 years, we might get from the Prime Minister some policies that might manage to give us some workable vision for the future, some policies to meet the challenges we face. Did we hear a programme to lift the standard of living in New Zealand to that in Australia? No, we did not. Did we hear any programme to lift New Zealand to the top half of the OECD? No, we did not.

The Prime Minister’s speech made a lunge at relevance by talking about some of the things that matter, such as productivity, but without supplying any policies to give substance to that issue. She is talking some of the talk but walking none of the walk. Sure, she talks of economic transformation, and she talks of the need to improve productivity—my, how she talks about economic transformation and productivity—and if she really meant it we would have some grounds for optimism, but the words are empty and the rhetoric hollow, because Labour’s policies turn back productivity growth at every turn. There was nothing in the speech that told this country, or this Parliament, how the Labour - New Zealand First Government will deliver economic transformation and economic productivity.

The Minister of Finance—the one with the history degree, the one who is the lucky beneficiary of the best export prices in a generation—has no answers for her, and has already dismissed as an ideological burp the best advice that his Treasury advisers can give him. Perhaps it is not surprising that the speech was so bereft of vision and bereft of ideas. In its seventh year of office, this Government is very, very tired. The Government is made up of the same tired people as the last Government: Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Steve Maharey, and Trevor Mallard.

We in the National Party understand that New Zealand succeeds or fails not through edict of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but on the efforts of individuals and businesses. We understand that for New Zealand to succeed, New Zealand individuals and businesses must have the incentive to succeed through hard work, through initiative, and through investment of capital. Helen Clark, on the other hand, thinks it is all about her. She thinks that by making a speech instructing New Zealanders to succeed, they will loyally obey her prime ministerial command. When survey after survey of business and employer sentiment spells out the dawning truth that those who hold New Zealand’s future prosperity in their hands are feeling more and more miserable, Helen Clark’s only message to those people today is simply “You’re wrong.”

When we consider this Government’s history over the last 6 years, why on earth should we believe that what Helen Clark outlines today as her programme will do anything useful to help New Zealanders get the health care they deserve, the education they want for their children, or the standard of living they want and deserve? Indeed, why should we believe anything she says? On this side of the House and, increasingly, throughout New Zealand we know that there is a fundamental lack of integrity at the core of this Labour-led Government.

If that needed any confirmation, the announcement by the Electoral Commission just last week of Labour’s massive overspending and cynical willingness to use the public purse as an extension of the party campaign fund surely does the job. So desperate was Labour’s desire to hang on to office that it took almost half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money and used it for party political purposes. That money belonged to taxpayers up and down New Zealand. I say to the Prime Minister, “Pay it back. Do not hide behind the coat-tails of your party president.” Members should remember Helen Clark’s words at the party congress in 1999 about the pledge card for that year: “My signature is on it. I’m accountable for it.” Well, nothing has changed. Her signature is still on it and she is still accountable for it. It was her pledge card, it was her face on the card, it was her name on the card, it was her commitments on the card, and it was her parliamentary budget that paid for that card, in clear breach of the Electoral Act. Prime Minister: “Do the right thing. Pay the money back and apologise.”

Unfortunately, that was not an isolated incident. Mike Williams, the Labour Party president, admitted in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald that taxpayers’ funds had been used to pay for the pledge card in each of the last three elections, despite the fact that those cards also bore the signature of the Labour Party secretary, which suggests that he knew they were election campaign material. It is very clear, I tell Trevor Mallard, who is interjecting, that Helen Clark regards taxpayers’ funds as being available for Labour Party political propaganda—pledge cards, calendars bragging about the Labour Party’s accomplishments, and the grossly extravagant Working for Families propaganda.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. We all know about “paintergate”, and “corngate”, and “Doone-gate”, and Helen Clark’s remarkable ability to speed through small country towns at 160 kilometres an hour and somehow not notice. We all know that she publicly deplores the sale of Government assets, but was the Deputy Prime Minister when the biggest sale of a Government asset in New Zealand history took place. We all know that she defended the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the New Zealand economy, only to have to admit that the ratification would actually cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. We all know that in August last year she flatly denied that she had asked Treasury for an estimate of the cost of the student loan bribe, because, she said, it was a Labour Party policy, not a Government one, but finally her Government had to admit, under pressure from the Ombudsman, that Treasury had done a costing, and that that costing showed a fiscal cost that was substantially greater than the one she had initially claimed.

And, of course, there is David Benson-Pope—he who opposes violence towards children but is unable to recall, he claims, an incident of flagrant abuse of a pupil in his care. We also know about Taito Phillip Field’s use of his ministerial position to obtain work visas for a substantial number of immigrants who might not otherwise have made it into New Zealand. The whole Labour Government looks more rotten with every month that passes.

Labour’s deal with New Zealand First surely takes the cake—offering the important position of Minister of Foreign Affairs to the man who has regularly insulted the citizens of most of our neighbours, who swore he would never accept the baubles of office, and who, when asked to name the Asian statesmen he knew, could name only Lee Kuan Yew, yet allowing him to remain outside Cabinet and to insist he actually is not part of the Government. It is no wonder that Doug Woolerton resigned as president of New Zealand First in protest, and most of Mr Peters’ colleagues were utterly embarrassed.

Not content with this absurdity, Helen Clark promised funding to the Greens to enable them to hire more staff—funding from the Ministerial Services budget—despite the fact that the Greens are clearly not part of the Government at all, and that no authorisation for such use of taxpayers’ funds was received from the State Services Commission. This Government is totally devoid of principle, and is driven only by the unbridled desire to hang on to power, no matter what the cost.

How seriously can we take Helen Clark’s new plans to deliver better education, better health-care, and better roads? We know that in the past the Government presided over hugely wasteful Government spending programmes. We know that Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, for example, received vast bucket-loads of taxpayers’ money—more than half a billion dollars in the last 4 years. Some of it was used to good effect, to be sure, but much of that enormous sum was squandered on projects that in any other circumstances would be called nepotistic and corrupt. Of course, there have been plenty of other examples: hip-hop tours, twilight golf courses, radio sing-along courses, and all the rest. Why should we expect Helen Clark’s new plans for the education sector to be any more effective?

We know that the Labour Government has tipped a vast amount of additional money into the health-care sector, but to little effect. We still have hugely long waiting lists, with people dying while waiting for operations. We still have aged-care facilities and hospices under desperate financial pressure. [Interruption] Members of the Government may find that amusing, but I certainly do not. Why should we think Helen Clark’s new plans for the health-care sector will be any more effective than her last?

What about infrastructure? Helen Clark has made some bold commitments about building better roads, but her Government has made plenty of bold commitments to build better roads in the past, and we are still waiting. Let us take the State Highway 20 Mount Roskill extension as an example. In 2000 Transit said it would start construction in 2001. In October 2001 it issued a document that said it would start in September 2002. In August 2004 Transit put out a glossy brochure that said it would start later that year. Of course, as we all know, construction actually started 3 weeks before the election last year. In December 2003, with great fanfare, the Labour Government announced a plan to speed up the building of roads in Auckland. Eighteen months later the head of the chamber of commerce in Auckland wrote to the Minister of Finance that there was no evidence at all of any acceleration in the building of roads in Auckland. Why should we expect Helen Clark’s new plans to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure to be any more effective?

All the evidence of the election campaign is that this Labour Government has total contempt for taxpayers, and has no hesitation in using the resources that have fallen into its lap because of good export prices to buy its way to re-election. [Interruption] I say to Trevor Mallard that letting people keep more of their own money is fundamentally different from taking money off them and dishing it out for political gain. [Interruption]

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Order!

[Interruption] Madam Speaker, I thought your ruling was that this speech would be heard in silence.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I have asked for order, please. The member is right.

There was, alas, not the slightest sign of urgency in the Prime Minister’s speech—no sense that we face a serious crisis. No, I do not mean the prospect of a slow-down in the economy, although that will be very hard on the thousands of people directly involved. Rather, I make this point: when Labour came to power in 1999, the gap between the average after-tax wage in New Zealand and the average after-tax wage in Australia was 20 percent—roughly the same as it was in 1984. Less than 6 years later, the gap is not 20 percent but 33 percent. All the projections suggest that, with tax cuts in Australia and slow growth in New Zealand, within 3 years that gap could well be not 33 percent but 40 percent. That is the serious issue that faces our country. That gap runs the serious risk of enticing more and more of our bright, energetic, innovative Kiwis to cross the Tasman. The risk is that we reach a tipping point beyond which it will be very difficult indeed to recover, as more and more of the brightest New Zealanders leave and the closing of that gap becomes much more difficult.

Over the next year, the National Party will hold the Labour - New Zealand First Government to account, and expose arrogance, incompetence, and corruption at every turn. We expect that that will keep us very busy. But we also commit to supporting the Government when it is willing to adopt sensible policies that are in line with our own values and principles. We did not see much evidence of sensible policies in Helen Clark’s speech today, but we live in hope.

Following the election last September, the National Party now has the largest Opposition caucus, in terms of numbers, experience, and ability, in New Zealand history. We have the people needed to develop and implement our policies. We also have a clear vision of the kind of country we want New Zealand to be and of the kind of policies that will get us to that vision. We want New Zealand to be a country where people are encouraged to take responsibility for themselves. But, when people fall on hard times, we want a country that is able to help those people get back on their feet and become self-reliant again. We want a country where every child has access to the kind of education that his or her parents want for the child, and that provides backstops and options when the child is at risk. We want a country where everybody has access to first-class education and health-care, and where we get value for money for money spent on health care. We want a country where people respect the rights of others, and are kept safe when those rights are abused. And we want a country where everybody is equal under the law, regardless of race. We must be a country where, in spite of the diversity of our community, we share sufficient common values to bind us together as a nation. That would be a country that our children and grandchildren would want to return to. That is the kind of country the National Party will be fighting for.

We will also be fighting for a country led by Ministers with some integrity and some decency, so that we will not continue to see the squalid and shameful spectacle of a Government repeatedly pillaging the public purse for party political purposes.

I seek leave to table a chart.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member seeks leave to table his chart. Is there any objection? There is objection.

That sounded terribly like a valedictory speech of a failed Leader of the Opposition—or a very lengthy attempt to put Mogadon out of business. I have to say that when he talked about National’s programme for the next 12 months of exposing arrogance, corruption, and incompetence, I thought he was going to spend 24/7 looking into the mirror. One has to be a very arrogant person indeed to think that that sort of speech, time after time, in its sheer ineptitude could ever qualify a man or a woman to be a Prime Minister. One would have to be arrogant to think that that is what it would take, for one thing is very sure: after today Don has to go. It is one thing to fumble one’s way through a speech before a staged captive audience, like that of a Rotary meeting; it is quite something else to turn up here, front up, and perform. Again, as we always knew he would, he failed.

Now, according to the Chinese calendar, I am reliably informed that this is the Year of the Dog, but for the National Party in 2006, and for its leader, this will be the year of the lame duck. We can already see it. The only people smiling genuinely during that speech were John Key and Bill English. All the rest made a feigned attempt to stir up their morale, so that they can survive the bitter, dreary months ahead as they contemplate 9 long years out of power without being able to demonstrate one thing in 9 years they have ever done for anybody. I have to tell people that that is sad. It is awfully sad when people’s hopes, dreams, and ambitions of the romance and glamour of politics is to help people.

💬 Rodney Hide: He’d know how.

Oh, Rodney Hide! I tell members there is a very good cartoon today in the Dominion Post on page A6. It is The Wizard of Id, and a medieval maiden is sharing her experience with an older lady. She says: “My Rodney doesn’t know the meaning of the word defeat.” The older lady asks: “You mean, he never gives up?”. The younger one replies: “No, he’s just not too bright.” How did the newspaper know? How did it get the timing so accurate, as of today?

Don Brash should ask Bill English what it is like, because in the National Party when the rumours start they never stop. Its members are all up against the grindstone sharpening their knives, in three diverse little teams, all hoping that sometime in the long-distant future they might finally get back into Cabinet. I know the feeling; I was there once, in the National Party. Of course, I never had the ego or the arrogance. The rumours never go away, and with performances like that, people can see why.

The amazing thing about this is that the doyens of the media have the contest now down to Bill English and John Key, so no wonder Gerry Brownlee is not smiling. He is the deputy leader, and now he has become the leak. He is the one who told the New Zealand Herald that story. Now, I have to be fair to him. It is in the New Zealand Herald, so I will give him a chance to deny that. But he does not. He is the one who started the leak.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take this as a yield from the member, and therefore pick up the remaining time he has to speak in the House this afternoon. I am quite happy to do that, and accordingly I seek leave of the House to replace the time that Winston Peters is entitled to, in order to regale the House with a particular incident that various media appear to be somewhat fixated on, just of recent times.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Gerry does not realise that they are not going to replace the “Don and Gerry Show” with the “Gerry and John Show”. He is actually on the way out. The reason why he is on the way out has nothing to do with his competence—or incompetence—because that is not a distinguishable factor in the National Party. The plain fact is that he went to the New Zealand Herald to nail John Key, and John Key quickly demonstrated his naivety by ending up getting nailed himself. How does one do that? And that is a very, very obvious reason why the National Party is in trouble.

I say to Don Brash that there is some good news, because New Zealand First is a caring party and we have just the solution for his failing dilemma. We cannot sort out his leadership problem, but we can offer him a palliative option for his leadership woes: it is called retirement with dignity. We have this golden age card ready for Don. [Interruption] It is in his name. We are working on it. He will soon be able to retire, because he already qualifies for this card.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: So do you.

Oh, no I do not. Did members hear that? Of all the people, Nick Smith said that I do. Who looks like he qualifies? He should have a good hard look. I know he is only about 32, but he does not look it. And, of course, he was a former deputy leader of the National Party for about—was it 2 weeks; 2 days? It was amazing really. People should not forget that the great leader of the National Party said at the time that he had 100 percent confidence in Nick Smith. Two days later he had total confidence in whom? Gerry Brownlee!

Just to give Dr Brash the details, by 1 April the seniors card, which begins then in terms of its provisions, will entitle superannuitants to 66 percent of the net average wage—not the lousy 60 percent the National Party gave elderly people when it was last in power. It is to be 66 percent, not 60 percent.

💬 Hon Member: Not true.

It is true—1 October 1998. That is precisely what a past leader of the National Party did. The second thing is it has an aged-care package, so if Dr Brash should get ill he will be looked after. And if in his retirement he is worried about the streets and the security of his family and his relations, we are to have 1,000 extra policemen and policewomen. That is what it means to campaign, to tell one’s supporters that one means business and will deliver, and to then set out to deliver. It is not just cheap talk. [Interruption]

I say to Mr Key that it is one thing to go out and backstab a former MP for his area and claim he was going to live in west Auckland—he never has—but he is parked up in Parnell in one of seven homes. I say to my friend John Key that if he lasts as long as I have in politics, then he might have something to say for himself. In the meantime, he should watch and learn.

As we predicted, the leader of the National Party went up to Ōrewa this year, and can people guess what he talked about? Can they guess what this party, which called New Zealand First’s leader and its MPs racists, actually talked about? He talked about New Zealand values and immigration matters. I wondered at the time what the press gallery would make of this. Well, apparently it was OK. It was a total plagiarism, and a total purloining of New Zealand First policy, just like the one law for everybody—[Interruption] Oh yes, I know it is true. We can just ask Maurice Williamson. He told the National Party that if it did not steal New Zealand First’s three key policies, it was a goner. Is that not true?

💬 Hon Member: No.

Oh, yes he did. I got the emails. He said to the National Party: “Look, you went out and made all these promises to the Māori people and look what it got you compared with New Zealand First.” True or false? It is very true.

It is said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but National members could actually tell people that it is not their policy. They could own up to the fact that the policy belongs to some other party. More important, they could say that they know nothing about the policy and that is why they cannot explain it.

I say to my colleagues that it is most amazing when one comes back to Parliament for the first year after an election. One frequently sees political colleagues geeing themselves up, but in their heart of hearts they know they cannot do it. They cannot make it. People should have a good hard look at their front bench.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Look at yours.

One of my colleagues over here is good enough to match those five over there. That is a fact.

Whilst we talk about getting company tax down, having a year for the exporters in 2007, and getting wages up—whilst we talk about real issues—what do the National Party and ACT do? They constantly bad-mouth our country. It reminds me of that famous line from The Mikado:

The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,

All centuries but this and every country but his own.

That is Rodney and Don. They are always out there bad-mouthing their country. They have no solutions, no answers, and no programmes; just the hope that things might turn so bad that someone in their foolishness and despair might elect them to office. They talk about unaffordable tax scales and cutting social expenditure, all of which they sought to keep secret at the last election, where the emails said: “For goodness’ sake, don’t set out the detail. Whatever you do, don’t tell the public what the detail is, because if they know you’ll be unelectable.” True or false? [Interruption] Oh no, no, no! I am a farming boy, and I know one thing that one does not do: one does not load the barn with hay and feed it to the cattle all in one day. It has to be given out slowly so it can be digested and understood.

I will give members an example relating to Don Brash and the National Party. I saw them at the Karaka saleyards this year. In 20 years, National Party members have done nothing for racing whatsoever. But there they were, totally supportive all of a sudden of the racing industry.

💬 Dr Don Brash: That’s right.

Don Brash says that that is right. I tell members to look at the 2002 website for the National Party regarding its racing policy. They will not find one. National just walked along and stole New Zealand First’s policy. National members are out there now, along with some seriously changed people in the industry, trying to somehow have some of the gloss wash off on themselves.

Once again, I say to Dr Brash that that train left the station a long time ago. Within a year, the racing industry’s tax policy will be fixed up. As to fair taxation, breeding incentivisation, and GST, to ensure that those horses stay in this country and that we maximise their wealth, the train left the station—as it did for immigration and the Treaty of Waitangi—a long time ago.

💬 Hon Annette King: They don’t know about GST.

No, they do not know about GST. The member is right about that.

I will close on one point, which is that the job of foreign affairs in this country is to expand and improve our relations. [Interruption] Members should ask themselves the simple question of who foreigners would rather see: Winston Peters or Rodney Hide? Who would the Asians want to see: Winston Peters or Rodney Hide—or, for that matter, Winston Peters or Don Brash? Which member looks like he comes from New Zealand? It stands to reason.

I tell my colleagues in the National Party and the ACT party that they can bad-mouth their country as long as they like, but that that is not the way it is going down overseas. Overseas, people are enthralled that New Zealand has a new understanding of its obligations in Polynesia and the Pacific, and that we truly do have a similar view on so many issues in Asia when it comes to policy. Not one Asian leader has said anything to me about immigration policy. The reason is that they all have identical policies to New Zealand First’s. [Interruption] Yes, they have. They asked: “But haven’t you got an Opposition leader whose wife comes from Singapore?”, and I said: “I can beat that. Five thousand years ago we came from China.” The DNA is irrefutable. What is important in foreign policy is that one’s country has some integrity and that it decides issues on matters of principle.

There was a row in the National Party recently between the leader and its foreign affairs spokesman, Murray McCully. Murray McCully said again that we should determine our beliefs with respect to Islam and those cartoons on the question of trade—no principles, just money. Just like with the nuclear issue, they think we should forget about principles; it is just about money.

Of course, Murray McCully then did another somersault, and the National Party has dropped its nuclear policy again. That is four policies in 4 years. Tahi, rua, toru, whā—far, far too many changes from a party that seeks to be in Government. I say to Don Brash that if he wants to take this special golden age card, I will have the forms later on this evening and can give him some advice as to how it works. The Opposition can try to change its stripes, but when it changes what it stands for it loses everything, and that is a fact. [Interruption] Oh no, the member does not.

I remind the National Party that this is what we said. We told our supporters that no matter what the other parties promised them, one party would decide the 2005 election—and we did. Is that not a fact? In the end it came down to one party. The second thing we said was that we would deliver a host of our promises—and we have, and we will. We were asked by the National Party to get off the fence, and to not abstain. The National Party knows exactly what it asked us to do, because that is what the Government asked us to do. True or false? So when will some journalists get their heads around a few plain facts?

Having been asked to get off the fence and not abstain, we have signed a confidence and supply agreement. We will ensure that this Government lasts for the next 3 years, because the alternative would be so much worse. As my namesake said: “Never give in—never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.” Those are wise words. I tell National Party members not to get excited by Tauranga too soon. [Interruption] They are excited. They have had one miniscule victory in an ocean of despair, and it will not be enough to carry them through the next 3 years.

I tell my colleagues that we have a lot of hard work to do over the next 3 years. We have to keep a Government honest, as we promised we would do. We have to ensure that there is no extremism in New Zealand and we will ensure that that does not happen. But, above all, we will set in place the policies that matter so much to the ordinary New Zealander and to those hundreds of thousands who are waiting to line up with New Zealand First in 2008.

It seems that the new parliamentary year is under way and not very much has changed. We have had the usual entertainment from our resident court jester, and I have to say that a laugh is always better than a yawn. But if we were hoping for some indication about how our foreign relationships were to be conducted in the next 3 years, we are still waiting. We have had a worthy outline of a Government programme that does some good things but is blind to the big challenges facing New Zealand that mean that the future cannot be like the past.

We have had the new spectacle of Don Brash on steroids, looking like he is enjoying himself for the first time since he came here. There must have been some training going on over the summer! But there are still no policies being offered as an alternative to the Government. We could I suppose, at his invitation, debate the question of whether being a history teacher is a good basis for being a Minister of Finance, but I would just point out that those who know nothing of history are doomed to repeat it. And that may be a salutary lesson for his party. We have heard many cracks at whether the Labour Party spent parliamentary funding on the election, but no reference at all to the half a million dollars from a narrow religious sect spent on behalf of the National Party without the party’s consent, without any disclosure, and with full attempt to hide that from the public.

As we begin the new year, we all ought to think about what we are really here for. The task of a Government is to provide security and opportunity for all its citizens. It is to provide collectively for those things that we cannot sensibly provide for ourselves. It is to provide the security that there will be a future, and one that we want to live in. It is to provide the security that our way of life and our economy are sustainable.

I want to introduce members to a little boy called Jasper, who was born in Wellington almost a year ago. He happens to be my grandson, but he could be any little Kiwi boy—crawling flat out, eating voraciously, and driven by curiosity to explore the world around him, with a wicked grin and four teeth. All people have a Jasper somewhere in their lives, whether in their family, or among their friends. What we do here is about his chances in life, his security, and his opportunities.

By the time Jasper starts school the gap between the demand for oil and the available supply will have widened and prices will be well above what they are now. By the time he is 7 the first Kyoto Protocol period will be ending and we will be having to account for our contribution to the disruption of the climate that he will live with. By the time he is halfway through high school Sweden, if it achieves its goal, will have made itself independent of oil. What will New Zealand have done by then?

We know that Finland, with a similar population and geography to New Zealand, spends more than three times as much on research and development in renewable energy as we do. We also know that it gets 10 percent of its electricity from waste wood through cogeneration, and we get less than half a percent. Perhaps there is a connection.

The Prime Minister quoted President Bush as saying the United States needed to end its dependence on oil imports. That brings to mind the cartoon of the caribou and the polar bear in the Arctic wildlife refuge—quoting President Bush’s comments about independence from imported oil—and one says to the other: “I guess that’s the end of the neighbourhood, then?”. President Bush’s plans for oil stop at nothing: no environmental bottom line will get in the way of the United States’ determination to keep its enormous gas guzzlers on the road. But the military adventures in the Middle East suggest that independence of oil is not actually part of his plan, after all.

At the moment Jasper needs food, shelter, love, security, and a chance to learn. He will go on needing all those things for the rest of his life. If he lives as long as my father, that could last into the next century. As he gets older he will also need to know who he is as a New Zealander; he will need to belong to a society that he is proud of; he will need to be able to contribute to that society and to participate in it; and he will need the chance to find beauty and meaning in his life. All those needs and opportunities are threatened by the processes that we and recent generations have been putting in place.

Jasper will not live in a reliable and stable climate, as we have. He will never see a hūia, and he will be very lucky indeed if he ever sees a kākā or a kōkako. He will not have an abundant supply of energy so cheap that he can waste it. He will not be able to drive a car just anywhere he likes, any time. He will inherit streams and lakes that are too polluted to swim in, and air in cities that kills a person every day with respiratory disease. We may be able to leave him money in the bank but what it can buy will be seriously degraded. And all that is only if things get no worse than now.

As Jasper grows up he will realise that no generation again will be able to waste the Earth’s resources at the rate that his parents and grandparents have done, because they have consumed his future. His generation will have the task of building a society that does far more with much less, that makes things last for longer, that localises production, jobs, and decision making. Will we make that harder or easier for him with the things we do in the next 3 years? Will we even leave him the tools to do the job?

Jasper will need food that nourishes him, not the pockets of giant companies that peddle diabetes with their sugar and fat-laden products. That is why the Greens have negotiated a nutrition programme for schools that, we hope, will see fresh fruit and sandwiches replace the sugary drinks and chippies sold in schools now. Sue Kedgley is working on this with the Minister of Health.

Jasper’s food will need to come from local farms and from his own garden. There will be no cheap energy to bring it halfway round the world, or to force its growth with nitrogen fertilisers made from fossil fuels and running into our rivers. That is why the Greens are working with the Minister of Agriculture on an advisory service for organic growers, to help them take up the opportunity to go organic and also to provide a higher-value product.

Jasper will need a warm, dry home, but the energy to heat it is getting more and more expensive. That is why I am working with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and other Government agencies to speed up the insulation and damp-proofing of houses, to design a programme to boost the uptake of solar water heating, and to improve the building code so that houses we build from now on need much less heating and use less energy overall.

If Jasper and his mates are to understand the world they find themselves in, and how to live in it sustainably, they will need an education system that teaches how the planet and all its systems work, how our lives depend on it, and how our activities are affecting it. That is why we have agreed on funding for environmental education—or education for sustainability, as it is called these days—so that eventually every school has the capacity to deliver this vital opportunity to learn. Metiria Turei is working with the Minister of Education to bring this about.

If our grandchildren are to be healthy they need more than just good hospital services. Good food and a dry, warm home are part of it, but they also need to breathe clean air and to drink and swim in safe water. The Greens will continue to advocate for those issues.

Part of growing up a New Zealander has always been the great outdoors, and with that comes an appreciation of our unique forests, wetlands, coastal environment, and native species. Jasper has a right to stand in awe of the giant kauri forests, to grow up in a country where there are still live kiwi, tuatara, and ancient land snails. That is why we have agreed that there will be additional funding for intensive habitat management on sites where endangered species are under threat.

But that is also why 70 people camped for a weekend—and why 11 of them are still there now after 2 weeks and are planning to stay indefinitely—in a remote West Coast valley of pristine red tussock wetlands and beech forest that is home to the great spotted kiwi, or roa, and the giant land snail, Powelliphanta patrickensis. It is a place called Happy Valley. It is happy still, in its untouched state, but destined to be very unhappy indeed if Solid Energy gets its way and turns the whole valley into a huge, open-cast coalmine. That is about the starkest trade-off we could have—between nature and industry. Red tussock and the wetlands ecosystem under it are now rare. Great spotted kiwi are rare. The snails are very rare. This move would be a very significant loss of biodiversity that cannot be recreated.

The coal would bring us a short-term financial gain from export to Japan, as well as contributing even more to climate disruption. In around 10 years the coal would be gone—and so would the ecosystem, forever. Jasper will still be a little boy, with no chance to walk through that valley in awe, as I have done. All the legal consents have been granted now. The Resource Management Act will not stop that destruction. Only public opinion and pressure on the Minister of Conservation, who still has one approval to give, can make a difference.

The Prime Minister in her speech has just said: “New Zealanders do not want growth to damage our unique environment. Environmental and biodiversity protection, and conservation of our wild and scenic places loom large for our Government in maintaining New Zealand as a special and unique nation.” Well, I say to the Prime Minister that Happy Valley is the test. Will the Government allow a State-owned enterprise to destroy even more biodiversity and wild and scenic places just to disrupt the climate a little more?

I want Jasper to grow up being proud to be a Kiwi, proud that in his great-great-grandmother’s time New Zealand women were the first to win the vote, and proud that his grandmother’s generation stood up against nuclear testing, nuclear warships, and nuclear power. I want him to be proud that his New Zealand has stood up for human rights, the dignity of all people, opposing discrimination against minorities, accepting and welcoming our share of refugees, giving our share of aid to countries in desperate hardship, working internationally for peace, and refusing to join President Bush’s wars for oil.

Our record here is mixed. We do have a lot to be proud of, and I look forward to sharing that with Jasper one day when he is old enough. But our record for freedom, tolerance, human rights, and peace making is always under threat. That is why Keith Locke will continue to stand up on our behalf to speak out about our contribution to US war-making through spy bases like Waihopai, our disgraceful treatment of Ahmed Zaoui, our mean contribution to international aid—only a third of the UN agreed level—and against the currents that from time to time run through our society, targeting immigrants and people of other religious beliefs. It is also why we continue as Greens to speak up for the Treaty as a partnership between peoples on which this nation was founded.

Those who feel proud of their society want to contribute to it, and meaningful work is the birthright of all who seek it. New Zealand, judged against the rest of the OECD in 2006, is a shining example of low unemployment. But judged against the standards of my childhood there are still far too many people who, for whatever reason, cannot find suitable work and are marginalised, or who cannot and who should not try to work, but who, as a result, are in desperate poverty. It will get worse as the high growth rate stalls. So many jobs are disappearing as our manufacturers close in the face of cheap imports from countries with cheap labour and lax environmental standards, or countries that covertly subsidise their exports to undercut us.

The list of jobs lost through closures and redundancies, due to cheap imports or the high dollar, is already long: Swanndri; Guthrie Bowron; Jack Link’s beef jerky; PanaHome, who make wood products; Click Clack, plastic suppliers; Ion Automotive; Renaissance Furniture; Fisher and Paykel Ltd, appliance manufacturers; Skeggs Group, frozen peas; clothing firms making clothes for the iconic brand Icebreaker; Feltex Carpets; Air New Zealand maintenance staff; and Debonair Furniture. The total jobs lost from those redundancies over just the last 6 months is at least 1,139 and, depending on the Air New Zealand outcome, it may be over 1,600. We cannot afford to lose 1,600 jobs every 6 months.

The Greens’ Buy Kiwi Made proposal, which Sue Bradford is now running as a Government programme, is designed to give New Zealanders the information they need to support Kiwi businesses and Kiwi jobs by spending their dollars here. At the same time it will reduce the balance of payments deficit, which is the largest it has ever been. While Buy Kiwi Made is designed to save good jobs in manufacturing and other Kiwi businesses, our energy efficiency and solar hot water programme will generate new jobs in every community, insulating homes and installing solar heating.

If Jasper is to participate in our society he will need fair wages and working conditions, and I urge the House to pass Sue Kedgley’s Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill so that parents can juggle parenting and work without too much stress to either. We are also urging the House to support Sue Bradford’s Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and pay all workers doing the same job the same wage, regardless of age.

If children are to grow up reaching their full potential, unafraid and confident, they need to be in an environment free of violence. Sadly, that is not the case for so many kids today. Jasper is lucky that his parents know there are many ways to encourage good behaviour and discipline children without beating them. But he is likely to come into contact at school with children who have become bullies because physical force is the only discipline they have known at home. I urge members to support Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, and remove the only State-sanctioned right for civilians to assault people merely because they are children.

The Government’s role is to protect our future security—Jasper’s security and that of all his generation. That security is most seriously threatened by the climate disruption that has already begun, driven by the way we and recent generations have used our resources, especially energy. We could argue seriously that climate disruption is child abuse. It is putting our wants ahead of their needs and leaving them to take the consequences. In April the Government will release its plan B for climate change. If not the carbon tax, then what? I would urge the Government to be bold, be visionary, and to keep our little ones in mind.

Jasper is not some abstract future generation. He is a real, live person now—as real and live as you and me. His needs are simple. He does not demand much of us, just a chance to grow up to reach his potential in a world where we have not stolen his opportunities. So our task here is simple, too.

We all have a common interest in keeping our world habitable. We all have a common interest in protecting our children. These issues transcend left and right. They transcend party politics. Let us work with new dedication to a future for all the Jaspers we all know, and for those still to come.

Last week the nation held its breath as a young man went missing, presumed drowned. The moment of his discovery was marvelled at, right across the country, as we appreciated the deep faith and courage in his story. It was a pure Māori moment: his whānau gifting and calling to Tangaroa to return their taonga; the young man drawing on the love and faith of his whānau and his God to sustain him during his ordeal. The nation stood in awe of the quiet assurance of that whānau, which believed in its own power, and which believed in a spiritual power—which believed. The Māori Party seeks nothing less than that for any other family in this land: the faith in ourselves to believe in our own potential. Mā te kotahitanga e whai kaha ai tātou. In unity we have strength. If we can revive the ability of families to believe in their own potential, we will be invincible.

We have seen that potential just over a week ago, with the new spirit that has embraced the nation regarding Waitangi Day. Of the 765 people surveyed in a nationwide poll, 77 percent thought Waitangi Day should remain New Zealand’s national day. The increasing significance of Waitangi to New Zealanders must put to rest any grumblings about the need to create a new national day, or indeed any unfounded fears of scrapping and unrest. The obvious presence of an independent Māori voice in this House serves to remind us all that diversity and unity can work well together. Waitangi Day celebrates that diversity and unity—that sense of kotahitanga that is possible if we demonstrate respect for each other. And it is respect founded on knowledge of the unique contributions that we each make to the state of the nation.

It has not been an easy journey to get to this point. The realities of racism, inequalities, poverty, political expedience, and power imbalance have left their mark. We cannot un-know that reality, but we can appreciate the resilience of tangata whenua to endure. It is a resilience built on histories as voyagers in the Pacific who had the intellectual capacity to accumulate knowledge, to make adjustments to change, and to develop essentials for survival. Under vastly different climatic conditions our tūpuna learnt how to thrive in this land, how to guarantee protection and sustenance, and then how to record for future generations the whakapapa of their environment.

Last weekend I attended a hui where a young girl and her brother of Indian-Māori descent astounded us all with a waiata that traversed geographical and social histories in a technically complex performance that would exceed any National Certificate of Educational Achievement standard. The knowledge of ngā taonga tuku iho demonstrates a vast capacity for sharing experiences through waiata, whaikōrero, mōteatea, and karakia.

The entrepreneurial legacy of our mātua tūpuna came to the fore recently at the international entrepreneurship research exchange. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor released last week revealed that Māori are the world’s third most entrepreneurial people. In fact, an incredible one in three Māori aged 35 to 44 years are business entrepreneurs, just as Māori were in the 1860s before the Land Wars. A particularly interesting result was that 18 percent of Māori entrepreneurs claimed to be using the very latest technology, compared with 10 percent of the general population. Let us just imagine the impact we could make if all homes had access to computers, let alone the world of the web.

The birth of Māori Television, the resounding popularity of iwi radio, and the impact of our Māori artists in film and design provide an abundance of examples of the creativity of today’s voyagers. Success such as Two Cars, One Night, an 11-minute black and white wonder, earned director Taika Waititi an Oscar nomination and Best Short Film award in Berlin, Aspen, Melbourne, and Hamburg. We should not be surprised at those results. One has only to consider the multitasking managerial skills required on the marae to see that expertise in abundance. The Time Use Survey reported that Māori were more likely to do unpaid work for people and organisations outside their own household than non-Māori. That huge investment of unpaid time and skill is given without question.

Of course it is one thing to be talented, to be successful, to be world class—and it is quite another to be able to capitalise on that. Only 37 percent of Māori entrepreneurial start-ups survive 3½ years, compared with 62 percent of the general population. Why is it that those world-class entrepreneurs lack the sustainable support to get out there and make a mark on the world? We must be bold as a nation and invest in our future. Sitting in the wings is a huge pool of talent. This House should be aware of the impact of a non-profit group of young leaders calling themselves the Advancement of Māori Opportunity, or “AMO”. Part of the Advancement of Māori Opportunity programme includes export opportunities for Māori exporters and businesses through indigenous networks. It promotes leadership through its Māori Ambassadors Programme, which has seen many young Māori policy advisers, tax consultants, environmental analysts, solicitors, parents, and even an obstetric registrar share their skills with other nations.

There has never been a better time to be reaching across the globe for those international connections. The Māori Party celebrated the triumph of Aymara Indian Evo Morales, who was elected as Bolivia’s first indigenous President. We admired the remarkable rise in political influence of indigenous peoples throughout Latin America. The voiceless of Bolivia have been given a voice. We have celebrated the victory of a man of the people, Oscar Manutahi Temaru, elected President of the French Polynesian islands of Tahiti and Moorea.

In Aotearoa too we saw in our recent election the momentum of the indigenous voice, with a turnout of electors on the Māori roll rise up to 67 percent—10 points higher than at the 2002 election. The recent election was a watershed for our people. Seventy percent of Māori voters surveyed in a study by the Chief Electoral Office followed the results on election night, with 97 percent of them following the results on television. We know that the same hunger for political influence is a driving force for Māori as we prepare for the Māori electoral option kicking off on 3 April.

Tangata whenua are demanding an independent voice—a voice for transformation, a voice that is kaupapa-based, a compelling voice. It is a voice that has been nurtured over some 25 years, through the resilience and passion of more than 60,000 kōhanga reo graduates. Ko te tamaiti te rangatira mō āpōpō—our children are the leaders of tomorrow. Today I honour those kaumātua, those koroua, and kuia who nourished a Māori movement of change, who fought to keep our language alive, who believed in the kaupapa, and who led the way in turning around an education system in order to ensure that our mokopuna thrive in the language and tikanga of our ancestors. The voice of transformation under kura kaupapa, whare kura, and wānanga has assumed the validity and legitimacy of Māori language and culture. It is a voice that articulates our aspirations as central to our cultural well-being.

We are planning for our future—a future of enormous growth and prosperity of our cultural assets. Like our voyaging tūpuna, our sights are set on the horizons. Our past is our present and our future. In my electorate the Raukawa Trustees have a 25-year tribal development strategy known as Te Wakatipuranga Rua Mano. The strategy enforced that Māori language is a taonga, that people are our greatest resource, that the marae is the principal home of the iwi, and the principle of rangatiratanga. It is about vision, it is about commitment, and it is about belief. It is about people power. Much of those visions have come from whānau who have dared to dream. Some have been supported by the Government, and some have not. The Māori Party will continue to ask “Why not?”, when so many of those ideas are of such benefit to the nation, and we must invest in potential. We see whānau taking small steps to improve health and well-being, or hapū looking at wind turbines or solar panels to create an environmentally friendly marae environment.

We are proud that our nation is slowly but surely developing a deeper respect for the distinctive identities of all cultural histories and practices of all peoples of Aotearoa. That is what it means to walk together on our pathway forward. We are the designers of our own destiny. Tangata whenua throughout Aotearoa are flourishing in their expression of an authentic voice. In doing so, we seek to grow the mana of Māori, promote the diversity of Aotearoa, and support the restoration of strength, trust, and confidence in all people who call this land home.

Waiata

The speaker who has just resumed her seat raised some issues relating to the Māori people that we in United Future would say have application to all people. She quite properly spoke about the unleashing of the potential of every individual in a family, in a community to achieve the best that was available to him or her. We would say that the fundamental responsibility of any Government is to follow policies that will enable all New Zealand families—all people in this country—to have that opportunity, and she is right to draw attention to it. Because, sadly, in the debate thus far this afternoon, that point has been missing.

We have seen claim and counterclaim. We have seen the usual back-to-school approach that characterises, every year, the resumption of civilities in this House, but we have seen very little in the way of a concrete contribution to issues that will benefit the people and the individuals that make up this great country.

One of the reasons that we entered into a supply and confidence agreement with the Labour-led Government after the election was that we were far more interested in being able to make some gains on behalf of New Zealanders, and some progress towards making this a better country in a variety of ways, than merely staying on the outside throwing the occasional rock that may or may not hit its target but would leave us feeling pretty good just for the privilege of being able to do so.

In the time that I have available to me this afternoon I want to talk about some issues that are of particular relevance both to our agreement and also the ministerial roles that I hold. Mention was made in the Prime Minister’s statement of the major review of business taxation that is now under way. This is going to be an important step because, in many senses, it is the first major review on a comprehensive basis of New Zealand’s business-tax arrangements since the 1980s. We have had a series of changes since then—a series of new initiatives introduced—but we have not taken the time to stand back, look at the way in which our business-tax regime is structured, the objectives that we want for it in terms of maintaining competitiveness with our major trading partner, boosting productivity, retaining at first, and then seeking, new investment in New Zealand, and creating opportunity for our people.

We must never forget that 90 to 95 percent of our businesses are small businesses and that, for them, the ability to operate profitably, effectively, and make a contribution, is just as important as for those we might traditionally regard as the large-business sector—the glamour people of the industrial era. So it is important to have a regime that reflects the need to keep this country—of 4 million people as it is—on as much of a front foot as we can, and the changes that we will be announcing in due course are aimed solely at that achievement, and they will be a positive step forward.

I am reminded when I hear those who now say “We aren’t going fast enough.” of these two facts. The issue was not in the manifesto of the Government at the last election, and in the Opposition party’s manifesto it ranked well behind personal tax changes. So we will see change, and that has got to be encouraged and advanced.

Harking back to the point that was raised by the previous speaker about the role of communities in fostering opportunity and building strengths, one of the great features of New Zealand is the commitment that volunteers make—the work the charitable sector does. The fact is that if they were not there performing that work to the degree that they do, our taxes would be much higher to boost the gap that that would create. So it is important that we review our charitable-tax regime—and we will be doing so—to give greater recognition to those who donate to charities, to ensure that now that we have a regime in place through the Charities Act, which registers and identifies our charities, we can also have a tax regime that more fairly reflects the work that they do and the benefit that they contribute to New Zealand society.

I go back to the previous speaker again. She talked a lot—and I agree with her—about the heritage and the value of New Zealand, the pride we all have in what this country is about, and our determination to preserve that. But sometimes our determination can be hijacked by meaningless and trite slogans, and we put policies in place that look good and sound good, but do not work. I am pleased in that respect that one of the early achievements of our agreement with the Government was the cancellation of the carbon tax, because it was clearly unworkable. It was not going to achieve the purposes set for it, and it was certainly not going to help us meet anything like our Kyoto obligations. I welcome the move that is now in place to have a much more industry-specific set of solutions, recognising that the conditions of particular industry sectors will differ, and the capacity and the influence that they have in terms of their contribution to Kyoto issues will also differ.

I think that is a sensible step forward. No one doubts the risk to our planet or the damage that global warming poses. If they do, I invite them to read Tim Flannery’s book The Weather Makers. It is a very good analysis. It is very soft, however, on solutions. To suggest that the complexity of environmental degradation can be resolved simply by a $200 a tonne carbon tax, as he does, is fatuous. But the analysis of the issues is correct. I think that the approach we are now taking is a far more balanced and sensible one than was in vogue a little while ago. I see the ACT member opposite who has a member’s bill coming up next week regarding—

💬 Heather Roy: Are you supporting it?

We will be supporting it. I think it is an important step forward and I want to outline the reasons why. This relates to the removal of the exemption currently enjoyed by Pharmac in terms of the Commerce Act. We have had a situation in the last few days, which gives some substance to the call that we made in our agreement for the need to develop a national medicine strategy, in which I am involved as Associate Minister of Health. The Herceptin issue, which is causing a great deal of anguish and pain for many women in New Zealand, is a classic example of what happens when one rations the availability of pharmaceuticals by price in the absence of a wider policy environment that recognises the role that pharmaceuticals can play in constructive medical care.

That is also the type of issue that relates to enhancing the ability of people to live their lives in confidence and a measure of certainty, and to achieve their potential. That is going to be an important challenge in terms of ensuring that what has been, to date, a system that has worked effectively on regulating supply by price can now be balanced by a wider policy framework recognising the value of technology, the contribution of new medicines, and the demands that people place upon them.

This year is going to be one of challenge. Real issues face this Parliament and the parties within it. Simple sloganeering—throwing rocks for the sake of it—is not going to advance the cause of our people one iota. I implore all members, whatever their perspective on issues and whatever their view, to concentrate on promoting issues, not personalities; and matters of substance, not trivia; and to work together to try to get some constructive solutions. That is what our people sent us here for and that is what they will ultimately thank us for having achieved. It is a challenge we could well do our best to live up to.

Mr Dunne, whom I follow in speaking, is quite right in that we are here to debate the big issues of New Zealand. As representatives, we are concerned about the families of New Zealand and their futures and, as Tariana Turia mentioned, we are concerned about underdevelopment of the Māori people in our country. I also take Jeanette Fitzsimons’ point about her grandson Jasper. We do want the next generation to grow up in a world that is free, in a society that is open, and in a world that is prosperous. We should always remember, when human beings are brought into the world, that, yes, they come with a mouth and they need to be fed but they also come with two arms, two legs, and a mind to produce, to create, and to develop their full God-given potential. We should be striving in this House and in this Parliament to create a world where all New Zealanders, whatever their race and whatever their culture, can develop their full, God-given potential.

There is another reason why Jasper can be considered lucky. That is because his grandmother did not burn down the Coromandel over the summer break when, contrary to the fire ban, she lit a fire, which could have burnt down the entire Coromandel, and then made the lame excuse that she did not know that a fire ban was in place. It is very, very hard to drive around the Coromandel—or anywhere in New Zealand—and not to know that a fire ban is in place.

That is one of the troubles that I have with our Green colleagues. They are all very keen to tell each and every New Zealander what to do but they are not so good at looking after the environment themselves. The leader of the Green Party lit a fire in the height of summer in the Coromandel bush, and I say shame on Jeannette Fitzsimons. I am amazed that she has not come down to this House to apologise for what was potentially a huge act of environmental vandalism.

I read Helen Clark’s speech—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You’re the only one.

I thought it was so boring and tedious, and then I came down and heard it. I have never heard in this House a leader, fresh from overseas trips and parading herself on the world stage looking for the next job, give a more tired, a more despondent, and a more visionless speech during my time in Parliament. It was so bad that the new and rising star of the Labour Party, Shane Jones, who was sitting up the back there, was fast asleep through the entire speech of the Prime Minister. That is right. He was woken up only when his colleagues tried to manage a clap. Shane Jones, being new to the Labour caucus, has not learnt that trick that we could see on the face of everyone in the Labour caucus. They had that glassy-eyed look they have when the Prime Minister speaks—their eyes were open, but they were fast asleep, rack-ruined with boredom and pious statement.

There was no vision for New Zealand in that speech. There was no ambition for New Zealanders. There was no programme for this Government—nothing. [Interruption] Sue Bradford calls out: “Where’s the ACT party?”. We stand up in this House with our whole caucus. We are proud to stand up to outline to Sue Bradford our vision, ambition, and programme for New Zealand. Our vision is for a free and prosperous New Zealand. We cannot prosper when we are laden down with regulations that stop young Jasper from getting ahead in the world. We need that freedom as a right and we need that freedom to prosper.

Our ambition is for New Zealanders to stand tall and proud as Kiwis in the world. How can we stand tall and proud with Helen Clark as Prime Minister? That woman is an embarrassment as the laws that apply to everyone else in New Zealand do not apply to her. Now we find that the laws that apply to every MP and every political party do not apply to her or the Labour Party, and she has dragged in the good office of the Speaker to what is a corrupt practice in New Zealand—that is, the misappropriation of taxpayers’ money.

Our ambition for New Zealand is for it to perform at the top of the OECD ladder, not to middle around the middle and falling, but at the top, by having—I tell Judith Tizard—a small and limited Government that does the proper functions of government properly and recognises that the engine of growth and prosperity is the free-enterprise system in this country. We should have a New Zealand that is clean and green, that recognises and upholds private property rights, and a New Zealand that is safe. In fact, New Zealand should be the safest country in the world to visit and to live in. We should have a police force and a justice system that stands up for the law and for law-abiding citizens, not a police force that is run ragged by the Prime Minister and cannot perform its proper function.

We should have an education system that is the envy of the world. Why? Because children should be funded to a school of their parents’ choice. Children should not be restricted to a State school. Every New Zealander should have a real choice, not only the rich and favoured. Why can we not have choice and competition in our education system when we have it everywhere else and it works to our benefit?

We should have a welfare system that delivers to the 5 percent who are needy and enables the 95 percent who can cope and manage to get on with their lives, not a welfare system that Helen Clark has created where even MPs become entitled to welfare from the State—that is, paying tax and getting it back, and where even businesses under Jim Anderton’s policies get welfare. That is not our ambition for this country. We cannot stand tall and proud if we are living for a handout. We stand for a diverse and tolerant New Zealand, where everyone is equal before the law, notwithstanding their race, creed, or religious beliefs. Helen Clark should pay back now. The money that she used to fund the tax cuts—and let me be clear about these words—was stolen from the taxpayer. Because that money in the leader’s fund was intended to be spent on parliamentary business, and it is plain in the handbook, which all parties adhere to, that it is used to pay for parliamentary business—and those credit cards, in an election campaign, are not parliamentary business. I potted Jim Anderton for using the parliamentary frank to put a letter out advertising Kiwibank. He put his hand up and he paid the money back. When Marian Hobbs was caught fiddling her expenses, she put her hand up and paid the money back.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: She was not.

Well, if she was not caught, why did she pay the money back? She was caught red-handed. In this case Helen Clark was caught red-handed using taxpayers’ money—money they pay for a police force, for an education system, for a health system, not to fund the crooked Labour Party. The majority of taxpayers do not support Labour, yet under Helen Clark their money was taken that was given to her for parliamentary business. She took their money and put it towards funding her pledge card, under her fake photo and her real signature. She should be held accountable, and she should pay that money back.

I take great pleasure in supporting the Prime Minister’s statement. I have to say that the hypocrisy of some of the things I have heard this afternoon knows no bounds. My party did not use—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Could the member be seated, please? That word is not parliamentary, and it has been ruled out of order in the past. I ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw and apologise. The double standards that I have heard this afternoon know no bounds. My party did not use a cent of Parliamentary Service money, and I saw Parliamentary Service money being used for a variety of causes. But I have seen that for years: billboards, ACT brochures, National brochures—members can name them—with Parliamentary Service all over them, and when they are being sent out, parties pretend that they are not appealing for anyone to vote for them. Give me a break!

Then, in the new year, after the election, when members call on the Parliament of New Zealand to give some vision—and Don Brash talked about vision—what do we hear? We hear an argument about who is spending the Parliamentary Service’s money. The truth is that every single party in the House is spending the Parliamentary Service’s money. Yet that is the big issue that New Zealand is seized with! How many members of Parliament who are electorate MPs can say, with their hands on their hearts, that they have had anyone come into their electorate office and mention that? I see 1,500 people a year in my electorate office—it is like a railway station—and not one single person has raised it. One would think that this would have happened, because there are a lot of Labour and non-Labour people in my electorate, but no.

This is the big issue that will raise the vision of the people this year in New Zealand! It really is a bit sickening, when one thinks about it. This is the big chance to set out the vision for the future, and what the parties of the House want to do, and what happens? We have an argument about Parliamentary Service expenditure—that is the big issue for New Zealand. We have Rodney Hide ranting and raving about it. It is pathetic, really, when one thinks about it. There are some real issues, and there are some real challenges for the Government, in the health system and in the world economy. All sorts of issues could have been raised, but no, we hear about Parliamentary Service money. It is ridiculous.

I suggest one of the things that Don—or Mr Brash—and others should think about is why no one in this Parliament, not even ACT, can work with National. It is a funny thing that the party that criticises National the most is the party that actually promotes itself as an alternative to National. There are only two of them there, but they cannot get on. The Māori Party makes some noises about assisting National, but in truth the Māori Party would require the National Party to give up its core policy position, so I do not think that that will happen. The Greens will not support the National Party, and Labour and the Progressive party will not support it, either. The New Zealand First Party and the United Future party have signed up support agreements with Labour, so what is wrong with National?

What is wrong with National is what we just heard in the debate. National speakers knocked New Zealand. They said that everyone wants to live in Australia, and they talked about how much better Australia is than New Zealand. Have National members actually had a real look at what the issues are, in terms of attractiveness and all the rest of it? Have they looked at the relative competitiveness of the two countries? Because I say to Mr Brash that the Ministry of Economic Development did do a study on that. I have heard people like him say that so often. Even the business community, who are encouraged by people like him, say that things are all much better in Australia, and everything else—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but members should be called by their correct title—Dr Brash, please.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As far as I am aware, that is an academic title; it is not a medical title. Doctors are called—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. [Interruption] Silence! I am ruling on a point of order. The point is that members indicate quite clearly to the Speaker how they will be addressed. The member will be addressed as Dr Brash.

Dr Brash should ask himself—and I think this is another example of it—why the other parties in this Parliament are not working with National but are working on the Government side of the House. One of the reasons is that most of us who have chosen not to work with the National Party are proud to be New Zealanders, and we are proud of the reputation of this country, in terms of what we are doing for New Zealand both domestically and internationally.

I have just come from a regional fisheries management organisation international meeting at Te Papa.

💬 Hon David Carter: What was your caucus like this morning?

Members can see the small stuff we get. We are talking about—

💬 Darren Hughes: He’s a “big picture” man.

Yes, a “big picture” man. When we are talking about 29 countries from all over the world coming to New Zealand to work out a regional management fisheries organisation that will conserve fisheries in the South Pacific Ocean, what do we hear from that member? “What was your caucus like this morning?”. Maybe that is why David Carter is on the Opposition side of the House and we are on the Government side of the House. That is true, because the people of New Zealand had every incentive to vote for the party that Mr Carter represents, and had all the bribes that could be named in terms of tax cuts, and all the rest of it. But what did they do? They did not do it. They had the chance to do so, but they did not. The reason, in the end, relates to all the stuff about minimalist Government, which is what we have just heard about from Rodney Hide. That is what he was talking about—small Government, and everyone looking after themselves. If someone is really starving on the street and in the gutter, ACT and National might let that person line up by the post office and see if he or she can get a job! That is what we heard from the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Brash; that was his solution.

This Government wants to empower every New Zealander to have the same rights—of course it does. But what does that mean? It means the right to a job—that is what it means. What right to a job do people have now? They have almost an unfettered right. I have been through periods of history in this country, under both National and Labour as a matter of fact, where mass unemployment was virtually an economic policy that was being followed by the Government. That is not a policy that is being followed by this coalition Government, and demonstrably we have a very good employment situation.

Good news abounds everywhere. The fishing conference that I was at this morning is looking at a regional organisation that will conserve the environment of the South Pacific Ocean. But, even better, the fishing industry in New Zealand approached the Government before Christmas, and said that since there is now an enlightened Minister of Fisheries—dare I say it; present company excepted, of course—the industry wanted to propose a policy that sets aside 31 percent of the entire South Pacific Ocean in the exclusive economic zone area, and 42 percent of the sea mounts. The fishers wanted to offer some of the best fishing areas in New Zealand waters to be kept in perpetuity, so they do not touch them and there are pristine areas that will never be bottom trawled. That was their offer. The truth, as former Ministers of Fisheries know, is that if Government members had sat down and worked out our best possible position in terms of a request to the fishing industry to do that, we would not have had the audacity or vision to come up with the proposal that the fishing industry came to us with. That proposal has been accepted by the Government, which is working it through.

So is there good news? Normally the fishing industry is in court every second day, litigating things all over the place. Whenever the Government has a regulation, a law, or even a hint of some problem, the issue goes to the court, with Crown Law being involved, with millions of dollars being spent, and with time delays. We could have, by October, the largest conservation area of any ocean in the world, under an initiative proposed by the fishing industry itself, without one piece of litigation. I give that example as something today that is good news. But what do we get? We have had: “How much money has been spent from the Parliamentary Service budget?”, and: “How was the caucus this morning?”. Well, the people of New Zealand are looking for a bit more than that from this Parliament, and I would hope they get it.

The primary sectors of New Zealand have the best productivity record of any sector in New Zealand. I heard Dr Brash say that productivity is abysmal in New Zealand. The productivity of the primary sector in this country has been a stand-out performance for 15 years. Why did we not hear something about that? The National Party proclaims itself to be the representative of the rural community, but we do not hear one single word of praise for the rural community or the private sector. It takes an urban boy from west Auckland and Sydenham to support, help, and assist the primary sector industries of New Zealand. We did not get a word of support for that from the leader of the National Party in his long speech to this Parliament—not a word was mentioned. Some people in the farming, agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, and fishing industries are starting to recognise that they have some real friends on the Government side of the House, and that some of those on the Opposition side of the House have lost the plot in terms of where they are. People cannot tell me that National Party members were not briefed today by the fishing industry on how good the deal I have mentioned is and on how much support the industry would like to give the Government of New Zealand on this matter.

We in this country have a lot to celebrate, and it is well past time that the National Party caught up with the reality of how well New Zealand has done, is doing, and will do under this coalition Government.

I begin by saying that it is good to be back in the House. It is good to see you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and the team once again at the front of the House. I welcome back colleagues, who have no doubt had a break around the country and done what I think all Labour and Government - oriented people have done—gone out and spent time talking to New Zealanders. Members will have discovered that, almost to a person, New Zealanders have no knowledge of what goes on in this House. What New Zealanders care about is what goes on in their lives and what has made a difference to them in their housing, incomes, jobs, and families. That is what they talk about.

I found, to my amazement, that almost every single one of the people I spoke to—I did come across a politician, so that person remembered—had forgotten the election. They had forgotten the National Party. National Party members like to believe that somehow they have gotten into the minds of New Zealanders over the last little while. I have news for them: no one is pining for the possibility of a National Party victory. I did not meet a single person who did. I went to Fendalton in Christchurch, the heartland of Mr Brownlee’s empire. Did I find anybody there who was pining for Gerry to be the Deputy Prime Minister? Not a single person said to me that he or she regrets the fact that Gerry is not the Deputy Prime Minister. I did not hear a single word from anybody on that.

In fact, I think a lot of people are very grateful that it did not happen. Before the election a few may have been a bit persuaded by the big tax cuts. They were revving up and saying that maybe $100 would go into their pockets, so they would give it a larrup and vote for the National Party candidate. They did that and stopped voting for all the other parties that used to split the conservative right vote. They ramped it up, putting their votes behind Dr Don Brash, and away they went, saying that maybe, guiltily, they would have a wee go at getting a win on the lotto with the victory of the National Party.

But now they think thank goodness it did not happen, because they know that tax cuts would have meant spending cuts. They knew that; they knew that health, education, and all the things they care about would have cost more. They knew that if the National Party had been voted in with its race policy, and if a group of people of European origin had got together in the House and voted out the Māori seats, that would have been divisive. They knew that the race-based policy of the National Party would not have been good for the country.

Most of all, by the time of the election they had seen an awful lot of Dr Don Brash, beginning with the effort to get into the speedway car. That set the whole image of the National Party campaign, as it tried to ramp up all those votes. People saw that image of Dr Don Brash, future leader of New Zealand, trying to get into a speedway car, and they knew they were in trouble. And on it went. People found during the election campaign that not only could he not get into a speedway car but he could not remember a single policy. Let us cut him some slack: National did not have much policy, so it was always hard for him, if asked about policy, to do anything other than say that he did not know, because there was nothing to talk about. There were only those core policies of tax and race, and of relying on the notion that Dr Don Brash would somehow win the election.

We now know that that is all academic, anyway. Now that the election is over and the National Party has lost it, its members know that that big tide of votes that were piled up behind the tax cuts has gone as far as it will go. It is right up the beach and foreshore. That tide has gone as far as it can possibly go. It has eked out that last little bit of froth. It has gone as far as it will go, and now it is ebbing back again. So now we have a dead man walking. The phrase that will dog Dr Don Brash for the next little while, until someone else takes over, is “dead man walking”. Of those of us who have had any time in this House—we will forget people like Mr Clarkson who have just got here—is there anybody, with any experience at all, who cannot see the signs? That is exactly what has happened every other time.

The dead man is walking, and alongside him are the two major contenders, who are sitting across from me today. Mr John Key is one. I say to the people at home that Mr John Key is in the House today. He is looking at the speeches, he is studying what his leader did today, and he is learning that the best thing that could have happened was for him to move an extension to Dr Don Brash’s speech time so that Dr Brash could bury himself faster. Next to Mr Key is Bill English. He is also positioning to take over. John Key is the fresh face—he has been here only a short time. Mr Bill English is the person who has heaps of experience that goes right back a number of years through a number of Governments and portfolios. He is able to say that he was out there leading before. He has had time on the bench but is now willing to come back. And, of course, there is Gerry Brownlee. What does Gerry Brownlee do? He knows that if Mr Key and Mr English are to move on Don Brash, they have to move on him at some point. There is only one way in politics: if one is not going down, one is going up. So Mr Brownlee is in the ring, as well. There are now three contenders for the National Party leadership, because the campaign did not work and Dr Don Brash has had his shot.

On this side of the House it is completely different. We are not talking about leadership. We are not talking about tax cuts. We are not talking about race. We are talking about a programme for the next 10 years that will lead this country towards the kind of transformation that we all know we need, and that the people we met over the holidays all asked us to deliver. Those people want change. They do not want to hear about constant wrangles over whether Don Brash ought to be the leader, but that is what they will get from the National Party. We on this side of the House have set out very clearly that we will continue, through this term and for the next 10 years, on our very clear agenda. We will transform this country. What does that mean in practice? It means taking a country that bases its economy on commodities and leading it towards an economy based upon adding value to goods and services, and marketing them around the world. That is what we are embarked on, and we want to do that in a very distinct, New Zealand way.

Unlike the National Party, we do not spend our entire time talking about how to develop the Australian economy; we are 100 percent, 24/7 Kiwis. We are Kiwis and we want to talk about New Zealand—about the fantastic things here—and we want all Kiwis to be in this transformation. We do not want to divide them; we do not want to leave some behind; we do not want to say that some people are not worth it. We want to take every single one of them with us across into that kind of new country. That means that we will transform this economy and there will be an improving infrastructure. There will be investment in research, science, and technology; there will be investment in education; there will be investment in all the drivers that will change this economy. Beside that, we intend to transform the social environment of all New Zealanders. We want strong families. We want to get rid of poverty. We want families well housed. We want kids going as far as their potential can take them, and we want old people feeling secure.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How long have you been in Government?

In answer to Maurice Williamson over there, I say that we have had 6 short years and, my God, have we not accomplished a lot!

Finally, we are going to focus on the issue of national identity. One of the major developments over the last 6 years has been to have a film industry, to have leading sportspeople, to have television, and to have all the creative industries that now deliver jobs to our economy also identify us as very proud New Zealanders. So we will be developing our economy, our families, and our national identity.

Meanwhile, I return to the National Party, whose members, sadly, are sitting here again totally preoccupied with the one issue now that they have to talk about—that is, leadership. On this side of the House we will get on with the business of creating a 21st century, modern New Zealand that all New Zealanders can share in, and the National Party can have the next 3 years to rip itself to pieces, yet again.

What a dreadful speech that was from the Prime Minister this afternoon. It was 12 pages of clichés looking for a slogan—utter garbage. It was said earlier that Shane Jones went to sleep during that speech, and Rodney Hide said that it was only an attempt at applause that woke him up. Well, let me tell members that those back-benchers were not applauding at the end of her speech; they were slapping their faces to try to stay awake.

We thought that the Prime Minister might have addressed the pressing issue of the corruption allegation that now lies at the feet of her Government. Mr Anderton can try to dismiss it as being unimportant, but when a Government becomes so arrogant that it thinks taxpayer funds are there for its own benefit—a slush fund to get it re-elected—then this country is in trouble. Today we heard nothing in that speech that looks to the future of this country, at all. We heard a rehash of the last 6 years of Prime Minister’s statements in this House—a cut and paste, and nothing more. When Mr Maharey stands there and says that they are going to transform this country, and the economy of this country, I tell him that we have heard that for 6 long years. Now, after all those 6 long years of fantastic and unexpectedly good times in our economy, Labour members know we are facing a bit of a glitch, and they are holding the seats of their pants and hoping they can talk their way through it.

The Prime Minister cannot stand here today and say that we want a high-skill, high-wage economy when very highly skilled engineers at Air New Zealand, a substantially Government-owned company, are expected to take rather large pay cuts in order to keep their jobs. That will become the pattern in the economy in the next short while—people taking pay cuts to stay in work. How will that help the growing gulf between us and Australia? Those members over there will not want to say—as Mr Maharey did—that “We are New Zealanders, 100 percent Kiwi. We don’t want to keep looking at Australia.” But young people will, because there is not a family in this country that does not have somebody who has crossed the ditch for better opportunities. As we become part of a smaller world, the opportunity for young people to seek their fortune elsewhere and turn this country into a holiday destination is growing by the day, because of that Government’s inattention to the economy.

I want to turn back to the pledge card—the disgraceful pledge card paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand. We have a picture on the front of it. I am not sure who it is—a missing person, I suspect. One of the interesting things on the back is a pledge about 250 extra community police. We heard today from Mr Peters—he used to be called Luigi; he is now known as “Perks Peters”—the man who said that New Zealand First will deliver an extra 1,000 police to this country. Has he not heard that Damien O’Connor is just going to let the crims out, anyway? The really bad ones—the really violent ones and the really nasty ones—will be accommodated in new prisons where the cost of their cells will be a fantastic $600,000 per cell. Well, the taxpayers of this country need to know that two five-star hotel rooms could be built for $600,000. That is the attitude that this Government takes to law and order and to locking up crims.

We also heard today a rehash of all the freebies and give-aways that were in the last election round and were spoken of by the Government prior to Parliament finishing at the end of the year. One of the key things the Prime Minister is hanging her hat on is interest-free loans for students. Well, that might be good while people are studying. But if those people stay in this country—and that is the only way the loan is interest-free—there is effectively a compulsory 10 percent demand on their incomes the moment they start working. That is not freeing up young people to make good choices; it is forcing them into whatever job they have to take and requiring them to stay in this country by compulsion.

Why does the Government not have a more aspirational approach to young people making their lives in this country? We would agree with the Government that there is a need to do some work on the identity of New Zealand, and I would applaud it for having a go. But the identity of this country is not found in more welfare dependency; it is not found in bigger bureaucracies; it is not found in compelling people to do things; and it is not found in big Government. The Prime Minister goes on and on and says “Aren’t we marvellous. Look what we have done for our identity.”, and points to the film The World’s Fastest Indian. Well, we should be very clear that if Burt Munro tried to do today what he did in those times, he would face such a huge bureaucratic nightmare he would never get off the ground.

We used to be a country where the saying was “you can do”; we are now a country where the saying is “you can’t do—unless Helen and the troops say you can”. And the Prime Minister has a whole back bench over there who are ready any day of the week to do exactly what they are told. There is no free thinking on that side of the House, at all, and nowhere is that seen to worse display than among the Māori members on that side. They went into the last election with the pledge card, saying they would introduce legislation to close off Treaty claims by 1 September 2008. That is not far away, but where is the legislation? Where was talk of it in the Prime Minister’s speech today? There has been just a quiet sweeping of it under the floor, because Labour has no interest in ridding this country of Treaty grievance—no interest in putting right what was wrong. It is much more interested in a process that will see us spending the next 30 to 40 years arguing over a lousy $600 million.

It is time that the Māori members on that side of the House started talking to the people they represent. The Prime Minister talks about a growing economy, and about families having more disposable income. Well, in this country Māori families earn, on average, more than $7,000 less than non-Māori families. That is an issue that the National Party is committed to fixing. When we talk about everyone standing as equals before the law, we mean it as much about opportunity as about anything else.

I return now to the issue of Labour using taxpayer funds for its election purposes. That was the most splendidly arrogant thing that could possibly have happened leading into the last election. The Prime Minister knew that the Auditor-General was unhappy with the way that sort of spending was being pursued by so many. He asked Dr Brash whether they could meet to sort it out. Dr Brash said yes and put out a press release to make it very clear that National wanted to sort it out. The Prime Minister was asked, and she said: “No, I can’t meet you, but I’ll bring in the State Services Commissioner to take a briefing on the briefing.” When the Auditor-General made it very clear that if the Prime Minister went down that track she would have some difficulty, she had to say that they would not go down that track, because at that time she knew Labour was planning to fund its card and pamphlet with its leader’s office funding.

Labour looted the leader’s office fund for its own electoral benefit. If people want to know the magnitude of that, Labour went over the top with about 25 percent of the allowable funds. So one asks oneself that if corruption does not matter to Labour, then what sort of Government is it? What other decisions is Labour making for the lives of New Zealanders that have concern not for those people but only for its own electoral success? I think the Government will have some difficulty in explaining this to New Zealanders. Mr Maharey might want to say that no one is listening, but Mr Maharey is a man who has no experience of listening. So there are no worries in that.

My final comments go to Mr Peters, the man who spent most of his time here today attacking the National Party. I say to Mr Peters that he is now in Government and that if he wants to recognise us as the Opposition, that is great, because this will be one of the most effective Oppositions Parliament has ever seen.

If that is one of the most effective Oppositions we have ever seen, how come Don Brash, the visionary, was not able to be with us in the House today? How come Dr Brash, the bold planner, could not be with us in the House today?

💬 Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member on his feet knows he must not refer to people who are absent from the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is quite correct. Of course, Dr Brash is not absent from the House. He is right here.

How come Don Brash, the far-sighted, Dr Brash, the sensible, Dr Brash, the reasonable, or even Dr Brash, the mildly interesting, was not able to be with us in the House today? His speech was taken on advice. He spoke on matters he was told to speak on. He did not speak on matters he wanted to speak on. He did not even make a speech that would be made by a half-decent Leader of the Opposition at the opening of Parliament following the Prime Minister’s speech setting out the Government’s programme for the year. It was a wasted opportunity. Instead, Dr Brash decided to attack—and attack does not suit Dr Brash. He does not feel angry or dismayed; he just said he was angry and dismayed. His speech did not come from the heart. Actually, it did not come from the head, either. His speech came from his advisers, again. Dr Brash does not do angry any more than Gerry Brownlee does gymnastics.

So an opportunity to set the agenda, again, was lost. An opportunity to lay out a programme, or even a programme towards a programme, was lost. An opportunity to say what National stands for, if it stands for anything these days, was forgone—lost. All we saw was a man accepting advice from the shadows that he has to get angry, or, if he does not, his caucus will get him. “Get angry” I say to Dr Brash, “because if you don’t your caucus will get you.” That is the advice. So Dr Brash, who does not do angry, tried to get angry, but we saw again that he does not do it. Sooner or later, of course, his caucus will get him. The denials, the slip-ups, and the calls for calm will continue, and when it gets desperately terminal, members of his caucus will have votes of confidence, which will run for a while. But the reason we know they will get Dr Brash is that Dr Brash cannot count. When Dr Brash was giving his boring, uninteresting, derisory response to a visionary statement from the Prime Minister, he said that he headed the largest caucus National has ever seen. Well, tell that to Rob Muldoon. He headed a caucus of 55 compared with 48 in this one. Tell that to Jim Bolger, who had 67 in his caucus for 3 years compared with 48 in this one. So Dr Brash cannot count. The lesson in politics is that if one cannot count one will not stay in politics.

Dr Brash needs 25 votes every day, every week. Twenty-four will not do, because with that number he has to use his own casting vote to stay in office, and that is not good. Then there was the interesting slip-up when Dr Brash referred to the “health-scare” sector. What happened was that in the last election Dr Brash and his party promised tax cuts that would have totalled $3.9 billion per annum in the third year, and all of us knew that National would get that money only by slashing the big-ticket items, such as health, education, and law and order. Even now National members say it is not true, and even now they say that money can be spent more than once. It cannot be. It is the one or the other, I say to Dr Brash. It can either be given back to people in tax cuts, or be taken off people in improved services. It is one way or another. The money can be spent but once. Dr Brash lost the election, and now we will be able to make further progress in making our health and education sectors, and law and order as well, stronger and better.

Labour formed a Government. New Zealand’s health system is no longer under threat, because the Government has been formed by Labour. Instead, we will continue to build our already good system into a better one. We will continue to have an already responsive system become more responsive, an already high-quality system become higher quality, and an already cost-effective system become more cost effective. That is what will happen under this Government. But Dr Brash spent much of his speech talking about Labour’s election expenses, and National’s deputy leader for the moment did the same thing when he made his remarks in the speech before mine.

The fact is that the Electoral Commission has referred the matter of Labour’s election expenses to the police for investigation. Dr Brash may live to regret that he wasted so much of his valuable time and this valuable opportunity on that matter, because the expenditure of the Exclusive Brethren church has also been referred to the police for investigation. That group is the secretive, exclusive, non-voting group that came clean on television during the third week of the election campaign and said that it was responsible for pamphleting the country with blue, pro-National, anti-Labour, anti-Green pamphlets, and much besides. Members may remember that this is the same Exclusive Brethren group that Dr Brash did not meet, did not know about, and did not encourage. Do members remember the sequence? At the beginning of the week Paul Holmes asked him who was dealing the nasty pamphlets, and Dr Brash said: “I don’t know, actually, Paul.” That was on the fifth. On the seventh, Gerry Brownlee said on Morning Report: “Oh, there’s no relationship with the Exclusive Brethren church. We are not aware that they were coming out and have had nothing to do with it.” That is what they said then. But the following day, on a radio programme called 95B FM—it might be one Dr Brash thought no one listened to—Dr Brash said: “I knew they were going to issue some pamphlets attacking the Government, and I said: ‘That’s tremendous.’ ”

So this is a man who flip-flopped. In fact, in the public domain many people said that the Leader of the Opposition was lying. Many people said that in the public arena—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know exactly what the member is going to say, and I ask the member to withdraw.

—but I could not possibly repeat it in the House, and I withdraw and apologise accordingly.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has withdrawn and apologised.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Yes, but there is a tone there, and I think it would be appropriate if you were able to say to the Minister of Health to talk a little about health.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister has withdrawn and apologised.

Now the deputy leader of the National Party, having himself spent the whole of his speech on election expenses, and having smiled—or pretended to smile—the whole time that Dr Brash spent on election expenses during his speech, wants me to talk about health. He does not want rebuttal and does not want to be told about the Exclusive Brethren. I wonder what would happen, when the police are investigating the issues around the Exclusive Brethren, if they ask to see Dr Brash’s emails. What would happen then? What would happen if Winston Peters releases some of those?

💬 Dr Don Brash: I’m happy to put them out.

Dr Brash is happy to put them out. That is good. The police may choose—or not—to investigate, and I am delighted that Dr Brash will cooperate, but he might live to regret his decision for a second reason. The National Party itself has had its broadcasting expenses referred to the police for investigation. One would think that this was a once-only event involving only the Labour Party, which has, for the third time in a row, used the same money for the same purpose and, for the first time, has had its issues referred to the police. But the National Party has had its expenses referred to the police, too. Dr Brash is shaking his head. The National Party is under investigation. This is an issue around GST on the broadcasting expenditure—all $100,000 of the GST. Let us hear what the National Party members had to say about the fact that it failed to add GST to its broadcasting expenditure. They said: “We forgot.” It does not matter that every form that one fills in for those returns has “GST inclusive” written all over it; that does not matter. It does not matter that the National Party did not forget in the last election. They got it right in the last election. They got it right in the election before. They did not forget then. Oh no! And I do not think any party has ever forgotten to add GST in its broadcasting returns—

💬 Darren Hughes: He was the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

The Governor of the Reserve Bank forgot to add GST. The McGillicuddy Serious Party remembered. The National Party, headed by a former Governor of the Reserve Bank, forgot. They said: “We’re sorry!”. And then they said: “We didn’t mean to.” To which I would say: “Yeah, right!”. We have a leader of the National Party spending all of his time attacking the Labour Government on expenses when his party and his Exclusive Brethren mates are in front of the cops and are under investigation as well. That is a wasted opportunity, a lost shot, by Dr Brash, who has no vision and no chance. He has absolutely nothing. He is a dead man walking, holding a place while those below him work out who is going to take it.

At least Helen Clark’s speech was the right one for Valentine’s Day; it was full of sweet nothings and delivered in that deeply affectionate tone that she has.

💬 John Key: The loving tone.

Yes, the loving tone. I felt loved, by the end of it. Is not another police investigation involving the Prime Minister boring? This is not the GST on the electoral return filled out by the party; this is the Prime Minister’s own budget. If it had not been, she would have said that it was an issue for the party, or that some Minister did it and will have to stand down. Instead, she said “The law is unclear”, which ranks alongside “I wasn’t there”, “I didn’t read the papers”, and “I didn’t notice it was 150 kilometres an hour”. That is what the New Zealand public are tiring of. Do they care deeply about the $400,000? I suppose that some do; many do not. Many expect that that is what politicians get up to anyway if they can get away with it. What is particularly galling for them, though, is the continuing record of a Prime Minister who regards herself as essentially above the law. Every time these investigations occur, the same thing happens. I bet, for instance, that she will not answer questions from the police about this matter. She did not in “paintergate”, she did not in the speeding case, and she will not here.

It is absolutely unprecedented. Prime Ministers have never been involved in police investigations. Now we have come to regard it as a matter of course. It is now completely normal for the Prime Minister of this country to be investigated by the police. It is now completely normal for her to be evasive and not answer questions put to her by the New Zealand police. No one really takes much notice of it any more. That is how bad it has become. These are the new standards of public conduct of affairs that the Prime Minister promised when she was first elected.

The speech was an evasion, as well. Helen Clark has figured out that New Zealanders do not believe in Labour’s values so she is now trying to attach herself to the values that New Zealanders do respect. Labour members have used the words “ambition”, “aspiration”, “transformation”, and “dynamic”. Who believes that Labour ever stood for ambition and aspiration? No one. That is what is so distasteful about that speech. The Prime Minister has worn out the welcome of a Labour Government and is trying to turn herself into something else. I want to use just one example to show how much credibility there is in the statements made today about aspiration and ambition. One of the striking things about that speech was the almost complete absence of a reference to education. The Labour Party regards itself as being at the peak of public popularity and at the peak of its political prowess, but on the one issue that it has always regarded as theirs, it had nothing to say. And of course that was wise as there has been a transformation in education. Labour has transformed tertiary education into a laughing stock. It has transformed secondary school assessment for 150,000 young New Zealanders into a complex and confusing set of measures that even the teachers do not understand.

So the Prime Minister had nothing to say about education. It has been a graveyard of ministerial careers. In Steve Maharey’s own words: “If you’re not going up, you’re going down.” We know where Steve is going, and it is not up. If he has not been told that yet, then he has found out today, alongside “Dr” Benson-Pope and Trevor Mallard who have been pushed sideways. [Interruption] Oh, he is not a doctor.

💬 John Key: Tennis professional.

He is a tennis professional, that is right. Let us take one example in education. New Zealanders do have aspirations concerning the education of their children. Parents spend endless time discussing how their children should be educated, where the best school is that they can attend, where they can get the right teachers, what kinds of activities their children should be involved in, and what the principal is like. Those issues are talked about endlessly. The Government collects a lot of information about schools. It collects it on a website called School Smart. The website has 16 indicators for primary schools and 20 indicators for secondary schools. Those indicators reflect the complexity of the school’s operation. There is health and safety, roll decline, roll change, differential, leadership and management—there is some measure of that—financial operating deficits, working capital, teacher turnover, principal turnover, suspensions, and stand-downs. There is a whole range of information that tells people something about the school. If one looks at all that information one will find that for most schools the information is fairly similar. For some schools, though, the data makes it clear that the school is off track. This information is secret. It is not available to parents, and I suggest that it should be. Last weekend we heard about an Auckland school that is making real-time information about students available to parents.

I suggested that the information from School Smart should be made available to parents. I thought it would be an interesting test of whether Labour believes in the aspirations that so many Kiwis have. It turns out that Labour does not. Steve Maharey said that he does not want it to be a “tool for market” analysis.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: In other words, parents being informed.

He does not want parents comparing schools.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Or even knowing what goes on.

Or even knowing what goes on in the schools. He simply does not want it known. That is what I mean about the chasm in values between Labour and aspiration, as Kiwis see it. For Labour, dangerous parents are informed parents. They are the ones who are a real risk, as summed up by Labour’s colleague the UK Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, who said: “The trouble with good schools is that people want to go to them.”

On the one hand Labour says it is the party of aspiration, and, on the other hand, when it comes to a simple administrative decision, such as making information about schools available to parents that allows them to compare this school with a similar school, Labour will not do it, because the ideology matters more. The real Labour value, at the bottom of education, is interest-group power—for unions, bureaucrats, and Ministers. That is why the speech made by the Prime Minister has no credibility. Every time she says “ambition” and “transformation”, those New Zealanders who are not spewing, just do not believe it. They do not. They have heard these words now for 6 years, and they have not seen any of the energy and dynamism that a Government truly committed to the national good would show, if it believed that New Zealanders were capable of this.

New Zealanders are capable of high aspirations and great ambitions, but the Labour Party has a way of governing that strangles those aspirations and ambitions. That is from the tiny detail of what information that parents can have, right through to the total lack of a microeconomic reform programme. It is strangling the ambition and aspiration. That is why we are voting “no confidence” on the motion, because we do not believe that even the Prime Minister believes what she said. She looked tired, because she is tired. Her Ministers are tired. They are out of ideas, and that is why there were no ideas in that speech. The best they could come up with was “new broadband”, which has been kicking around for 2 or 3 years. What is the name of the surfer?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Cunliffe.

Minister Cunliffe apparently is the new star of the Labour show. Well, that is as good as it gets.

That speech is something that I am sure John Banks will comment on tomorrow on his radio show. I remind people what John Banks said 2 weeks ago about his former colleagues on the National Party front bench. Although I do not have a lot in common with Mr Banks, except that we share a birthday, I agree with him when he said: “I am a Don Brash supporter but I’ve got to say, John Armstrong”—whom he was interviewing at the time—“I don’t notice 47 hard-working people. I notice a handful of people in the National caucus that are serious and the rest are lazy.” John Armstrong said: “Exactly right. I wrote in the Herald last week that I think the front bench is operating at perhaps 70 percent capacity, and I said that was being generous.”

That is what is wrong with the National Party today. They do not look tired, because they are lazy. They do not do anything. Have we heard, out of their line-up yet, a single piece of policy? I think we might have heard something out of Gerry Brownlee that sort of estimated a policy. He said he was going to help Māori people get back on top, and that the National Party really did not mean anything 2 years ago at Ōrewa. It was all forgotten. They were going to settle all those Treaty settlements and Māori were going to rise up and take their rightful place in our society. That was from Gerry Brownlee.

We heard nothing from Bill English, but I will tell the House—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: We do stand by the Ōrewa speech.

So he does not agree with Gerry. There again that is why the National Party is in trouble. Gerry Brownlee is sucking up to the Māori Party and saying National is going to settle all the treaty settlements. Maurice is saying: “No, no; that’s not our position.” Therein lies the problem for the National Party. They do not say a single thing one can rely upon.

Mr English asked in his speech whether there was mention of education in the Prime Minister’s speech. Might I point him to the speech and to a couple of areas of huge importance. The first is early childhood education and childcare—20 hours free for 3 and 4-year-olds, due to take effect in 2007. Second, the new teacher-child ratios of 1:15 in new entrant classes are planned for introduction. I suppose it is too much to expect the future Minister of Education in a National Government to read halfway through the speech. That might tax his abilities. He could not find the word “education” anywhere. I found it just by listening to the Prime Minister, and I reread her words. The reason the National Party does not see that as being important is that National neglected early childhood education. It said to Māori and Pacific Island children for 9 long years that they do not count and that National did not care; that it did not think that early childhood education mattered. Yet all the statistics show, as this Government realises, that if children do not get early childhood education they enter primary school education behind all their cohorts. Those children are never able to catch up. They come out of the secondary system without the qualifications that will make their lives better. This Government has done an enormous amount about that. We announced last week more funding for more early childhood education targeted at New Zealand children who are missing out.

The other interesting thing about education, as far as the National Party is concerned, is that if they do not like a school in their electorate they threaten to knife the people in the back. Where is the mention of that in Mr English’s speech, when his mate down the back of the Chamber made threats to people within his own community?

I will give another example of education and what this Government is doing. There is a school in my electorate that the National Party would have preferred to see go under. National’s policy is “survival of the fittest”—if people do not like the local school, they should get on a bus or get in the car and go to Auckland Grammar. So it neglected schools in South Auckland year after year. It said they were not good enough, and that kids should be able to choose to go somewhere else. It did not matter if it was in the city or 30 kilometres away. It said: “Let the market prevail”. This Government does not believe in that nonsense. We put $15 million extra into a school in my electorate. If the school had not got that money, the students would have had to go all the way into the city to an overcrowded school that cannot cope. That is the stark difference between Bill English and members on this side of the House. We believe in every local school being resourced properly, in every local school getting the sorts of resources a Government can give, so that local kids can go to local schools.

💬 Darren Hughes: He says they are awash with cash.

Well, we know that John Banks is right. Have we heard a front-bench member of the National Party espouse a piece of policy yet? No, they are too busy trying for the top job. They keep on thinking they have a leader. They do not have a leader. None of them has the capabilities of leadership. It requires some thought, some policy, and some vision. So whilst they scrap with each other over the leadership of the National Party, it is not a leadership worth scrapping for, because they are all too damn lazy, in the words of John Banks. He is their former colleague, and he said on radio that he thinks Don Brash is the man, that he is a good man, but behind him sit 47 lazy people who do nothing. We are going to wait for 3 or 4 days of debate and I bet we do not get a single piece of policy out of the National members as to what they would do instead.

Will we hear John Key tell us what their economic formula is? Did we hear it from Don Brash? No, we did not. They do not have any policy. I think they had a policy during the election from Brian Connell. He was quickly shut down and shoved down the back so nobody can see him ever again—thank goodness. The only things that approximated a policy during the election campaign were tax cuts and Brian Connell and whatever he said about chopping down trees anywhere in the country. And he soon got told what to do. Of course, if they had had any policy, Don Brash would not have known what it was anyway. Every time he was asked he got it wrong. He mucked up.

So that is why Mr Key and Mr English and Mr Brownlee are all out there getting their magazine profiles done. Poor old Bill! He is a bit behind. He has not got into North and South lately. [Interruption] There is time yet for Bill. Gerry sort of made a speech today that brought a few smiles to the faces of the new back-bench of the National Party. All the wonder kids were sitting there and thinking: “How come Don can’t do a good speech like Gerry?”. I watched them. They all trotted dutifully down to the House to listen to Gerry’s speech. At least he sort of looked a bit like somebody in Opposition who had a bit of fire in his belly. But what did they get from their great leader, Don Brash? No wonder they are all plotting and scheming and running around the press gallery telling everybody about the leadership coup that is not going to happen when everybody knows that eventually it will.

The public are out there thinking: “What’s this National Party about?”, and then they can have a look at the Prime Minister’s statement and look at the things this Government is not just talking about but will be doing over the next few months and years. On 1 April the 350,000 families that will get tax relief under the Working for Families package will not be saying that it is no good and that they do not want it. They will be saying that it is what they need, that when they are young and they are having their children and their costs are high, they need a Government that cares. We have passed that legislation. It is done and dusted and it is on the way. So is the increase in superannuation. It is done, and on 1 April, with the support of the New Zealand First Party and others, it comes into force.

The students will not be moaning about the interest coming off their student loans on 1 April. They will be saying: “What a good Government!”. They will be using their common sense to make sure they can stay in this country and repay the loan and get on with doing other things, like buying a house. We have the KiwiSaver coming in and other forms of assistance for homeownership. It was all in the Prime Minister’s speech. It is not just talk; it is action. We are doing it. The National members are just talking about it and they are doing nothing over there. That is why John Banks is right: there are 47 of them and they are lazy. That is why they come here looking refreshed today. They have not done anything for months—for years actually—in terms of coming up with a policy that the public can understand.

So I challenge the National Party members to come out with more than just a vague reference, like Gerry Brownlee did, to what they might do. I challenge them to come out with real policy that contrasts with ours and then the public will judge. Not a hope!

What a remarkable speech that was from Mr Gosche, whose best years in politics, as we all know, are behind him! He came down to the House and said we should be worried about the National Party’s policy—that from a Government that went into the election campaign with no policy! Labour’s policies were quite simple: “Don’t risk the Opposition!”. That was its only policy, so if that member is worried about policy, he needs to worry inside the tent, not outside it. That look of worry is a feature, actually, of this Labour Government’s front bench and back bench today. It is a look of worry with very good reason indeed. Those members came to the House today hoping that Prime Minister Helen Clark would deliver for them a speech that would ensure a fourth term for this Labour Government.

💬 Darren Hughes: And it will.

There is not a dog’s show on that one, I say to Mr Hughes. That member, with his very slender majority, will be out looking for a new job. He, along with the rest of the Labour caucus, had better go out there and find a new job. If I were him, I too would have a look of panic on my face, because if that speech is what is going to deliver a fourth term for the Labour Government, then the Labour Government is in very serious shape.

Labour members need to have a look at what is actually happening in the Labour Party. Prime Minister Helen Clark has just come back from her little sojourn in South Africa as she looks to shore up her job in the United Nations. Michael Cullen has been out buying full membership of the Napier Golf Club. He knows what will happen in a couple of years from now. But, for the other 48 Labour members, I come to the House today with a message, and it is a pretty bleak one: their future is in jeopardy. It is time for them to look in the situations vacant columns, although as unemployment is going up their prospects of getting a job are not good.

It has all been quite remarkable, in fact. When I looked back on the election campaign I saw a $2 billion election pledge from the Labour Party in relation to student loans. I thought when I saw that very shameless act of self-preservation—a $2 billion write-off of student loans—that I had seen it all in terms of shameless acts of self-preservation. But even I did not envisage what we learnt about this Government this week—that is, that Labour has a very new term and a very new version of “tax and spend”. The model goes like this: the Labour Government will tax us, the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand, and it will spend the money on buying itself re-election. That is the way it will work: tax and spend. We will be taxed and it will spend. What disgraceful behaviour from a Government that has deliberately breached the Electoral Act! What disgraceful behaviour that is from a Government, which, as our leader said today, should pay that money back to the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand.

It is no wonder the Labour Government is ashamed. It is no wonder Government members looked so ashamed when they came to the House. It is no wonder the police have been called in to investigate. It is no wonder Helen Clark refused to meet the Auditor-General. It is no wonder John Armstrong described this Labour Government as “squirming”, and it is no wonder Michael Cullen could not even explain his own actions when he was on Paul Holmes’ radio show yesterday—because their actions are inexcusable and indefensible. This is a day of shame for New Zealand politics. Taxpayers’ funds have been used, in deliberate breach of the Electoral Act, to buy re-election.

This is a day of shame for New Zealand. The Prime Minister came to the House today speaking of economic transformation. Well, I have a message for the Prime Minister: she should have started 5 or 6 years ago. It is too late now. She had the money back then and she had the time. Instead, what did the Government do? It squandered 6 golden years, when it had the opportunity. Those members had an economy set up by the hard work of 9 years of a National Government. They had the opportunity to transform our economy. They had the opportunity to deliver the kinds of things we have seen a progressive Liberal Government in Australia deliver for the people of Australia. What did this Government do with that time? It spent it on talkfests, reviews, frameworks, sector strategies, and lolly scrambles of grants, and all the other “Mahareyisms” that it has managed to write into every speech, which are really nice words for doing nothing. For the last 6 years Rome has burned while the economy has been on the up-cycle, and now that we are entering the down-cycle, what do we find? We have a Government that still has no ideas whatsoever.

I looked at the Prime Minister’s speech. I was looking for the good ideas she was going to bring down to the House. Labour members still do not have any good ideas. They still want to consult, they still want to discuss, and they still want to get advice. That bit about getting advice was really the bit of the speech from the Prime Minister that I found the most galling, because the last time Michael Cullen got advice he described it as an ideological burp. That is what he does with advice. When Government members get advice they do not like, they just go out and shoot the messenger. They tell the messenger that they do not like what they are hearing. Well, that is not going to work.

The New Zealand economy needs transformation. It needs to be taken to a different level. In the last 6 years of this Labour Government growth has quite simply been this: two-thirds of it has been delivered solely because more people have been in work and because New Zealanders have worked longer hours. It is not because we are more productive, or because this Government has delivered a framework, an environment, or an opportunity to really push Kiwis on and give them everything they can; it is because Kiwis are working longer and harder. And why are they doing that? It is because this Government has gone out of its way to deliver roadblocks and to make life more difficult.

It is not just us who are saying so. The very ideological burp that Michael Cullen dismissed, the very advice that the Government now seeks again in this latest speech from the Prime Minister, was the stuff where Treasury came out and said not only that had this Government spent more money in New Zealand’s history than anybody else but that Treasury had no idea what the money was being used for and no idea how to account for it, and no results had been delivered, at all. Productivity has been going down, yet the Prime Minister came to the House and told us she would be delivering economic transformation to New Zealand. When the history books are closed on this Labour Government—and they are closing very rapidly—it will not be economic transformation that is talked about; it will be economic stagnation. That is exactly what will happen when the history books are closed on this Labour Government.

The other bit that I found galling in the Prime Minister’s speech was when she said that the Opposition did not want to debate the economy. That is very interesting. I was on a radio show with Michael Laws on the last day of the election campaign when Michael Laws asked Dr Cullen about the number of economic debates. He threw into the conversation that he had had 19 economic debates with me during the election campaign, which was more economic debates than he had had with any other finance spokesperson in the entire time he had been Minister of Finance and the Opposition finance spokesman. National members wanted tofront up and talk about the economy. We wanted to talk about the impact of writing off $2 billion worth of student loans. We wanted to talk about the issues, and that is exactly what we did. What did we get? The only response from the Labour Government was: “Don’t let the Opposition go there.” It is a real worry, because this Government has delivered its largesse in the economy through one reason alone—it has overtaxed New Zealanders, and New Zealanders know that.

The Government has grown its tax revenue at 56 percent over the last 6 years, which is far in advance of the 43 percent economic growth rate that we have seen. Why has it done that? It is because it has continued to enjoy the benefits of inflation. It has continued to take hard-working taxpayers for a ride. Yet the best that Michael Cullen could theoretically do is give someone 67c in 2008, and even today he has argued that he might take that away because the Government has had to back down on the Kyoto Protocol. That is the vision that this Government has for New Zealand, and it is the reason that our economy is on the skids. It is the reason we have a widening economic gap between New Zealand and Australia. We did not use that time, as the Australian Government did, to deliver better infrastructure, to deliver lower taxes for people, to deliver labour-market reform, and to deliver labour access. That time was not used in New Zealand. It is too late for economic transformation. It is far too late for this Labour Government.

It is always a pleasure—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Here’s the petrolhead.

—to follow John Key, who has established himself as one of the leading contenders for a future job. But let us have a look at what is actually happening here. This is the first real debate of the new Parliament since the election that focuses on the direction of New Zealand in a way that allows parties to expose their policies and their ideas to the stark glare of the public and enable them to see where parties want to take New Zealand.

I have an amazing sense of déjà vu being here today and listening to the speeches that have been made, particularly those from the National members. Regrettably I was a new MP in the 1987 to 1990 period. I have served 15 years, so it does not take an Einstein to work out that I have not been an MP continuously—that is why I say “regrettably”. But the beginning of my first 3 years in Parliament had speeches exactly like this from the National MPs. Those National MPs absolutely believed that they had a divine right to be the Government after the election, and they were still on the Opposition benches. They believed that their destiny was to be in Government because, of course, Labour comes in for a while to clean up the mess, then National resumes its rightful place. That is how they viewed it. After the last election we are seeing exactly that again. National MPs are making the sorts of speeches now that we heard back then. But they need to remember one thing—that is, that voters never elect parties that are unable to govern themselves.

That should be the lesson that those who were new MPs with me at that time should take from that 1987-90 period. Labour was having a huge philosophical debate, as some of us who are still present in the House will remember. It resulted in a difficult period for Labour. National is going through that philosophical debate right now, and that is what the leadership argument is all about.

Even National’s own supporters, in a poll shown on TV3 on 8 February, just 6 days ago, showed overwhelming support for a change of leader. I have a bit of a problem with that. I like Mr Brash. I think he is a decent sort of guy who is nice to get on with and very pleasant to talk to. But I find that when National voters were asked who should replace Dr Brash, 53 percent said it should be John Key, Bill English was next on 11 percent, then deputy leader Gerry Brownlee at 4 percent, and Simon Power at 3 percent. So even National’s own members do not have a secure plan ahead, but they are very clear on one thing: it cannot go on like it is. The New Zealand Herald states quite clearly, in a very good article, that if it becomes apparent to enough National MPs that Dr Brash stands between them and their occupation of the Treasury benches, then they will quickly lose patience with him and he will go.

Today’s speech must have been joy to the ears of some of those contenders for the top job. Last year New Zealanders did not elect to Government the National Party or the other parties that have made it their business to run New Zealand down and predict a grim future. They talk around the world about how glum it is here, yet we have had the best economic conditions in the regions, and overall, that this country has seen in decades, and we have had the best Government making the best use of the position we are in to build that economic prosperity. But Opposition members are still running us down. Even their core, heartland supporters in the rural districts will happily admit, when one talks to them, that things have gone very, very well. They recognise that life is cyclical, that there are ups, and that there are periods when it is not quite so buoyant. Even right now the 1.7 percent growth being predicted for the couple of years ahead is way better than National ever achieved.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s wrong.

Not on a continuous basis. In the entire period that Labour has been in Government we have had an average of 3.8 percent growth. That is better than Australia at 2.8 percent or less over that same period. Yet the National Party says that that is not good enough. What was the growth rate when National was in office for all that time, for those 9 long, dreary years when it took a slash-and-burn approach and said: “Let’s try to reduce the wages of New Zealanders. Let’s try to cut costs. Let’s try to reduce the ability of New Zealanders to be competitive with anywhere in the world instead of building on our strengths, building on our talents, and building on our very good technology to improve New Zealand’s position.”?

We need a strong economy, and Labour has been building that. We do not get that by a slash-and-burn mentality, which National does not seem to have grown out of. We need well-educated, highly motivated people who are confident to drive New Zealand on and forwards—and we have them. National members keep talking things down, but I ask them to explain this to me: why are we seeing so much building going on in New Zealand?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Building consents are down.

Who will occupy all these new homes? I can tell Dr Smith that hundreds of new sections are being developed in my electorate. Four homes are being built on the section next door to my home. Who will occupy all these homes if we do not have a growing economy? Why do we have people coming into New Zealand and wanting to be here—and not just people who do not have skills and talents who want a better place in the world for them and their children, but people from overseas who have clearly established businesses, skills, knowledge, and talents to bring to New Zealand? That is who is coming to our country. That is why our population has just passed 4.1 million; not because we have suddenly had a huge increase in the birth rate—although we do have an increase in the birth rate—but because there are more good people coming to this country to make a new and better life and to contribute to a country that they see has a strong future.

New Zealanders revolted against the agenda of talking things down in 1999. They revolted against the idea that we should cheapen ourselves and cut the wages of those in lower socio-economic levels to make everything cheaper, to reduce costs. They revolted against that idea in 1999 and have done ever since. Labour can be very proud of the policies that are working. In the election campaign National members did not want to debate the economy. No, they did not. They concentrated on everything else. They concentrated on all the issues that divide us, and itched every scratch. The reason they did not want to debate the economy was really simple. It is pretty hard to debate an economy and portray it as being bad when one has the best period of economic growth there has been in New Zealand for years.

So what has changed? Five months down the track National members are hoping with every bone in their bodies that things will turn bad. Well, I am by nature an optimist—sometimes too optimistic—but I want to see this country progress and go forward. I am proud of the things—and Nick Smith yelled out: “You’re a petrolhead.” at the beginning of my speech—like the film about Burt Munro, that wonderful Southlander. When will there be a feature film about John Britten, Denny Hulme, or Bruce McLaren—or any other innovative New Zealanders who have done wonders for our technology and our country? Let us be proud of the things we are good at and go forward. I tell National members that, for God’s sake, for the people in this country who want to believe in a future, they should stop talking New Zealand down. They should be proud of the things that we are good at, be proud of our accomplishments, talk about a policy that builds on what we have, and not talk things down all the time. It is negative nonsense.

It was interesting, in the late 1990s when National was seriously in the pickle, that the research speech notes told us that the last bastion that we could find was to criticise the then Opposition for talking New Zealand down. And so that speech from Harry Duynhoven confirmed to me just how deeply in the pickle this Labour Government has become.

One of the things the Prime Minister said in her speech this afternoon was that the Government would meet New Zealand’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Well, I have to say yeah, right! We have about as much chance of meeting the commitment to the Kyoto Protocol as of putting a man on Mars. Just as Don Brash, Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, and John Key have exposed the incompetence and the dishonesty of the Prime Minister’s address, I too want to expose just how out of step Labour is, in terms of the mess that it has created around Kyoto.

The Government, in its own official advice, last week received this paper from Treasury, from the Climate Change Office, and from ministry officials. It stated: “To meet the projected Kyoto Protocol first commitment requirements through domestic emission reductions will cost more than purchasing the units on the international market.” Now what does that mean? It means that it is better and easier for New Zealand to write out a cheque for $2.5 billion—and the only people we can borrow off are the Russians—than to adopt any of the other policy options that the Government has available to it. So I ask the question: what credibility can the Prime Minister have, rolling down to the House this afternoon and saying that New Zealand will meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, when the Government has not one iota of an idea as to how it will do that?

Let us just remember what took place. In 2002 Helen Clark trotted around her socialist mates of the world, proudly proclaiming that New Zealand would be the very first country in the southern hemisphere to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. She pooh-poohed John Howard and the Australian Government because they were more cautious than her. She ignored the advice of the National Opposition that it was unwise in 2002 to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But gung-ho, the Government went on and did that. It promised—Darren Hughes and Pete Hodgson promised—that New Zealand would make hundreds of millions of dollars as a consequence of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, Pete Hodgson said that we would have 50 million tonnes of credits if we went ahead and ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Well, we caught Pete Hodgson with his trousers around his ankles last year, when he had to confess that there was not a 50 million - tonne credit but a 36 million tonne - deficit. Pete Hodgson, in the House today, said that at the time that figure was conservative—that we could rely on it getting better. That was the worst case scenario—a 36 million - tonne deficit. What did Treasury have to say last week? I will read what it said.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: A big burp!

Yes, a bit of a biological burp. Treasury stated: “Under present conditions, latest indications are that foresters intend to deforest 47,000 hectares of forest. If this level of deforestation occurs it will add another 32 million tonnes of deficit, nearly doubling the figures from last year, to 68 million tonnes.”

Listeners may be asking what 68 million tonnes means, in terms of the cost to Kiwi taxpayers. How much has Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson’s folly cost them? Well, this week the Minister said that it will cost about $500 million. So we asked the Minister what carbon price he was working on. He said it was $7 a tonne. Well, let us hang on a moment. On the international marketplace today in Europe, carbon is at $37 a tonne. This is not a $500 million problem. It is actually a $3 billion problem that Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson have got us into.

There is something else that I have not accounted for, and the Minister had to confess this to the New Zealand Herald: those calculations assume a reduction of 13 million tonnes in carbon use from the carbon tax. But hello, hello, we do not have a carbon tax any more. That was one of the ideas that Labour abandoned. It listened to National. But what Labour has not said is that that would actually make the figure not 32 million tonnes worse than they told us last year but 55 million tonnes worse. Now that is a monumental botch-up. In my 15 years in this Parliament, I cannot remember a cock-up of that scale.

But the situation is worse than that. The Auditor-General told the select committee in December that the Government had breached the Public Finance Act in not disclosing the size of those losses. In fact, I will read, quite specifically, what the Auditor-General told the select committee: “The ministry has incurred unappropriated expenditure of $309 million. This has been notified to the Minister of Finance, and will require validating legislation.” That means the Government broke the law, and now it will retrospectively pass a law to fix that up.

It is even worse than that, and I want to put this in the context of the debate that occurred prior to the last election. Mr Hodgson stood up in this Parliament and said he had no updated figures in respect of New Zealand’s liabilities under the Kyoto Protocol. Two weeks earlier, he had received official papers showing the extent of his cock-up. What makes the situation even worse is that the ruling from the Speaker, with regard to Mr Benson-Pope, that a member cannot lay a privileges complaint if it applies to the previous Parliament means I cannot lodge a privileges complaint against Minister Pete Hodgson for misleading the House about what was known. What we have now in this Parliament is a recipe for Ministers to lie like troopers in this House. Prior to the election—

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you might expect, I take offence at the member’s remarks and ask that they be withdrawn.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has taken offence under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”.

It is not a personal reflection. I am just stating the facts of the case. What I said—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet.

I am speaking to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet at the moment. The member has taken exception under Standing Order 116 to a personal reflection. I ask the member to stand and withdraw.

You can ask me to withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker, only if you are specific about what I said that caused offence. I outlined the situation relating to what Mr Hodgson told the House, and I pointed out the advice that the select committee had received. I think you have to be specific about what caused offence. The Minister cannot just stand up and say he does not like what I said, and that he does not actually care whether it is true or not. Nothing that I said was outside the Standing Order. You need to be specific about what it is I need to withdraw and apologise for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that Mr Hodgson has taken exception to what was said because of the inference that he was not telling the truth to the House. That is as I understand it.

I did not say that.

💬 Hon Member: You did. You said he lied like a trooper.

No, I said that the recipe we now have, whereby it is not possible to lay a complaint of privilege about a matter that occurred in the previous Parliament, is an invitation for Ministers—of whatever political persuasion—to lie like troopers prior to an election, because there is no means of account for doing that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member has actually compounded the situation by using the word “lie”. He knows that is absolutely out of order in this Parliament, because it is not an inference against the member but against the whole House. I ask the member to withdraw and continue.

I think you are incorrect, Mr Speaker, but I withdraw. All I am saying is that we have created an awful precedent for this Parliament. There is now no means of recourse when the record is absolutely as plain as day in respect of Ministers.

I ask Government members how they are going to meet the Prime Minister’s commitment in respect of the Kyoto Protocol. You have done a U-turn on the “fart tax”, you have done a U-turn on the carbon tax, you have had to completely abandon the numbers that you gave to the people of New Zealand, and I say—

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

It is very clear that the Labour Government has misled the people of New Zealand, by saying there would be hundreds of millions of dollars of credits from the Kyoto Protocol. It was wrong. Nobody from the Government has put a hand up and said that he or she was to blame for that. It is nobody’s fault, and what we see—as was so eloquently expressed by Don Brash today in the House—is a Government that has no credibility. On no issue is the Government so lacking in credibility as on the very serious multibillion-dollar pickle that New Zealand now has itself in over the Kyoto Protocol.

The truth is that the Prime Minister has absolutely no idea how New Zealand is going to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, which she has locked us into. She has no idea at all. It is little wonder that the headline in the Nelson Mail tonight is that Weyerhaeuser is completely abandoning the forest industry in New Zealand and is pulling out of investing. How can this Labour Party talk about transformation of the economy with the sort of con, the sort of dishonesty, and the sort of incompetence that we have seen over the Kyoto Protocol? This Government has done its time; it is time it went. I invite this Parliament to back the vote of no confidence, because the scale of this cock-up deserves nothing less than that.

It is a great privilege on our first day back for 2006 to speak in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement—a very good statement, in my opinion. I am a little disappointed that on this day, 14 February—Valentine’s Day—I am not feeling a great deal of love flowing around the Chamber. It is certainly not flowing from the Opposition side. But the hearts on this side of the Chamber—the Government side—are thumping with pride over the Government’s achievements of the last 6 years. We are certainly very proud of the vision, intention, and commitment to New Zealand and New Zealanders that was delivered in the Prime Minister’s statement today.

Economic transformation comes in many and varied forms. The Prime Minister outlined how we would address our communication issues, which are still part of the problems with our economy, and our labour force issues, because we have such low, if any, unemployment, at the moment. We will look at our transport infrastructure, particularly in Auckland, because it is a powerhouse of economic development and transformation in this country, and in the rest of provincial New Zealand, which is, as we all know, the backbone of this country.

The lack of love that is coming from the Opposition side must be due to the deep, deep conundrum those members find themselves in regarding their leadership problems. We heard from their lame-duck leader, quack-quacking away over there, while the other two were sitting there—that is, Mr Key and Mr English; we do not know which one it might be. That party is in trouble for this year and perhaps for the rest of the term until it has decided what to do with the lame-duck leader known as Dr Brash.

Dr Brash probably does need a doctor to help him through this rather tumultuous period psychologically. I understand. I attended a function myself on Sunday. I know that that member in the Chamber, Pansy Wong, was also present. She was waiting for her leader to arrive at the Big Gay Out in Auckland, which he duly did. The Labour team had been given speaking rights at the particular engagement, and there were many people there, possibly thousands, who were all potential voters.

About the only time the National Party turns out to something like that is when it needs to solicit votes. I do recall—and I have to give the National Party credit for this—that National Prime Minister Jenny Shipley was the first Prime Minister to turn up to the Hero Parade. I give National credit for that, and I particularly give that lady credit for having done that. But I remind this House that the Leader of the Opposition at the time, and our current Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, has attended every major outing that there has been in Auckland due to the Hero festival. I have to say that she tendered her apologies this year simply because she was doing the nation’s bidding in South Africa.

Our team turned up, we spoke, and we got a wonderful response. But when the Leader of the Opposition arrived he just sort of scouted around a bit. I know that Georgina te Heuheu must have got on the phone and warned her leader that we had challenged him to come up with a few commitments at that particular function. He did a quick walk around and then hopped in the car and went. He did not have a chance to speak, apparently—or did he just avoid it altogether? That has to be an indication of how confused, concerned, and totally ill at ease he is with the leadership issue.

I know that over there on that side of the House Mr Key is pressing on. They are denying, of course, that any such thing is happening. But we do recall that in the past Mr English found himself in a similar situation—he was in as leader and then out as leader. Those members should look back at some of their own history. But that is enough about them. They are always talking down this country.

Today this Government presented, via our leader, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, vision and future for this country.

💬 Darren Hughes: An agenda for the fifth term.

I could not have put it better than that member, Darren Hughes, who knows what he is talking about. We are looking toward a fifth term. There is no way that this Government will give up the Treasury benches while we are yet to bring forward an absolute plethora of policy that will move this country forward. That policy will be inclusive. It will be for the young and the old.

We will address issues of poverty in this country, as this Government set out to do during the last 6 years—that is one thing. We are making this country innovative. We are helping to rebuild from the tragic era of the 1990s. “Tragic” is an apt word for that time, because it has taken us a damn long time—6 years, indeed—to get us back to somewhere where we have a positive future to look forward to. This is what the Government stands for: a positive, inclusive future, and a transforming economy. Families, young and old, will benefit. We have a unique national identity and, of course, we can rave on about the most fantastic films that have been made, which the world is enjoying at the moment. We will host the Rugby World Cup—there again is another showcase. But let us just review what will happen in the very near future, come 1 April this year.

I remind those who are listening to the debate today of the big extension to Working for Families, with more than 60,000 more families becoming eligible for the package. All up that is $350,000—I mean, 350,000 families. Would it not be nice to have the dollars, though! Those families will receive dollars—a little bit more so that they are able to, perhaps, look at the KiwiSaver scheme that is coming up. Perhaps they might want to have some more security about their superannuation and what they might do in the future. Perhaps people might have a chance to buy their first homes, which they could not do under a National Government. National spent a fair bit of the 1990s getting rid of the available State housing.

Need I remind the House again of what happened in my former electorate of the Wairarapa under a National Government? Three hundred - plus State houses were sold. I cannot find one such State house in that electorate at the moment. This Government has initiatives, such as the KiwiSaver scheme, that will give some people in that electorate a little bit of hope. There will be an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation, in line with the confidence and supply agreement that was negotiated with New Zealand First, in order to boost our senior citizens’ living standards.

Have we heard any policy from those members on the other side of the House on that particular issue? No, we have heard no policies at all today. All we have had is a personal attack against the leader of the Labour Party, which is quite unwarranted. [Interruption] Can I tell that lot over there about people in glasshouses? I daresay those members had better look around their caucus at the individual returns—there may be some issues to be worried about there; who knows? So yes, I reiterate that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. These matters are being taken care of in a proper, open, and transparent manner. That is something new to the Opposition members, but it is not new to this Government. We always front up, and we front up to this nation transparently. [Interruption] Oh, please! That member over there has seen more pork than I have seen roast dinners. Other members there may have other shadows hanging over them, but I will not tarry on that. [Interruption] I wish some of those newer members on the other side of the House would do what a former National Prime Minister suggested, which was to breathe through one’s nose for at least the first 6 months in order to learn how the ropes work around here.

I say in conclusion that our Government’s task is to provide leadership and sound policy to support the journey that has been outlined in the Prime Minister’s statement. She looks forward, I look forward, and this side of the House certainly looks forward to building New Zealand. We look forward to all the opportunities and to New Zealand reaching its full potential under the policies that a Labour-led Government is able to deliver under the leadership of the Rt Hon Helen Clark and under the very prudent and sensible fiscal management of the deputy leader, Dr Michael Cullen.

Today is supposed to be the “Big Day Out” for the Prime Minister, with her opening statement for a third-term Labour Government. All Georgina Beyer could say in her speech was that it was a pretty good statement. That is like a student getting a report card that says “He or she tries hard.”, when a teacher is running out of comments to make to the parents. What a bunch of despondent and dispirited-looking Labour caucus members! I saw them forcing themselves to sit through that dry statement of the Prime Minister. It was supposed to be a happy day for them, but they knew that Labour is in trouble. My colleague David Bennett, for example, the MP for Hamilton East, can tell them that Dianne Yates and 10 others have lost their seats. They know that the word on the street is not good for Labour. The public are worried about the lack of safety and about the economy going into recession, and all Labour can do is talk itself up.

Labour knows it is in trouble because its fortune lies with the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, but Helen Clark has used up her credits with the public. The commentators may associate her with the words “strong leadership”, but did they ever associate the New Zealand Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, with the words “integrity” or “honesty”? No, they did not. Leadership implies there is a need for integrity. Actually, I agree with Georgina Beyer. I have no problem with the Prime Minister taking credit for securing the Rugby World Cup for New Zealand. I have no problem with the Prime Minister taking credit for good weather, for good international commodity prices, and for the economy of the last 6 years. I think she can take credit for that.

All I really object to is the fact that she cannot take the blame when her mistakes are so obvious. A real leader will shoulder responsibility. Why can she not tell the charity that wants her to do a painting that she cannot paint? Why does she have to sign her name on the painting? Why can she not say whether she told a Sunday paper about what Peter Doone said or did not say to the police who stopped his partner while driving. Why can Helen Clark not now just save taxpayers’ money and front up to the Electoral Commission to say that the Labour Party made a mistake, and say it will pay back $440,000 of taxpayers’ money. That is what New Zealand needs: a leader who takes the credit but who can also take the blame when it is due. Why does she have to put a civilian driver and members of our police force through the courts for not noticing that they were speeding at 160 kilometres per hour? Members of the public are all wearing a smile. It is not good; they know they cannot trust the Prime Minister. She may be strong, but she is not trustworthy. That is why Labour Party members know they are in trouble.

💬 Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that all afternoon National MPs have gone far outside the Standing Orders in making comments. We have just heard two comments in a row from Mrs Wong—I am making a point of order, so she might want to take her seat—and referring to any member as not being trustworthy is right outside the Standing Orders. MPs should not be able to debate that with you, Mr Assistant Speaker. If you instruct them to withdraw and apologise, that is exactly what they should do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his point of order. I ask Pansy Wong to desist and to continue with her speech.

So the Labour caucus is worried because its members cannot rely on Helen Clark to carry credit with the public. That is why they are desperately trying to look for new stars and new policies. Let me demonstrate how some of the new stars think. [Interruption] Sorry—Harry Duynhoven is not on my list. I want to talk about a new star, the Hon David Cunliffe. In an edition of the Indian Newslink a headline states: “Reprieve for overstayers on the cards”. Apparently, the Hon David Cunliffe said that the number of overstayers—21,000—is getting out of hand, so he will look at a scheme to allow those overstayers to regularise their status. They will have to reapply under a number of conditions, systems, and rules that could be harsher than for those applying for permanent residence from abroad. So those overstayers have failed their existing immigration criteria, but this Minister of Immigration has said he will give them another chance. They can reapply under a set of harsher rules. What sort of logical thinking is that?

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the break I was saying that in 2000 Labour put in place a conditional amnesty that was supposed to solve the problem of the large number of overstayers. But we have just heard that the new Minister of Immigration—the new star of Labour—revealed to Indian Newslink that the Government is having a problem with 21,000 overstayers. However, the proposal is incredible. The new Minister has said that he will ask those overstayers to reapply to become permanent residents, which sounds reasonable—but under a tougher set of conditions. I fail to understand that, because if those overstayers could pass under the current criteria they would not be overstayers, so how can they get residence under a tougher set of rules? It is like teachers saying they have a student who cannot do well in year 10, so they will put the student in year 13 where maybe he or she can do better. With that kind of logic, it is no wonder the Labour caucus is worrying.

The Prime Minister promised that one of the priorities was to have a new look at regulations. Well, let me share a personal frustration that happened last Waitangi Day. I had friends from overseas come to visit beautiful Auckland Central, so I decided to show off our restaurants and treat them to some nice pieces of juicy New Zealand prime steak. I rang over 10 restaurants and they were closed. They were small owner-operator businesses with two or three staff, and they told me they could not afford to open. It was not worth their while to open because of the provisions of the Holidays Act regarding public holidays. What is the Government doing to small business operators who choose to operate in the tourism and hospitality industry, which is a 7-day-a-week business? I made 10 phone calls, and I can tell members that every phone call ended with the owner-operator telling me that we should get rid of Labour. I think the Labour caucus should be very worried.

The Prime Minister also promised that one of the other top priorities was to review—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Review?

PANSY WONG:—not just review but do a major review—the structure of business taxation. If the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs is anything to go by I would say that the business sector should not hold its hopes high, because 2 years after appointing the panel people in small business do not feel that compliance costs have gone down. Indeed, Business New Zealand has done a survey, and it has identified some areas of concern relating to skills shortages. That situation has come about because of a lack of competitiveness in the New Zealand economy, resulting from a high tax burden, rigid employment law, and the Resource Management Act making development difficult.

So I would say that it is no wonder, on this first day of debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, that we have seen a whole group of very despondent Labour caucus members, who know that their front bench will not deliver new policies and new initiatives. All the 11 Labour MPs who lost their seats know that the word on the street is that the public has no confidence that Labour has the policy and energy or, most important, integrity and honesty to lead New Zealand to face these new sets of challenges. I can understand that the only comment made by Georgina Beyer on the Prime Minister’s statement was that it was a pretty good speech. That is about right—well, she tries hard. I think the Hon Phil Goff should get his aspirations up. I think that Labour members are starting to look at the Hon Phil Goff.

💬 Hon Member: Are they?

Oh yes. I see that the Hon Phil Goff has the numbers person out there doing the work, and it should be an interesting year for Labour.

I have not quite worked out whether Pansy Wong is on the side that supports John Key’s takeover or Bill English’s takeover, or whether she is staying with the lame-duck leader of the National Party. I found it ironic that she talked about not being able to find a restaurant open on Waitangi Day. I had a meal in Christchurch on Waitangi Day—a lunch—after I had opened an international conference in Christchurch. It was the Sixth International Cool Climate Symposium for Viticulture and Oenology. Viticulture, of course, is something that New Zealand is very, very good at. We are able to attract international conferences of that standard to New Zealand because the Government is prepared to get in behind industry and the regions and make a real difference in this country.

I am proud to be the Minister for Small Business in this country when I know that this Government set up a Small Business Advisory Group, which the member Pansy Wong referred to. It put out a report with 19 recommendations in it, and the Government accepted 18 of the 19 outright. The only one we had a difficulty with related to the way the issue was to be resolved—it was a proposal that we did not think was the right direction to go in.

The National Party wants employers to be able to sack workers whenever they want to. The point that Pansy Wong did not make in her speech is that the reason people cannot afford to pay time and a half for workers is that they would rather pay them at the minimum wage to work on a statutory holiday. All the employers I have spoken to have found a different way of addressing time and a half for their workers on statutory holidays. A number of them have said to me that they did not have to pay penal rates under the Employment Contracts Act, and that they did not have to pay any money back to customers during that period. They put on a small surcharge on statutory holidays, and that covers time and a half for the workers. What is wrong with paying workers time and a half when everyone else gets a day off? That member Pansy Wong had a day off on Waitangi Day. She did not do any work. I was opening an international conference and proudly showing off the wonderful things that are going on in this country. That member should think very carefully about what she is saying.

I am very pleased that I, as the Minister for Small Business, have my eye on a very direct programme of work. It is about improving business and management capability, making transactions between small to medium sized enterprises and Government agencies easier, enhancing communication between small to medium sized enterprises and the Government, providing more enterprise education for school students and young entrepreneurs, and maintaining a quality regulatory environment that eliminates unnecessary compliance costs and minimises necessary compliance costs.

The thing I find absolutely ironic about Mrs Pansy Wong is that she thinks the reason that there is difficulty finding skilled workers today is to do with what has happened in the last 6 years, when in fact it was the competitive market model that destroyed our tertiary education system. National scrapped the apprenticeships scheme in 1991. Mr Bill Birch was responsible for that. National members ask themselves why we do not have skilled workers in this country today. Well, I can lay the blame for that at the feet of Pansy Wong’s very, very irresponsible National Government. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

No, please do not stop them, Mr Assistant Speaker. They are just showing themselves to be the pathetic individuals that they are.

My other point is that I found some irony in Don Brash’s talking about what was on the agenda for his caucus retreat last week. We have heard from the people who leaked all over the place about what really went on. I raise this issue as the Minister of Women’s Affairs. Don Brash was reported in a newspaper as having this to say: “I am leading the first session and that will be about where we are now and where we need to go in order to form the next Government. That will be a major session.” Well, that will be a major session all right. National members would still be talking about it if they tried to tackle that one. “Dr Brash said that he was interested in looking at why more women voted for Labour than National. He did not think it was any reflection on him as the situation had not been better when Jenny Shipley was leader.” Well, that is true, and I will come to that in a minute. “It is not just the gender issue of the leader—it goes back quite a while and we have to ask ourselves, ‘Why is that?’ Why did we comfortably win the vote among men but equally clearly lose the vote among women? Is it about policy, about style, about culture—what is it that women find less attractive about National?”

Well, I am afraid that Don Brash will never work that one out. If he has not worked it out already he will never work it out. It just proves he lives in a world of theory. He lives in an ivory tower. He has no understanding of what it is like for people on the ground. If there had been a change of Government last year, then there would have been a temporary appointment to the position of Minister of Women’s Affairs. I think that the Minister of Women’s Affairs would have been Murray McCully. That is my first guess. My second guess is that it might actually have been the political correctness eradicator, Dr Wayne Mapp. They would have been tasked with the role of getting rid of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs—and National members ask themselves why women have no interest in voting for the National Party.

That was the overt part of the campaign. National was upfront about that; it wanted to get rid of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. But there were covert aspects to its campaign, as well, and I want the next National speaker to tell the House what the quid pro quo was that National offered for support from the Exclusive Brethren and the other right-wing, conservative individuals and organisations that funded the billboard campaign. Who did fund that billboard campaign? The National Party spent over $2 million outside of the campaign spend, and that was before it spent its own $2 million—$1 million on one side of the campaign and another $1 million coming from the Exclusive Brethren.

What was the price that women would have paid for that? Would we all have had to be wearing scarves today? When I talk to younger women today I do not think they realise how much was at stake at the last election. I believe we would have had to go back in history to find what would be coming forward. It is interesting, because in 1976 I remember looking at an industrial award that contained separate pay rates for men and women for doing exactly the same work. That is how the awards used to be printed, until the Equal Pay Act of 1972 took effect in 1976. But the whole point I am making is that if National had become the Government again, then we would have seen equal pay go out the window yet again for women, as it did under the Employment Contracts Act. We are only starting to make ground again under the Employment Relations Act; it would have been a huge backward step if that had been the case.

The bottom line is that Don Brash is very, very frightened about any challenge to the natural order of things—any challenge to the mainstream. He is about disempowering those who expect to exert power. He is affronted, as is anyone who believes that he or she is born to rule, by the challenge that women have put to him—that is, why has the National Party not been able to attract the support of women? The bottom line is that the majority of women have been turned off by the message, not by the messenger, and I think we need to look back at what happened when National was last in Government. We saw the repeal of employment equity legislation and the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act, which scrapped national awards and introduced individual contract negotiations. The competitive market model was introduced into health, education, and accident compensation.

💬 Hon David Carter: Yeah—great.

The theory, we were assured, was perfect, and I thank David Carter for confirming that that is exactly what National would do again in the future. As mothers, as workers, and as the heads of most single-parent households, women were sacrificed at the altar of the free market. It did not matter who the relevant Minister was or who the Prime Minister was; it was homage to monetarist theories into the free market that did the damage—and that, I tell Dr Brash, is the reason why women will never vote for the National Party again.

Of course, the Minister who has just resumed her seat is quite right. If she were not, we surely would have heard from those august members opposite on the front bench, who are competing against each other for the leadership as we speak. I challenge Gerry Brownlee and John Key, Don Brash, Simon Power, Bill English—any one of them—to hop up right now and tell us what they think of that. For my part, after many, many years of waiting for it, I was relieved to hear the Prime Minister mention primary industry. I was expecting it, because we all know what has happened. We as a country have overspent on consumer goods, mainly from China and other countries with lower wage structures than ours. The amounts we have overspent are well reported and quite extraordinary.

So it is the same old situation—out comes the call, and everybody discovers primary industries again. Away it goes; we have to crank up the good old exporters, and the word goes out to farmers: “One more notch of the belt, boys. Crank up the milk, crank out the sheep, crank out the beef, the forestry, and the fishing.”, because there is nowhere else from where we can get the money to repay that debt. That is what this country is facing.

I am pleased that the Prime Minister has realised that that is where the money must come from, but I wish everybody in this House would be far more honest about it. As the pleas go out to producers, we have to ask what other parties have said about this situation in the past. The National Party, I have to say, has certainly not said anything. New Zealand First for years now has been going on about the need for this country to export. We have gone further. We have said that incentives should be put in place that give the message quite clearly that exporting is priority No. 1 in this country. Over the last number of years we have seen a high export dollar, which has burnt off those very people we are now, as a Parliament and as a country, having to turn to in order to save us from our debt. Every farmer and every person involved in manufacturing in this House, or every member who is related in any way to people involved in the exporting industry, knows the critical situation they are in, and we cannot look to the flash new sunrise industries, because the real money in this country still comes from the farms, the forests, and the seas. We say that that should be recognised, and that those people should be helped to get on with their jobs and increase their outputs.

New Zealand First is not going to do what we have heard this afternoon in this House has happened to date. We are not going to say “I told you so.” Well, I am, actually. I am going to say “We told you so.” Our immigration policy mentioned that, our export policy mentioned it, and our trade policies mentioned it, because it is the lifeblood of New Zealand. But we are going to join in and help the Government get out of this mess. We will lend our voice and encourage farmers to produce more, and we will encourage fishers to produce more. All we ask, and the plea I am making here today, is that the contribution we are asking our people to make is recognised in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): For the benefit of members, I tell them that New Zealand First has split its call with two speeches of 5 minutes each.

Many years ago when I was in the military I was always told that mimicry was the highest form of flattery one could expect. But I say to my colleague Doug Woolerton that it gets a little bit on the nose when time and time again one sees National getting its policy from the New Zealand First website, and I am fully expecting on the back of its newly revised opinion on immigration—

R Doug Woolerton: How do they read it?

I do not know how some of those guys read it. I will tell members, on the back of its new revised view of immigration, I am fully expecting the National Party to come out and say that it needs an export policy. I am also fully expecting it to come out and say that it needs an export-led economy, because never once in all the time that New Zealand First worked with National did that party put a focus on the real people who earn the revenue for this country: the farming community. National deserted the farming community a long time ago and put its money and hands firmly in the pockets of big business in Auckland. That is where it put its focus. We are waiting to see National plagiarise that policy.

Over the next year we will see a lot of things happening on this side of the team. New Zealand First has a very good supply and confidence agreement with the Labour Government, and we are progressing—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but the standards at Sandhurst have dropped considerably, have they not? What I can say is that the front cover of the Police News says it all. Already, despite all the ranting and raving by the National Party about what it was going to do about law and order, New Zealand First has secured 1,000 uniformed police officers to be in the force, on the ground, over the next 3 years. But wait, there is more. It is not just the 1,000 uniformed staff that we are getting; we are getting extra non-sworn staff on top of that in order to meet the support needs. So we are talking about a possible extra 1,200 staff. But wait, there is more. Not only are we getting those extra uniformed staff and the non-sworn staff, we are getting the funding and the budget to provide the vehicles—the equipment on the ground—to ensure that those frontline staff are able to do their job. That is what one achieves when one goes into negotiation firm on one’s policies.

What would we have got had we negotiated with members on that side of the House? We would have got a bitser Government thrown together with the new-found love of Don Brash’s life, the Māori Party. And here is where I would like to finish today. Out there I heard Ms Pansy Wong talking about what the people are saying they want. I will tell the House what I am hearing. The people out there are confused. They have heard more flip-flops out of National than they would hear on Bondi Beach on a Sunday afternoon. Not only has Mr Brash flip-flopped on his nuclear policy and not only has he flip-flopped on his immigration policy, he has also flip-flopped on a “don’t like the Māoris and keep them out of Parliament” policy, to the extent that he has signed up with the Māori Party to pretend he never ever actually said National was going to get rid of the Māori seats. Here is the irony: that was a New Zealand First policy position 3 years before National finally woke up. Once again National researched the New Zealand First website, saw what got New Zealand First 13 MPs, and decided to try it on.

Well, I am sorry, but the cap does not fit, because the Māori Party is not as stupid as Mr Brash thinks. Actually, the Māori Party knows full well a couple of things. One is the intent of Don Brash and the National Party to see the Māori Party out of this House. That is the first point.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Oh, no it’s not.

Oh, yes it is—hence National’s policy to get rid of the Māori seats. The second point is that the Māori Party is waking up. The Māori Party’s reason for seeking a repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is not Don Brash’s reason. Don Brash will shut down the customary rights, the customary access—

💬 Hon Member: No he won’t.

He will not? Then put it in writing that Don Brash and the National Party will cement in place the rights already given to Māori under the current Foreshore and Seabed Act. We know full well—the Māoris in the New Zealand First team know full well—the game he is playing. He has hoodwinked them in the past. Tau Henare is back there because he got hoodwinked that time, and he has been hookwinked again. Don Brash is seriously hoping that he can hoodwink Māori Party members into believing that his reasons for repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act are the same as theirs. They are not. Actually, they are quite the contrary.

There is a minister-in-waiting, and we on this side of the House wish him well with his doctor of theology studies. That is the only way that member will ever become a minister, because Winston Peters certainly will not recommend him. When Winston Peters negotiates an agreement with the Labour Party to get his baubles of office, he does not get any baubles for Ron Mark. Ron Mark is studying theology at university in his spare time—and he has plenty of that. That is how he will become a minister, and I wish him well.

I welcome fellow members back from their Christmas break. It is a delight to be in Parliament. I must say that at the end of last year—those last couple of months before the House adjourned for the Christmas break—the National Party was pretty chipper. The Government could not call an end to urgency quickly enough. We on this side of the House were here until all hours of the night, but Labour could not go into the Christmas adjournment quickly enough, and we had an extra week’s holiday because it did not want to face us this year. National is chipper because we have had a good, clean break.

I have to say I was speaking to some of my colleagues, including David Bennett, about their holiday break, because I had had a good one, and I asked David how his break had been, and he replied: “What break? I’ve been pretty blimin busy over the Christmas recess.” I said I was talking about the Christmas break. Do members know what David said to me? He said: “Well, that was a good day.” David Bennett had Christmas Day off, and that was all. Do members know why? Because Hamilton has not been served by a decent MP for many, many a year. He had every constituent in town coming to him to complain that constituents had not had good service for many a year, and asking him to fix their problems.

Bob Clarkson from Tauranga told me that he had half a day off because he had to deal with all the issues in Tauranga that Winston Peters had not dealt with while he was over in Fiji and Samoa on holiday breaks. Craig Foss in Tukituki, Jacqui Dean in Otago, and Eric Roy in Invercargill all spent their Christmas breaks dealing with the issues that Labour MPs never dealt with in 3, 6, or 9 years. They had to spend their Christmas break doing that—and they enjoyed doing it. I spoke to Nathan Guy, and when I asked him how his break had gone he said he had had 3 days off—a Sunday, a public holiday, and a Sunday after that. He said he was so busy in Otaki with constituents coming to see him, thinking that he was the local MP—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Wishing he was.

They were wishing he was the local MP. He had very little time off at all. I asked him whether he told those constituents that Darren Hughes was the local MP, and he said they all just asked “Darren who?”, and Nathan said “Darren Hughes.” They repeated “Darren who?”. Nathan Guy did more work in the Otaki electorate over the Christmas break than Darren Hughes did in the last 3 to 6 years. So the National Party is coming back very chipper.

Members of the Labour Party, of course, are looking very solemn indeed, because they have come back to Helen Clark saying: “My signature is on that half-a-million-dollar, taxpayer-funded pledge card. I’m accountable for that half-a-million-dollar, taxpayer-funded pledge card. That half-a-million-dollar, taxpayer-funded pledge card got me back into Parliament.” What they have to face is corruption—corruption at the highest levels.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, said that Labour had funded the pledge card in a similar way in previous elections. He said that it had done pretty much the same thing in 2002, and that questions were not raised. I know what the reporters, the journalists in the press gallery, will print tomorrow. They will use shorthand and they will report that Michael Cullen said this about the half-a-million-dollar, taxpayer-funded pledge card: “We did it, we got away with it, and we are going to do it again.”, because that is the Labour Party’s attitude on spending taxpayers’ money to get itself elected. It has been caught with its hands in the till. It should surrender, and it should pay up.

This is a suggestion: why do the Labour Party Ministers not all have a whip-round and chip in to pay off the half a million dollars like they were prepared to chip in for the policeman who got charged for driving Helen Clark too fast through the South Island? Why do the Ministers not have a whip-round for the half a million dollars and pay for the card on behalf of Helen Clark, just like they did to get her off the hook for speeding through the South Island? This country remembers—and I know that the people in the gallery, MPs, and colleagues remember this, and they will always remember it of her 6 to 7 year term—that Helen Clark used taxpayer ink to sign a painting not done by her, Helen Clark used taxpayer petrol to race through the South Island to get to a rugby match, and Helen Clark used taxpayer funding to get re-elected as the Prime Minister of this great country.

It is very sad indeed to see corruption at the highest levels reflected out through the television screens to our young ones watching the 6 o’clock news and listening to National Radio. I know that lots of children, aged from 5 years to 12 years, are watching One News in the afternoon and getting the impression that if Helen Clark can get away with these indiscretions, then anybody can. That is a sad thing for our country indeed.

I would like to reflect on the Prime Minister’s speech, and I have highlighted a few of the low points of the speech. I would like to bring them to the attention of the House, because they deserve closer examination. She said—and I think she smiled at this point—“A strong economy in turn needs healthy, well-educated, highly motivated, and confident people to drive it to ever-greater achievements.” That is what Helen Clark said today. I believe that that is the first paragraph she is putting in a letter to John Howard to ask him to send our people home. She wants all the young New Zealanders who have gone to Australia—those New Zealanders who are healthy, well-educated, highly motivated, and confident—to come back from Australia and help drive this economy. She will be begging John Howard to send them home. But they will not come, because there is nothing here for them. If they work hard, they get taxed to death. If they try to start businesses, they have to slash through so many regulations that it is not worth the sweat on their brows, at all. If they want to do something with their families, again they are regulated to death. They do not want to come home. That is a very sad thing.

In her speech today, Helen Clark bragged about the economy. It was built on the backs of farmers, with high commodity prices, low interest rates and a relatively low dollar several years ago, and fairly good weather over the last 5 years. That was nothing to do with the Government, nothing to do with Helen Clark whatsoever. That was what the economy was built on. Now it is flagging, and Labour does not have a single solution on the table.

I will close with a statistic. Helen Clark said: “For those interested in comparisons with Australia, I can tell them that from 1999-2004 our GDP per capita grew at a rate nearly 40 percent higher than Australia’s.” I ask members whether they know why our GDP per capita grew higher than Australia’s. It was because everyone was leaving. Our GDP was divided by fewer people, because they are all over in Australia—and we want them back.

When I heard Dr Brash’s speech today I wondered whether he had had the same wonderful summer that I had. He was still stuck 5 months back—all doom and gloom; pessimism, not optimism—and was looking back to the good old 1990s, when we had high unemployment and low, low wages. The National Party has had long caucus retreats. Yet today’s speech from Dr Brash was light on a vision for New Zealand and heavy, yet again, on personal attack, as was that last speech from our colleague Phil Heatley.

The National Party has not learnt. We had such a great summer. Newspapers were free from political invective and personal attack. But school is back, and National is back with the same old, tired strategy, which is to attack the person—ad hominem is what members will hear me call out; some members did not do any Latin—be negative, and fudge the future. The National Party will never risk putting up any alternative. It will not risk that. All it can do is attack, and spell doom and gloom.

By contrast, the Government, as shown in the Prime Minister’s speech today, has laid out concrete steps towards achieving a transformed economy and a renewed society. In the 10 minutes I have I shall focus on this Government’s support for families, young and old. Let us look at the two very different philosophies that affect how families operate in New Zealand. This afternoon Dr Brash said—and I am paraphrasing it, because I wrote it down—that New Zealand’s wealth depends on businesses and on individuals. I noted that down, because it epitomised for me the National Party theme that it is individuals who are responsible for their own survival and that it is individuals acting alone who create wealth. Labour, by contrast, says that it is the community and the family that create wealth. It is the family that supports the individuals; it is not individuals alone. A focus on individuals alone means that many individuals will not meet their potential.

Many in the House know that I was a teacher for 25 years. Individuals fall by the wayside. A child who is deaf will not get support individually. He or she will get support only from the community. But National believes that individuals acting alone are the cornerstone of wealth, and that is why it tried the unsuccessful bribe of tax cuts that would have given much more money to the individually already wealthy.

Labour, however, targeted tax relief to those with heavy community and family responsibilities. Families and communities support a whole range of individuals, from toddlers to octogenarians, from the fit to the ill. Everyone has a place in New Zealand society—particularly in the New Zealand society that Labour is working towards. We believe that we are in Government not to occupy these benches but to make a difference, and a difference we will make for the better for all New Zealanders—not just for the wealthy and for individuals but for all New Zealanders. We want all our families, young and old, to enjoy more opportunity and more security, and to share in the progress this country makes. For Labour, it is not progress if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is progress when we all share in the benefits of a well-performing economy.

It was important to Labour members that we succeeded in reducing the unemployment rate. Unemployment and family violence are evil partners. Unemployment and crime are partners. Unemployment and suicide are partners. Labour wanted to reduce unemployment, family violence, and crime, and it has. Over the last 6 years we have dropped the level of unemployment to the lowest level in the OECD, and by heavens am I proud of that! We have invested strongly in health, education, and policing.

But this is a journey, and we have further to go. To have a strong economy we need healthy, well-educated, and—as a member opposite correctly quoted before—confident workers to solve the problems, create the solutions, and take us forward in an increasingly competitive world. We heard the Prime Minister talking about India and China and their increasing wealth, increasing education, and increasing ability to compete with us out there in the marketplace. But along with that we need the economy to be strong to deliver the living standards, health care, community safety, and education that make New Zealand a special place to live. We do not need a strong economy to deliver tax cuts; we need a strong economy to deliver a healthy community, and that is the difference.

Beginning on 1 April this year we will see a big extension to Working for Families through the targeted tax cuts, with 60,000 more families becoming eligible. That is something I am particularly proud of. I see a member opposite shaking his head. He obviously does not care about those families who are struggling very hard, with three or four kids and the costs that involves.

We will also see, because we are talking about families young and old, an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation. That issue was debated with us, challenged to us, and got for us by New Zealand First. That is what an MMP Parliament is about—that kind of working together and joining together for a healthier, better, and stronger community.

Then we have our students. I notice that Mr Phil Heatley was really worried about young people going over to Australia. Well, they will not be. They will be staying here to work because that way they will not pay interest on their loans. That is the difference we will see, because we need those young people in this country. On 1 April the manna drops from heaven for students.

It is not only that, though. On 1 July people will get a rates rebate. I live in an electorate where the house property prices have gone right through the roof. If a 70-year-old is on superannuation and lives in Wadestown, and has lived there for 50 or 60 years, that person pays enormous rates. That is not because the person has a great big flash three-storey house with everything that moves, but because he or she has a cottage in one of the loveliest suburbs in New Zealand. This rates rebate will help exactly those people. We in this party do not distinguish between the very rich and the very poor. We say: “If you have a need, we meet it.”

In terms of the early years of schooling, we are working towards a teacher-pupil ratio of 1:15. I do not know how many years I have spent in this House listening to people talk on forever about the importance of early childhood education and the importance of those first years. We are doing work that I remember was done very strongly by Trevor Mallard in relation to literacy and numeracy in the early years, and now we have this move to a 1:15 ratio. And I do not forget, and the community does not forget, that we were the ones who resurrected apprenticeships.

The message of National is always to accentuate the negative. My challenge—and it is a real challenge—to those in National who have enjoyed the support of certain church groups and who see themselves as practising Christians, is to hear from them an accent on the community and on community support. I want to hear from them, as practising Christians, an end to personal attack, and I want to hear from my colleagues opposite that it is not about the individual. No man is an island; no man stands alone.

As I mentioned in my maiden speech, I entered Parliament because I was concerned about the New Zealand that was being created for my daughter to live in. But having been in Parliament now for nearly 5 months, I have reached the conclusion that things are actually worse than I had originally thought. To quote the Prime Minister from her statement made to Parliament this afternoon: “We are in Government to make a difference for the better. … Our Government’s task is to provide leadership and sound policy …”. Well, Labour has been in Government now for 6 years, but has it made a difference? I suggest that the members of this Labour-led Government get out from behind their desks, wander through the streets of Wellington, and surprise themselves and us by stopping and chatting to everyday Wellingtonians, to find out just what they have to say about the difference that the Labour-led Government has made and about the leadership it has shown over the last 6 years. Are we better off? Yeah, right! Government members have to be joking.

Let us look at some of the issues. I will start with transport. In Auckland transport has been ignored, to the detriment of that city and of the rest of New Zealand, and in Wellington transport has become a farce, especially with regard to the western corridor debacle. The Labour Government has stuffed up what was originally started as a very fair process, with the right players around the table, sorting out what was going to be the best long-term solution for the region with regard to the western corridor Transmission Gully. So how did the Government stuff it up? It got in the way. Halfway through a very fair process, it said it would support any solution the region came up with, but only if it cost $450 million - odd. Hello! Now we have a divided community, we have potential legal battles, and we have delay after delay. Wellington says “Thank you—not!” for that leadership from the Labour - New Zealand First Government.

Let us move on to education. Are we better off in education after 6 years of Labour? Well, that is not the case for the tens of thousands of kids who go to private schools, because this Government has dramatically slashed each pupil’s Government contribution in every one of the last 6 years. But even more of a concern is that this Government is encouraging a generation of our children to have no aspiration, and to just accept mediocrity. I am on my daughter’s school board, and it is a real concern to us on the board that under the present National Certificate of Educational Achievement regime there is now no driver for high achievement. The kids know far too early whether they have reached Achieved or obtained Merit. Gone, therefore, straight away is the desire to study hard in order to push up their marks. They think there is no need now to study—that they do not have to bother, because they are accepted into university—so they can go out shopping. Why would they bother to study? But we cannot afford to be in a country where the youth are not being encouraged to stretch themselves or to push themselves harder.

I turn now to the police. Just this morning, the national sales manager of a major national retail fashion chain came to my office. She was concerned about how hard it was to get the police to come out to her Wellington store, where vagrants and troublemakers were making such a nuisance that they were turning and driving customers away. Those people were drunk and abusive, loud and intimidating, out in the streets of Wellington outside her store, and the police, when they were called and called, were too busy. She was told they were sorry, but it was not a priority for them. In the last 6 years this Labour-led Government has sold us short. We need to have more police in the streets here in Wellington now, because our businesses are hurting now.

Let us look at health. Here in Wellington, as in many other regions, the health sector is not meeting its own targets. One newspaper has described the decision-making process as “bureaucracy gone mad”. As one doctor put it, 100 people are trying to make one decision. Capital and Coast District Health Board faces problems of poor morale, staff shortages, and specialists leaving because they are dissatisfied. Why, with all the dollars that Labour has poured into health, are there still huge problems? The Labour-led Government cannot be proud of what it has achieved in the last 6 years in health. We are not.

Let us have a snapshot of economic development. Just what has been happening in the last 6 years? I take this opportunity to quote an end-of-year review of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. It stated that it is a cumbersome structure. Its priorities for policy and expenditure are not very clear. The impact of the grants it gives out is low. The reach is low. There is far too much duplication occurring. Evaluations of when it gives the money are very difficult, and it is very hard to do the assessments. So are our millions and millions of dollars that are being given out by the Government well spent? Probably they are not.

But I suggest to members that they cannot blame the officials, because the officials are just following the Government’s lead. They are just following the example that has been set by Helen Clark and her team. Given Labour’s excessive, illegal election advertising spend, why would the officials worry about expenditure either? It is only public money, so they need not worry—they can just spend and carry on spending. There is absolutely no accountability about it, so the officials need not worry—and Labour is quite happy to do the same as them when it comes to spending on election advertising campaigns.

Here in Wellington, as in the rest of New Zealand, the situation is actually becoming a bit tough out in the business world. The Labour-led Government is making a difference: things are getting tougher. We have a high exchange rate for the dollar. Where is the tax support that has been promised for businesses? There is far too much paperwork for them to do, and, by the way, the legislation the Government keeps putting out really does hurt. Business is getting very, very bad signals about the changes to the minimum wage and youth wage that the Government seems to be very, very supportive of.

In conclusion, I say that those Wellingtonians who are out on the streets would have to admit that they are not better off after 6 years of a Labour-led Government. They—and we in the Opposition—do not want there to be more of the same. We do not want more bureaucracy, we do not want more tax, and we do not want more welfare. I have a final challenge for the Prime Minister from Wellingtonians. In her speech today, the Prime Minister mentioned Australia four times, the UK twice, the USA twice, China twice, Auckland nine times, and Wellington not once. That, I say to the Prime Minister, has to change.

What a terrible speech from a man who used to be mayor of Wellington—and what a cheek! I hope he read the New Zealand Herald yesterday, because it had a very good article about older people setting an example in this country. I think it is a terrible shame that the police have to waste time with older people who should know better about behaviour in the streets, and so on.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The police dragged him up the stairs.

Did they! But he is talking about the police and young people, when the police are having to waste time with older people who should be setting an example in terms of behaviour in this city and this country. It is appalling.

I am proud, though, to be a New Zealander. I am very proud to be a New Zealander, and I am proud to be one of the Prime Minister’s team and to be with Helen Clark, of whom I am tremendously proud. That is why Helen Clark is polling very high. Members may laugh and snigger, but Helen Clark is polling three times as high as “Dr Mogadon Brash”.

Dr Brash is hardly polling any higher than John Key, and we are very interested in watching John Key saying: “Beg me, beg me, beg me. I might be the leader one day. I’m not going to say I won’t be. Other people are saying I might be, but we do not know who and we can’t name them.” Is it Maurice Williamson or is it Bill English? Somebody has got the knife into Don Brash. It might be David Bennett over there. He has a fairly high place on the list and he has a good contribution to make to the National Party. So who is out for Dr Don Brash’s back? Dr Brash has not delivered. He promised—and he has broken his promise already—that if he did not deliver, he would resign. But who do we have in the Chinese Year of the Dog? We have John Key snapping at his heels. I would not mind betting that John Key was born in the Year of the Dog, because he is certainly snapping at the heels of Don Brash.

Why is Helen Clark the most preferred Prime Minister in this country? She is most preferred because of good Government, because of integrity, because she has an international reputation for working for world peace, because she is consistent, because we stand for a non-nuclear society, and because we stand for sustainability. I do not know why National members are laughing. They have just changed their policy on nuclear issues because they realised we were right. And what about social democratic principles? We in New Zealand are known throughout the world for upholding social democratic principles, and principles of a fair society where everyone gets a fair go and it is a great place to bring up kids. This is, and should be, a land of opportunity for all.

We are not talking down this country. I am embarrassed that members of the Opposition should be talking down this country. It is appalling. Where is their pride? Where is their integrity? Where is their sense of what New Zealand is about? We have the lowest unemployment rate in the Western World. We have good working conditions. We have decent standards of living in this country. We have a growing economy. There may be a dip but we have a growing economy. We are investing heavily in health and education, and in the police. That is more than National ever did. What did John Banks ever do? He gave us those flak jackets—something stupid—and a lot of hot air. We are protecting our environment and we are a country that is proud of that. We have a reputation as a principled, independent, and nuclear-free society.

What is more, we are a country that not only has a rich culture and unique identity but that has an identity spread throughout the world. At the moment I do not have enough time to view all the movies that are promoting New Zealanders and New Zealand talent: No. 2, a great movie about the Pacific and New Zealand; North Country, which has a New Zealand director; River Queen; The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; King Kong; and The World’s Fastest Indian. I need more time.

💬 Steve Chadwick: It didn’t happen by chance.

No, but it happened. When we talk to New Zealand musicians, and when we go to concerts, we hear them say: “Thank goodness for Helen Clark! Thank you for the support of Helen Clark, who is proud to be a New Zealander and to promote New Zealand and New Zealand values.” We have a New Zealand that values actors, directors, writers, and special effects people. They are known internationally, and that recognition has happened in recent years. Thankfully, we have a Prime Minister who is the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and who is proud of this country. She is proud of our talent and she is encouraging that talent, which is known worldwide as she is known worldwide.

I heard Lianne Dalziel talk about skills and talent, and skilled workers. I talked just the other day with people from the Waikato who were from the Katolyst Group, and who were talking about the needs in the Waikato for trained, skilled workers. We are working hard on that. We are analysing it. We have more apprentices and Modern Apprentices than we have ever had before. But where is the gap? The gap is in the middle range. The gap is from those 10 years when National was in power and not offering training, and now there is that gap in the middle management area, the area of senior, skilled people who are not there to train the young ones. That is where the gap is and we know who to blame for it. We are working hard to get over that shortfall with apprenticeships. I talked to a young man in Hamilton the other day, and I talked to his mum. She said that her lad is doing really well and that the Modern Apprenticeship scheme is great. She said that he is getting trained and that he is proud of what he does. He is proud of his training, he is proud of his job, and he is doing well. He is working extremely well within his trade, and that is where we are building up and trying to recover from the gap created by National.

I heard the Minister of Women’s Affairs talking about women’s affairs and I saw members opposite laughing.

💬 Simon Power: We were not laughing; we were just saying it was rubbish!

The member may yell, but I was on an election platform where not one National Party person I heard knew what National’s women’s policy was. When they were asked about women’s policy they talked about children. They did not even have a clue what the policy was. I saw nothing in their policy. They had no idea what pay equity was about. They had no idea about women’s health policy.

They had no idea about student loans. I see a member in this House, not very far from me, who in his maiden speech talked about youth, then voted against getting rid of the interest on student loans. And he wondered why 3,000 students at Waikato University booed when he got up to speak. Where is someone in favour of youth who does not want a youth facility in his electorate? Where is the person who would rather have wayward kids wandering around the streets than have a decent youth facility in a place where they would be looked after by good church people and social services? That member does not want to have that. He would sooner have kids wandering the streets. He probably wants them living under plastic outside the city walls or under bridges. He does not want a decent facility. Probably that same person will stand up and say he wants more prisons, as well.

People have been talking about confidence in New Zealand, because some people at the last election were afraid. People in local government were afraid that National might get in. People on low incomes were afraid that National might get in. People in health facilities were afraid. People with disabilities and superannuitants were afraid. Teachers, people in State houses, young people seeking employment, students, and young families were all afraid that the National Party might get in. They were afraid about what would happen to New Zealand as we know it—a country with values, where families are respected, where children are respected, where all ethnic groups are respected, and where people get a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work and are not screwed over by an Employment Contracts Act. Those people were afraid of going back to the old days of Jenny Shipley and food banks. They were people who knew that we have a society of which we can proud. We have a society where we have decent social services and where we have decent standards of living. We are working towards a society where there is sustainable growth, a decent economy, and a decent life for all Kiwis. [Interruption] People who snigger and laugh need to be ashamed of themselves, because they are going to take this country backwards.

I am proud of Helen Clark. She will go down in history as the best Prime Minister this country ever had.

This debate began as the debate in response to the Prime Minister’s statement, but it has become somewhat broader since that point. I listened to the Prime Minister and I actually took some notes because I was looking forward to hearing some vision expressed that we could grab a hold of and say that it was the vision for New Zealand or it was not. But in reality we had a great deal of backslapping from the Prime Minister, congratulating herself and her team on achieving—well, we will get to that—and assuring us that there is no problem.

I can perhaps understand the pressure that the Prime Minister is under. My mind goes back to the election campaign of 1999 when Labour came into office. I well remember one Hon Trevor Mallard fronting on TV and saying: “Labour will bring a new standard of accountability.” Do we remember that? Yes, we do. So we all had an expectation that there would be a change. There was—it was a change for the worse. We have documented chapter after chapter of Ministers forgetting where they lived, issues about painting and speeding, and a whole range of things. Never have we had a Government that has had to stand down so many Ministers for a variety of reasons. But I do not want to dwell on that: right now the issue is clear.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: You people never ever stood down.

I can tell Marian Hobbs that the issue is clear. We have a Prime Minister who used the leader’s allowance inappropriately. I have been listening to the debate on this. The Hon Lianne Dalziel said: “Well, what about those Brethren people? What was the tie up for that?”. I do not have a clue whether there were Brethren people in my patch. I suspect that there might have been, because they were pretty disturbed about what this Government was doing. But let me put on record that they were not recruited by the National Party, and if they were in my particular patch I did not know about them. [Interruption] This is the issue: election after election we have had the combined trade unions, the meatworkers union, the nurses union, the teachers union—union after union—supporting the Labour Party. A good question is: what are the linkages around that? We are hearing: “Oh, this thing has happened with the National Party, but, oh, no, it has never happened with us.” Well, I have to say that the National Party is clearly a babe in the woods at getting other people to promote it. We do not do it, yet those members actively do so.

My colleague Phil Heatley made a comment about the issue of the Labour Party leader’s budget being wrongly spent. Why do the Labour MPs not have a whip-round and top it up? Firstly, that would certainly overspend the budget. There would be no question about that whatsoever. But the maths are wrong. The rate for this sort of activity is 30 pieces of silver, and 50 times 30 pieces of silver does not come to $440,000-odd. So the maths are wrong.

I now want to address the Prime Minister’s comment that the economy is in good shape. If we look back at what happened at the election, we see that a blue tide went through the provinces. It is a well-known fact that the first people to feel a downturn are those in primary industries and exporters. Where are they located? They are located in the provinces. Doug Woolerton said that we can farm our way out of this. Well, let me give the House some numbers that show how things are turning to custard in the primary sector. I was still farming quite actively up until about Christmas. In November I sold some lambs at $67, which is $10 down on the same lambs last year. In December I sold some lambs that were bigger than the ones I sold in November, and they were $57—$10 less. Last week I sold some more lambs. They were bigger again and they are now worth $47. Is there a crisis out there in the primary industry, which is the lead export earner for New Zealand? Yes, there is, and it is not just in lamb.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Dairy products.

Dairy products are back 12 percent on last year. Wool has gone from disaster to crisis. The venison industry is an embarrassment.

💬 David Bennett: Apples.

Apples. It just goes on and on, yet Government members are busy slapping themselves on the back and saying: “We’ve done a lot of good stuff, and it’s great.” Tomorrow the Waimumu Fieldays open. They are the Mystery Creek equivalent for the South Island. I predict right now—and members can come back next week and correct me if I am wrong—that the sales will be down dramatically. I make that prediction now. That is another test of whether the economy is going forward or back. I tell the House right now that it will be down tomorrow. It will be back a long way.

The reality is that farm income grosses will be down, on average, somewhere around $60,000 each. Most of that comes off the bottom line. The cheque books get put away. The service towns, the provinces, the places like Invercargill, which I represent, are starting to hurt, yet the Prime Minister says in this House that there is no problem and that the Government is doing a great job. The plea from the provinces, which started before the last election, said quite clearly: “Notice what is happening. You are ignoring the engine room of this economy. And, not only that, you are putting some impediments in place. You are not dealing with the issues we need to deal with. We don’t want to be over-taxed. We don’t want a whole lot of compliance costs. We want the Resource Management Act fixed. We want these issues dealt with.” I know that the Hon Jim Anderton, the Minister of Agriculture—now, this is leadership—wrote to Federated Farmers and said: “Give me 10 issues I need to deal with.” Is that not leadership! He does not have a clue about what is needed. So I will be very interested to see what his responses are.

There is another issue, and this is the real nub of the matter that the Prime Minister raised. We are very proud of our film industry, and I am proud of it too. It has done well. I have just come back from the United States. Everyone is talking about The Lord of the Rings; The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; and The World’s Fastest Indian, which I am proud of. I am probably the only one in the House who has met Burt Munro and currently knows a number of his grandchildren. We are all proud of him down there. Gerry Brownlee made a good point today. Burt Munro would not be able to do what he did in the 1960s and 1970s. He simply would not be able to do it because we now have a restrictive society with a Government that says: We know what’s best for the people and we ain’t going to fix the things that are impediments to you doing your own thing.”

Let us get back to the film industry. Yes, we are proud of it, but what has happened to keep the industry in New Zealand? It was given a break. It was given some carrots to stay here. The question that I want answered is this: why do we pick a winner in the film industry and not pick the winners at the Waimumu Fielday tomorrow? Both those groups are in the productive sector, and those people who are inventive—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A subsidy!

No, we do not want a subsidy. We want a tax break. Clayton Cosgrove should listen to me. Labour is overtaxing this economy at a time when the primary production sector and the exporters are coming to their knees and are being overtaxed. What do they want? The answer is quite clear. They want Labour to address overtaxing. They want Labour to address the fact that this Government says it knows best—that it will manage, it will control, and it will get people to do what it requires.

The first 5 years of this millennium have been the best years for, maybe, three decades—maybe in a lifetime—and this Government has sat on its hands and congratulated itself. Those 5 years have been the best 5 years that this economy has had, and it has been largely because of the reforms of the 1990s, which, essentially, I am proud of. I do not have time to go through them all. But this Government has sat on its hands, and I believe, sadly, that history will look back and judge what has happened. History will say that this was a time of great prosperity but that the Government sat back and congratulated itself, and did nothing to drive the economy. It is a sad commentary that this Government is more interested in singing its own praises than dealing with the issues that will drive and grow this economy.

As Mr Roy said, we all like to take pride in our country. We like to think of Aotearoa as a place of innovation and creativity. We like to think of ourselves as an adaptable people who are able to meet the demands of the time. Of course, all those qualities will be enormously important in meeting some of the very significant challenges that we face as we go into the 21st century.

My co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons mentioned some of the very significant environmental and economic problems that we face right now and need to start preparing for. One of the most current, I guess, is peak oil, the rise in the cost of fossil fuel for the foreseeable future as it becomes more expensive to extract and transport, and, of course, the effects on transportation costs and the like. That is very significant for us as a country that relies significantly on exports. What we are likely to see is a physical localisation.

But, of course, coupled with that, and new in human history, is that at the same time we are seeing an unprecedented ability to share information globally, and that is what makes the difference. In fact, perhaps the greatest leveller of New Zealand’s comparative disadvantage of our geographical distance from our markets will be a world-class information and communications technology infrastructure. That is why the current state of New Zealand’s broadband is so tragic. The Prime Minister drew attention to this problem in her speech, and I will just highlight a couple of things.

The Prime Minister talked about the need to get faster Internet access and at more competitive prices. She said that broadband is a critical enabler of productivity, growth, and economic transformation, yet New Zealand is lagging behind. She indicated a number of ways in which that was the case. She said: “Although recent announcements of price reductions and other changes are welcome, the Government will be addressing the relevant policy, legislative, and regulatory settings as a matter of urgency. We want to work with other parties on solutions that not only enable New Zealand to catch up with the rest of the world but also enable us to keep up as these technologies develop further.”

I highlight that because the Greens, as the only other political party that seems to have any opinion at all on this enormously important matter, are very keen to participate in that discussion. We are very keen because it seems abundantly clear that the approach taken by the Government to date has been an abject failure—such a failure that the mainstream media has been headlining broadband, and that is amazing. This subject is normally reserved for the geek sheets and the obscure pages of the information technology section in the business section of the New Zealand Herald. This is a technically complex matter—a matter that is difficult for journalists to understand. They will tell us that they do not report it because it is difficult for the public to understand, but we know the real reason.

So normally journalists avoid the subject matter, but the other day we saw TV3 news headlining broadband. Now, any MP who has tried to get the media to pay attention to an information technology matter knows how unlikely that is, and that is just an indication of how bad the situation has become, because New Zealand’s access to high-speed broadband has become a national scandal. First of all, let us be clear: broadband is incredibly important because it could unleash enormous potential in New Zealand businesses and provide staggering new technologies for New Zealand households. Those of us in select committees who have made use of video conferencing to talk to submitters from, sometimes, the other side of the world in real time have got a small idea of the amazing possibilities on offer. The enormous growth internationally in things like Skype, in peer-to-peer data sharing and the like, and the trend towards the PC becoming the core of the home communication and entertainment centre are all things that give us, today, a very, very small taste of where information technology is going and of what broadband can offer us over the next few years.

The increasing dependence of New Zealand businesses on their information technology and on the ability to both download and upload enormous amounts of data is simply going to increase as new technologies unleash new possibilities. New Zealand could, and should, be at the forefront of that development. At the moment that is extremely unlikely. There is one very simple reason in my view why it is unlikely, and that is because of the monopoly that Telecom currently holds over our information and communications technology infrastructure. That is my opinion, and that is the opinion of many information technology commentators, as well.

What is that all about? We are talking about the copper wire—the telephone line network that was paid for by New Zealand taxpayers. When Telecom was privatised it was sold along with it and its monopoly was established. Well, fair enough. In those days the Labour Government did not have the foresight to see what was coming. To be fair, I have to say that not many people did. But let us hope that it has some hindsight, because it now has an opportunity to break that monopoly just as it had an opportunity a couple of years ago when then Minister Swain took a recommendation to Cabinet for local loop unbundling, which is the freeing up of the copper wire network and allowing Telecom’s broadband competitors direct access to the copper wires and the telephone exchanges so that they can go in, put the gear in, and unleash new possibilities for their customers.

We are one of the very few countries in the world without local loop unbundling, and New Zealanders face an enormous disadvantage as a result. Just prior to today Telecom has been trumpeting its new plans on broadband, and it is being hailed as the saviour of the information technology infrastructure as a result. Of course, it is no coincidence that the rolling out of its new pricing plans and the like has been timed, clearly, to pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement today and the indication that the Government intends to take some regulatory action. As usual, as has been displayed time and time again over the past few years, Telecom has left it until the last moment and, of course, always displays great reluctance to meet even the goals it has set itself.

What has Telecom actually done? Well, it has done some useful things. It has brought business prices in line with residential prices. That is going to be of enormous benefit to New Zealand businesses, some of which will save considerable amounts of money, but I have to say that it was simply the timely end of an unjustifiable extortion of New Zealand businesses. I cannot see how Telecom could ever justify the kinds of prices it was setting in New Zealand for its business plans for broadband.

The company has announced some new prices for residential customers and some new speeds. What it is talking about is entry level broadband at just under $30 a month, with download speeds at 256 kilobits per second and upload speeds at 128 kilobits per second. In Australia, for the same amount per month, people get a download speed that is almost twice as much—512 kilobits per second—and an upload speed also of 128 kilobits per second. But people who live somewhere where they can get asymmetrical digital subscriber line 2 (ADSL2), for the same price—$30 a month—get a download speed of 24,000 kilobits per second. That is 24,000 kilobits per second compared with 256 kilobits per second in this country. They can also get uploads of 1,000 kilobits per second compared with 128 kilobits per second in this country for the same price. Of course, ADSL2 is not available everywhere, but that is the point—it is not available anywhere in this country. It is not available in this country, at all. In fact, broadband is not available at all in parts of this country, as the rural sector is very keen to tell us—it is constantly complaining about it, and rightly so. In fact, the greatest speed that Telecom is offering is 3.5 megabits per second for download speed and 512 kilobits per second for upload speed, compared with 24 megabits per second for download speed in Australia and 1,000 kilobits per second for upload speed.

Telecom is manufacturing congestion on New Zealand’s information highway. Maybe it is not economic to introduce here, but that should be a business decision. We should not allow Telecom to continue to deny access to its competitors. If IHUG wants to go into the exchange and put in the equipment, as its sister company has done in Australia, it should be allowed to do so if there is a business case for it. One thing we do know is that if Telecom maintains a monopoly, ADSL2 will not happen in this country for a very long time.

Finally, let me just say that I hope the Prime Minister is serious about addressing this issue, but I warn the Government that if it is planning anything less than local loop unbundling, the Government will be short-changing New Zealanders.

We have seen this afternoon a prelude to how this Parliament will unfold over the next 3 years. It was very interesting to compare the speech of Helen Clark with those of Don Brash and Winston Peters. It was very unfortunate for Don Brash that he had to be sandwiched between speeches of substance and style, of which he had none. Don Brash has to show himself as a leader in this House. Although he puts this House down and says that it is unimportant to people outside it, the fact is that John Armstrong in his poem states the House is important because this is, day by day, where parliamentary foes oppose their enemy.

Today, Don Brash had to take up the spear and take it to this Labour Government effectively. But he did not; he did not do it at all. He was overshadowed by Helen Clark, who set out a programme for New Zealand that builds on 6 years of fantastic work—6 years that are a direct contrast to the previous National Government’s record. That National Government in 9 years managed to double the number of registered unemployed in this country. There were 9 years of hard work while the National Government doubled the number of registered unemployed in New Zealand. I ask members not to forget that. Nine years of hard work by the previous National Government saw the abolition of apprenticeships, saw the stripping away of vocational training, and saw young people being dumped on the unemployment scrap heap, with no future whatsoever. Nine years of that National Government saw student fees skyrocket out of control. There was no control whatsoever.

Under this Labour Government we have seen unemployment fall to the lowest ebb it has been at for a long time. In fact, we have the lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. Although the National Party whinges on about business situations, the fact is that the World Bank rates New Zealand first out of 145 countries in the world, in terms of the ease and convenience of doing business. The World Bank is not known as a socialist left-wing organisation, by any means. The World Bank states that New Zealand is first out of 145 countries. But the National Party does not like good news; it hates good news. It learnt that there was a slight adjustment in New Zealand’s stellar economic growth from the rate we had over the last 6 years, when we grew faster than almost any other OECD country. Our growth rate has outstripped Australia’s, and we now have a slight easing of that.

Mr Eric Roy can lament the prices he is getting for his lambs, but everybody knows that one cannot stay at the top end of a wave all the time. There are such things as business cycles. As for Mr Eric Roy, his credibility was lessened considerably when he said that he did not know anything about the Exclusive Brethren. He was just aping the words of his leader, who for 3 days said that he did not have meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. Don Brash did not say that he had had meetings with the Exclusive Brethren until he was confronted with incontrovertible proof that he had. Then he fessed up and said that he had.

I tell Don Brash that leadership is about having credibility. The point about Don Brash’s credibility is that it was shown to be wanting here in this Chamber today. Helen Clark beat him on substance hands down, Winston Peters beat him on style, and the only people who were grinning at Don’s performance were several members of the National Party front bench. We are all now seeing the signs of a leadership struggle in the National Party. Who leaked to the New Zealand Herald? Winston Peters figured Gerry Brownlee did that. Gerry Brownlee took a point of order, supposedly in denial of it, but members should read the record. He did not deny one word of it; he retracted not one word of it. Gerry knows that the closer it gets to the election—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Brownlee knows—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has corrected that.

Mr Brownlee knows—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Mr Brownlee is deputy leader of the National Party.

Mr Gerry Brownlee knows that the nearer it gets to the next election, the safer Dr Don Brash is. Dr Don Brash is being pressured by the elements in his party, because they are answering the oldest question in politics: “Why not me?”.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: You’re in dreamland, Rick.

I tell Mr Auchinvole that my name is Mr Barker, not Rick. His whip has just pointed out that we cannot refer to members in that way.

Mr Auchinvole knows that the back bench will be the last to be told what is going on. The power play is being played by those at the top, who will use the back bench as cannon fodder. They will want to destabilise the leadership of Don Brash, so that it gets to the point where it is obvious to everybody, including the back bench, that he cannot lead them any more—that the National Party will not make it past the post next time. National is deluding itself with the belief that it got so close to winning last time that it will automatically win at the next election. Lots of teams came close to beating the All Blacks in the first test, and were creamed in the second test and the third. Just because the National Party got close to winning once, it does not mean to say that it will win the next time. I say to the National Party back bench that it should think on that.

While National’s back bench is thinking on that, the plotting and scheming is going on, on the front bench. Mr John Key knows that it is all there for him. Bill English realises that the longer John Key stays in this Parliament the more credibility he gets, and the more Bill English will be seen as yesterday’s man. Time is running out for Bill English; the balance is shifting. He is getting close to the point of being past his use-by date. He has played a very cunning hand, he has worked very constructively, and he has supported his leader. I suggest to members that Bill English has supported Don Brash like the hangman who supports the person in his or her tender care. Bill English knows that when Don Brash falls over, it will all be there for him.

We have had the other wonderful sight in the House tonight of Simon Power.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Another aspirant.

He is another aspirant for leadership, as my colleague has identified. We watched him moving around the back benches in the House, chit-chatting away and throwing in the odd interjection. Simon Power is greasing himself up, because he knows that his chances are coming, too. It is like the running of the bulls in Pamplona: they are out the front, and they are charging. The bulls are on the loose.

But the point that most of the National Party back bench do not realise is that they are witnessing a spectacle. I hope they will take a diary and write it down, because day by day the situation will change. The people who are on the front bench, in the lead of the charge, know what they are doing—a careful leak there, a grease-up here. The stage is being set on a very carefully orchestrated leadership spill. It is coming, and I say to Mr Auchinvole that he should take some notes on it, and that he should do so day by day. In 2 years’ time he will go back and reflect on them, because he will have then identified the anatomy of a coup. It will happen.

What is the National Party looking to do? Well, it wants to reinvent itself for the next election. It wants to get itself on to the Government side of the House. The most important objection the National Party had to what the Prime Minister said was that it was Helen Clark who delivered the Prime Minister’s statement. When Helen Clark, the Labour leader, gets up and delivers a Prime Minister’s statement, there is only one conclusion that Opposition people can draw: they are in Opposition for another 3 years. That is the part that grates.

The National Party wants to be in Government, but what does it want to be in Government for? It is very hard to define what the National Party stands for. It says it stands for principle. Let us look at an issue of principle: nuclear-free ship visits. One is either on one side of the line or the other. The National Party turned up and said—

💬 Hon Member: What happened at the caucus?

Well, what happened in that meeting was going to be “gone by lunchtime”. We are not quite sure what it was, but we know the National members wanted to make a change, and they tried to dress it up as best they could. They said the general public could make the decision. They said they would have a ballot, but that they would not do anything until they have had a referendum—that they have no position on the issue. But the public knew exactly what the National Party stood for. The National Party wanted to get rid of the nuclear-free legislation, but it did not have the courage to say so. National has waffled on about subject after subject, and that is the reason the National Party will be on the Opposition side of the House for the next Prime Minister’s statement.

Like most Kiwis I am proud of New Zealand’s natural environment, and I believe that as we develop as a country it is imperative that our development is environmentally sustainable. We can create health and wealth for New Zealand while we nurture our clean, green environment and image. Sometimes environmental issues are complex, and we have to make difficult trade-offs and decisions. But at other times there are straightforward ways to improve our environment and, if that is the case, it is our responsibility to take immediate action.

Earlier today the Prime Minister mentioned the environment briefly, and she assured us that she was concerned about environmental issues. But in terms of noise as an important environmental issue, and, in particular, in terms of the thumping, wailing, and howling of deliberately noisy exhausts in our towns and cities throughout the country, she and the Minister of Transport are not vaguely interested in lifting a finger. According to the Government’s own research, there are over 94,000 excessively noisy vehicles on our roads. That equates to 9,500 747 aeroplanes taxiing through out streets. It is no wonder that families are sleepless in the suburbs and that businesses are being destroyed.

Hoteliers and restaurateurs across the country tell me depressingly similar stories of losing business, of losing customers, and of losing money. Night after night guests are unable to sleep in our hotels, and morning after morning they refuse to pay their hotel bills. They quite rightly say: “I am paying for a bed to sleep in. You might have provided the bed, but these noisy cars meant I couldn’t get a wink of sleep. I’m not paying.” And they do not pay. I wonder whether the Hon Annette King paid her bill in Christchurch a fortnight ago. She complained to the press that she could not get a wink of sleep at 1.30 in the morning on the 20th floor of a central city hotel because of noisy exhausts.

We need to support our local businesses, we need to support the tourist industry, and we need to support our international clean, green, environmental image. We cannot afford to have tourists saying: “Don’t go to Tauranga; don’t go to Christchurch; don’t go to New Zealand if you want to enjoy your vacation.” The problem has blown out over the last 6 years because the Labour Government has failed to take any action on this issue, and this is an environmental issue that is simply fixed. There is no huge complexity, there are no difficult trade-offs, and there is not even any extra legislation required. There is absolutely no excuse for the Government to be dragging the chain.

This problem can be solved very simply. Firstly, the Government needs to review the noise standards for cars coming into New Zealand. They were last set by a National Government in 1976, and they have not been updated. Most other countries have tightened their standards, so now we are hopelessly out of line. It is no wonder that tourists are amazed at the level of noise they experience in New Zealand. It is a level that is totally unacceptable in other countries, including Australia, the UK, and Europe. Secondly, the Government must introduce an objective test for cars in use that can be monitored at warrant of fitness stations. Exhaust systems are just another part of one’s car. Noisy exhausts are faulty exhausts, and should be treated no differently from bald tyres, non-functioning lights, or worn brakes. When one takes one’s car to the warrant of fitness station, one will find that the 95 percent of cars that comply will just pass through. But the 5 percent of noisy cars will be identified with an objective tailpipe test and be required to upgrade their mufflers. It is a very simple and cheap solution.

Earlier today the Prime Minister stated that the status quo is certainly not good enough. I agree with her. The status quo in terms of noisy exhausts not only is not good enough but also is an appalling reflection on the incompetence of this Government, which has done nothing about an environmental issue that disturbs so many New Zealanders and is so easily fixed. If only Labour cared enough to take action.

There is another reason why the Government should act urgently. The thump of noisy exhausts is intrinsic to the cult of boy racing. It is part of the excitement and the crowd mentality. Every week kids are killed because they are driving too fast and dangerously. They congregate in noisy packs all over the country, they show off, they race, and they kill both themselves and others. Getting rid of noisy exhausts is a simple first step in trying to defuse the deadly horseplay of boy racers on our roads, and it just might save a life.

I believe that there is absolutely no excuse for this Government’s lack of action on noisy exhausts. Its slack laws mean that law abiding citizens throughout the country are being disturbed night after night, companies are losing business, and our clean, green environmental image is being destroyed. This issue needs to be dealt with right now. If Labour continues to procrastinate, I will be calling on all members of this House to support my member’s bill to control noisy exhausts, and thus to support their local constituents—hundreds of whom have contacted me and are signing my petition.

We are obviously off to a rollicking start, on our return from a classic Kiwi holiday in our own backyard. That was a noble speech from the Opposition member, but the exhaust backfired. It backfired on the big issues that this country faces in this term.

I congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimons, who painted a wonderful picture of intergenerational benefits for her grandson, Jasper. That is what gladdens New Zealanders’ hearts—not our exhausts. The agenda for the future under this Labour-Progressive Government was firmly set today by the Prime Minister. This Government’s cup is half full. It is always half full. We are not the negative, carping sorts who pick on the little nitty-gritty issues. We look at the big picture. We look at the type of society that we want to live in, in this country.

Then we had to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, who had to refer pathetically to the Jolly Roger piracy of taxpayer funding. Is the current Leader of the Opposition—who is certainly not the honourable “Jolly Brash”—plagued and concerned about the piracy of his own colleagues on his leadership? Is he in for a “Jolly Roger-ing”? The peppy ghost who walks had nothing new to say. He had no new policy, just policy that has been reinvented for the convenience of garnering votes. We heard of the no-nukes shift, and of a rethink on tax cuts and Treaty settlements. How cynical can we be when the Leader of the Opposition thinks that the Government would ever believe him, after he has dealt such a bad hand to the Māori vote in this land?

Our Prime Minister had three simple, clear messages: one of economic transformation, one of benefits for families young and old, and one of building on our New Zealand identity. I want to focus on building on our New Zealand identity. All of us have had a wonderful summer of eating good New Zealand food, enjoying New Zealand wine, watching New Zealand movies, and reading good New Zealand books. That is what we should all do. Let us keep the feel-good factor going. We should not dis on the Kiwi way; that never works. That is why the Opposition lost the last election. It had no policies and it dissed the Kiwi way, and New Zealand does not like that. We should not run down the regions of this country. We in the regions are ambitious and aspirational, and we are enjoying great growth. That even includes Kawerau in my electorate, which is rating up with the best land value increases in the country.

We enjoyed our lakes and waterways this summer, and we enjoyed the heroic story of the rescue of Robert Hewitt. In our region we have 14 lakes. I attended five ratepayer meetings over the summer holidays. Two Ministers came to visit, to look at our iconic lakes. Why are they iconically important? Because we are talking about our New Zealand identity. Let us not just talk clean, green rhetoric but actually put substance to it. What are we doing to fix our lakes? The Opposition did nothing for 9 long years about water quality, and we watched it deteriorate. What are we in the Government doing about it? We are working with farmers; they are on board with us. Actually, Federated Farmers have said that we have done something right, and that Jim Anderton is listening to them. That is what I am being told by the farmers in my region. Farmers are looking at land use around the lakes.

Scientists will receive $10 million in science and research funding over the next 10 years from this Government, so that we can make and fund durable solutions based on science. Iwi are working with us on our lakes project. They are looking at walkways around the lakes, and are looking forward to getting back ownership of the lakes. Our authorities—our local council and regional council—are working with us. We have little community action groups all around the lakes doing something. We work collaboratively and we work collectively, in order to get long-term, durable solutions, and we put our money where our mouth is. We have already put $17 million towards fixing our iconic lakes. That is about economic transformation. It is not just about helping the export sector; it is about ensuring that we have long-term, durable tourism to this country. When we say “clean and green”, we must absolutely mean it. This project will contribute to our reality and to the future of our environment.

I will just finish by talking about families, young and old. Families are a great theme for us. The Opposition needs to go out and ask the 360,000 families who will benefit from our package of increased family support about that package. What will the package do? It will put more food on the table. It will make work pay, and people will be proud to go to work. Some people on medium incomes cannot sustain their family, and they will get an in-work payment. The package will help with childcare subsidies and after-school programmes. It will help with accommodation supplements.

I have a child who is a product of the 1990s, and he came out with a massive student debt. He is now a father of two, earning $60,000 per year and finding it hard to make ends meet. He will benefit from the Working for Families package, and that is why he voted for Labour. He lined up the tax cuts and the Working for Families package, and said that he knew where he would put his money. I thought: “That’s my boy.” Let us ask students now about interest-free loans. Students were being indebted forever, and that was affecting women’s fertility. We were finding that women were putting off having families until they were 39—that was the median age. That would have had a huge intergenerational impact on our country.

Let us ask mums and dads very soon, when we introduce the KiwiSaver scheme, about that scheme. It is fantastic. It is a Government contribution to incentivise people to save for future learning, student fees, and homeownership. The scheme is fantastic. That is what will get us going collectively. That is how we will build resilient families and strong communities.

I will finish by mentioning maternity services, as I am a midwife. Over the summer Garry Evans, the Wellington Coroner, said that we must have an inquiry into maternity services. That was supported by Tony Ryall, the Opposition health spokesperson. Actually, we are under way on a review of maternity services. Midwives are not frightened about that review. Midwives themselves have been saying that we should have good information databases, that they should be linked in with the new structure of primary health organisations, and that they will work with general practitioners and obstetricians on policies and protocols. The issue is about relationships. That is what is key to this Government. We work on building strong relationships and strong professional ties. That is how we will build stronger families for our future.

What are we doing here today? It is Valentine’s Day. I would rather be at home with my wife, sharing our elder daughter’s 20th birthday. I am sure that my darling has better things to do than listen to Parliament, but if she is listening, I wish her a happy birthday. Instead of sharing that time with her, I have sat in this House and listened to another abject failure of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister.

Somewhere in the Prime Minister’s speech she said something about being in Government to make a difference. Well, what does Labour mean by “make a difference”? It means more welfare dependency. It means more people relying on the Government for all or part of their income. It means more New Zealanders trapped in low-quality, State-provided housing and stranded in crime-riddled streets—where the good people are prisoners in their homes and the criminals are free on the streets—and it means having to send their children to schools that are poorly performing.

What “Government making a difference” means to the Labour Party is more Government-sponsored poverty for New Zealanders. Instead of the Prime Minister giving a speech that challenged us to bring out the best in ourselves as New Zealanders, she gave us a speech marked by her determination to further extend welfare dependency, to create more Government-sponsored poverty, and to further squeeze the initiative of individual New Zealanders—New Zealanders who just want to work hard and take responsibility for themselves and for their families. There were no new policies, and there was no new leadership; just tiredness. There was nothing for the 150,000 New Zealand youngsters who today are making their way through school not learning to read, not learning to write, and not learning to do mathematics—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I blame the principal.

ALLAN PEACHEY:—and who, through the failure of this Government to give them the great gift of an outstanding education, will not be able to take their places as contributors to the New Zealand economy. I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister say that he blames principals. Well, I tell him that I will put my record as a principal up against his as a politician any time.

Why is it that 150,000 young New Zealanders will be denied a place in the economy? It is because of the failure of Trevor Mallard, that Minister of Education who brought a vindictiveness and a meanness of spirit to the New Zealand schooling system. That Minister, his successor Mr Maharey, and that Government would rather have 150,000 children pass through the schooling system not learning to read, not learning to write, and not learning to do mathematics, than have national graduation standards in reading, writing, and maths. That Government would rather have 150,000 children not learning to read, not learning to write, and not learning to do mathematics, than test them and use that data to better inform teaching practice.

That is a Government that prefers to mollify the teacher unions at the expense of our children. Let us be very clear about this: a child that can learn to talk can be taught to read. Yet what do we find out? In 2003, the last time statistics are available, only 67 percent of primary schools in New Zealand participated in Reading Recovery. According to the statistics that are available, that means that about 687 primary schools in New Zealand have no Reading Recovery programme for our children, and 150,000 of those children are passing through the system not learning to read.

So let us talk about leadership, or at least about the Prime Minister’s lack of it.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Who wrote this rubbish?

I did, I tell Mr Barker, and it was not difficult. Labour gives us plenty of ammunition.

The job of leaders is to create stars. Where are the stars in the Labour Party? Well, they are certainly not in the Cabinet, they are certainly not on the back benches, and they are most certainly not sitting on the Labour list waiting for the Prime Minister to confer favour upon them. She has not created stars. How could she? She is not one herself. No star would have given such a pathetic apology for a speech as that given this afternoon by the Prime Minister. No star would have left her policeman and her driver at the mercy of the courts to cover her own culpability. An honest leader would have taken responsibility and said sorry. It is time, I tell the Prime Minister, for her to say sorry, if only to the wives and the children of the men who now have convictions because of her. The Prime Minister was the most senior person in that motorcade. She should take responsibility. The failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility demeans the office, and it demeans us as New Zealanders. It is time that the Government took responsibility for buying the 2005 election. You will not get away with that one, and you know it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member must not use “you”.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise.

When we look at members of the Cabinet we see the fear in their eyes. They know that there will be a prosecution. They know that somebody might go to jail. This time the New Zealand people will demand no less. It is time for the Government to take responsibility, say sorry, and pay the money back.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: The school assembly must be riveted with this speaker’s ability.

I suggest that the Minister of Housing show more concern for the tenants in sub-standard housing in Glen Innes in my electorate instead of making cheap remarks like that.

New Zealanders thirst for freedom, and our economy thirsts for freedom. How much longer can New Zealand survive a Government that prefers to redistribute income amongst its favoured groups as a substitute for policies that create more wealth? How much longer can New Zealand survive a Government that believes that the easiest money to spend is taxpayers’ money? What is it that makes Trevor Mallard or Steve Maharey believe that they are better able to decide where a child goes to school than that child’s own mum and dad? Why does this Government have so little trust in New Zealanders—so little trust in our ability to make good decisions for ourselves?

I am proud to be a participant in this Labour-led Government. Our Prime Minister today said we are not here to maintain the status quo, and members opposite have reiterated that today. We do not believe that that is good enough, and that is what the Prime Minister said. We need to be more affluent and dynamic, we need to balance economic and social policy and progress, and I am delighted to be participating in building a progressive, inclusive, creative, productive New Zealand.

I also want to say that I am proud of our leadership. Helen Clark will this week become the second - longest serving Labour leader in New Zealand’s history. Only Harry Holland will have served longer as a Labour leader, and when the next election comes around, Helen Clark will overtake even his record of longevity. Members of the Opposition should look upon that record of leadership stability and competence and be envious, because they know they have no one of such ability to match our leadership.

The Leader of the Opposition for now, Dr Brash, referred to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Michael Cullen, as having been a historian. Who better, in fact, than a highly trained, eminently qualified social historian, whose portfolio of qualifications has been augmented by a maths degree, to guide the finances of our nation? Who better than somebody who understands the oppressive effects of the arbitrary or, worse still, the self-righteous judgments of who are the deserving poor and who are the undeserving poor to guide the wealth creation and wealth distribution of this country? I am proud to have a socially aware Minister of Finance who does not believe that to those who have shall more be given, and that those who have not shall have even the little they have taken away—a principle to which the National Party is all too willing to subscribe.

The Leader of the Opposition for now, Dr Brash, also talked about our agenda and vision. In fact, he considered us to be bereft of vision and ideas. Let me remind the Opposition of some of our ideas we have been prepared to put into action. For example—and these ideas are about to bear fruit for real New Zealanders—on 1 April the Working for Families package will be extended to include 60,000 more families. A total of 350,000 families will benefit from the wealth production of this country. There will be an increase in New Zealand superannuation on that date. There will be no interest on student loans from that date. On 1 July, amongst other things, paid parental leave will be extended to the self-employed. In the future, on 1 April 2007, workers will also be entitled to 4 weeks’ annual leave. We look forward to 20 hours a week of free early childhood education. We look forward to a KiwiSaver programme that will enable young people to save for their first home. It will enable others to build their savings. On 1 July this year nurses around the country will receive the third instalment of what is, for the very least of them, a 20 percent pay increase and, for many, a 22, 24, or 28 percent pay increase. We are very pleased that the ideas we have had and the work we have done are still yet to bear fruit. That is part of our ongoing vision for this country.

I would like to talk about the economy briefly. We know about the 293,000 additional jobs. We know about having the lowest unemployment in the OECD. Over the last 6 years, we know that growth has been averaging close to 3.8 percent per annum. We know that our growth rates have been better than those of our top three trading partners. But that is only what we have done; there is more to come. We do need higher productivity, we do need more business investment, we do need higher skills levels, and we do need more innovation—all items that the Prime Minister referred to today.

What does the business community think of this? Let us have a look. At 5 p.m. tonight Alasdair Thompson of the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association congratulated the Prime Minister on her speech. He said: “We applaud the Prime Minister’s speech to Parliament for her recognition that we need a strong economy to deliver the living standards, the services, and the quality of life which the citizens of our First World country expect, deserve, and are prepared to work for.” He went on to say—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Read on.

I am about to. He said: “Business is keen to engage on the statements, issues, and strategies.”

Further, earlier than that, at 3 p.m. today, the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: “The high priority given to supporting the economy and business-led growth is exactly the message businesses wanted to hear. The language is right and the Government’s intentions are very clear and believable.” That is what the Auckland chamber of commerce chief executive officer, Michael Barnett, said. Commenting on the Prime Minister’s state of the nation address to Parliament, Mr Barnett said that “especially welcoming was the unambiguous commitment to New Zealand’s need to increase the number of globally competitive businesses coupled with the acknowledgment that the Government’s role is to provide a supportive environment, including infrastructure, regulations, and business tax. The indication of an action-based Government-business partnership to help position New Zealand’s growth success is another encouraging sign”.

Opposition members cannot bear the fact that even people who used to be their friends are in fact supporting the active direction of this Government when it comes to promoting growth, productivity, and business investment. I ask members opposite to desist from talking the economy down. They should just get on with promoting New Zealand’s interests, both here and overseas.

The Leader of the Opposition for now, Dr Brash, also talked about the drift of skilled New Zealanders to Australia. Perhaps he should read page 9 of the Australian Financial Review, dated 21 January this year: “A snapshot of long-term departures shows Aussies are increasingly succumbing to New Zealand’s attractive lifestyle. Whether it is lower tax, better lifestyle, cheaper real estate, the number of Australians moving to the Land of the Long White Cloud has increased annually for 6 years.” Expatriate executives say it is easier to do business in New Zealand and tax imposts are lighter. The article quotes a chief executive of a white goods manufacturer: “The personal tax situation in New Zealand is far more friendly than Australia’s”, and so it goes on.

I want to finish by talking for a moment about another item that the Leader of the Opposition for now mentioned in his speech in reply, and that was a comment about integrity. This Labour-led Government has proven its ability over two terms to date by keeping its promises and honouring its pledges. We are the Government that chose not to enter the Iraq war, because we thought it was wrong. We are the Government that received refugees off the boat Tampa because it was the humane and the right thing to do. We are the Government that upholds the nuclear-free New Zealand policy without flip-flop or ambiguity. We are the Government that will continue to invest in people, in education, in health, and in essential infrastructure to keep this country growing. We want a harmonious, high-paid, high-skilled society, and we will deliver. We have the vision, we have the policies, and we have delivered in the past. That is what integrity is about.

Through economic transformation, through the policies we have that will deliver for families, through developing pride in our national identity through the plethora of ways that we have available to us, particularly in the creative industries, we will deliver the dynamic and progressive country that everyone, except apparently the Opposition, needs and wants.

We have just had a delivery from someone called Maryan Street. I have to say that I am pleased to follow it, because I will bring a bit of life into the House as a consequence. We will put a bit of spirit back into this place, which it needs. The National caucus, led by Don Brash, is here to be a force.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. I think that the House should welcome back John Carter. He has been very ill. Members may recall that prior to Christmas last year he was away for a period of time. He has recovered fully from an illness. I would like the House to acknowledge John’s wellness and his participation here tonight.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I want to associate myself and the Labour Party, and, I believe, every member of the House, with those words. I, like other members, was very sad when I heard that John was ill. I worked with John over many years as a senior whip. I, like everybody else, found him to be a person of integrity, a good person to deal with, and a great contributor to this House. It is good to see John back after Christmas, and we are looking forward to one of his firebrand speeches where he will talk mainly to his mother, I think, is it? Welcome back to John.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: May I ask—because I interrupted the speech and I should have stood before Mr John Carter took the call—whether his 10-minute address could start from now. I seek leave for that course of action.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Thank you, and can I just make the point that if no one else had mentioned it, I was going to welcome myself back. I think it is very important that I acknowledge myself as being here, although I do want to tell the House that I am dangerous. I am feeling so good that I am really dangerous.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I’d better shift then.

I am not as dangerous as that! I say to Lindsay that I am particular about being dangerous. I want to thank the House sincerely for the support it gave me during my time of challenge. I am pleased to say that I have recovered fully. I had a full clearance on Thursday of last week.

I am pleased to hear applause from all sides of the House, because those members on the other side will probably not feel so good when we have finished. But that is beside the point. I am here to do what members of Parliament in Opposition do, which is to hold the Government to account. I will do that, along with my colleagues right across this side of the House, because we know we are sitting here watching a tired, old Government.

During the course of my parliamentary career I have had the privilege of being in the Opposition, I have had the privilege of being in the Government, and—sadly, unfortunately—I am in the Opposition again. I remember the last term of those 9 years of being in Government.

💬 Simon Power: Nine good years.

They were 9 good years, but the last term in particular became hugely challenging when things did not work out, when it all started to unravel, and when those things that were good just did not work out, no matter what we did. I will sit here and watch this Government, which is in its third term, slowly unravel. That is what will happen.

I put on record tonight that we are watching the demise of this socialist Government as it is finally starting to unwind. I tell the Government side of the House and this country to be prepared for the next National Government, which will lead this country to the future it deserves. This country should be prepared for a Government led by Don Brash going into the millennium and beyond. That is what will happen. That man has brought a whole lot of new colleagues into this House.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: 23.

Bless my soul, 23 brand new, fearsome members who will make a difference to this country.

I have been given the honour of being the Opposition spokesperson on local government in the National caucus. There are no other Opposition spokespersons. There is only the National caucus and the Government. The rest do not actually matter too much. They are just players in a game; they are hardly relevant. I say to local government that Don Brash has put with me a team of people—Richard Worth, Sandra Goudie, and Mark Blumsky—and the four of us are going to make sure that local government knows that the National Party is here to support them, to help them, and to work with them.

There are a number of issues that local government is very concerned about and that the people of this country are very concerned about. This Government since 1999 has continuously changed the way in which local Government works. It has continued to impose regulation and law, and ask local government to do things for their people, but has not provided funding. The Government has put an impost on the people of this nation through taxes, but, more important, through local government it has added compliance costs, and costs to this nation through legislation and through rates, and it has done nothing at all to support local government.

I say to local government that the National Party is here for them. We are here to listen. We are going to do the job. We are going to make sure that local government gets the support it needs, because it does need it. My colleagues know that. Don Brash knows that. We are here to make sure that the people in Local Government New Zealand get their opportunity to have a party that actually cares and worries about local government and ratepayers.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: And that’s the National Party.

Of course, it is the National Party. If we take things like long-term council community plans, what sort of cost is that? How can somebody sit here and say what will happen in 25 years? Well, Mark Burton expects them to be able to.

I invite Mark Burton, the Minister of Local Government, to take a call tonight and tell the House what he will be doing in 25 years’ time. He will not even know what he is doing in the next 25 minutes. He never has. When he was Minister of Defence he did not know where his guns were going to go in 25 minutes’ time. How would he know what is going to happen in local government? Yet he is expecting mayors, councillors, and ratepayers to know what will happen in 25 years. It is stupid, it is dumb, but that is the Labour Government, folks. What else would we expect?

I listened to the speech made by Don Brash tonight and he said of the Government: “This Government has hauled down the flag of integrity and instead run up a Jolly Roger of political piracy.” He is absolutely right. I have to say I have never in my 18 years in this House, and, indeed, in my life of 55 years in this country, seen a Government that has been so bothered to push every rule, to turn everything over, to misuse, to manipulate, to abuse, to be slippery, and to be nasty. To have a Government that does this to our country is an absolute disgrace.

I say to my colleague opposite—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Which one?

—Shane Jones, the new member; the future of the Labour Government, so some people say. But Shane knows he has about as much future as I have—that is, not that much longer. He knows that with the Labour Government he does not have a lot of future, because it is going into Opposition because it cannot deliver the things people expect of it.

The people know that only one party will fulfil the needs of this country, and it is the National Party, folks. We know that this Government has misused taxpayers’ funding—the pledge card. What an absolute disgrace, ladies and gentlemen. This Government used taxpayers’ funding—the Parliamentary Service Commission.

That member, Mark Burton, is on the commission. I, along with my colleague Simon Power, have, on a number of occasions, raised the issue of using taxpayers’ funding of political issues. Mark Burton has sat there, as a member of that commission, for nearly as long as I have—not quite as long. There are not many that have. Actually, when I think about it, none have. But he has sat there for a number of years and allowed this to happen. He has allowed his Prime Minister, Helen Clark, to misuse and abuse taxpayers’ funding.

Don Brash said tonight that Helen Clark should stand up and be held accountable. The real worry with this issue is this: here we have a man called Bob Clarkson. He was called to account by Winston Peters because Winston Peters suggested that Bob Clarkson had overspent his budget. That is the issue—it is as simple as that. How come Bob Clarkson had to stand up and be counted—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: In court.

—in court, publicly, with all the publicity around it, with everything chucked at him, with all the political diatribe, and all the rubbish and the nonsense that goes with it? He had to stand up and front up about a question of $20,000. Yet Helen Clark can spend 400,000 taxpayer dollars and not have to account for it—what about that!

I say there is one rule for National and one rule for Labour. That is not acceptable. We will change that in the future. We are on our way to becoming Government. Stand back and watch; we are here to be counted.

Let me join the two previous speakers and welcome my fellow Northlander John Carter back to this House. Recently we had the pleasure of welcoming him on to our ancestral marae at Waitangi—both him and Dr Brash—and it was a pleasure to see John back on his feet. As a fellow survivor of such an illness, I say it is a pleasure to have John back here, but unfortunately the content of his speeches has not improved in his absence.

Let me focus on what was a fantastic afternoon. All this talk about our Prime Minister not providing the right level of accountability is piffle. The accountability was called the election, and—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: The corrupt Prime Minister.

Ah, we have the word “corrupt” emitting from the oracle of the House, Mr Brownlee! He is the mōnaroa—the one who loiters around the back, leaking and spreading rumours so he can disunify his own team. What a great contribution and long may it continue, from my perspective. That is what we call the mōnaroa where I come from. However, let us continue speaking about a brilliant speech—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite appropriate to ask for an interpretation.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member will give the interpretation.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason for having interpreters is that a speaker who uses another language—in this case the Māori language, which is an official language of the House—may choose to use it in a way that conveys one meaning, but then translate it in a way that gives quite another. The service provided to the House that members are entitled to avail themselves of is to ensure that there is no abuse or misuse of the process. So I think it would be appropriate if the interpreter could tell us exactly what this chap meant by that particular word, because it does cause one to consider whether it was effectively an insult to the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for raising that. Seeing as that is what you wish, I am prepared to allow it. The Chair does not need to do that, because I would take the member’s word for it if he interpreted it himself. I am quite prepared to do that, but our interpreter is here. Could Mr Jones just repeat what he said, please?

Given the back-pedalling from the Opposition members on their Māori policy, a little dose of Māori is probably going to enrich their minuscule contribution.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no—

The term I used—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is all I want to hear.

The term I used was “mōnaroa”.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the interpreter for an interpretation please. I know that it is hard without the context, but simply interpret that word. Spell it out again please, Mr Jones.

[Interruption] The term I used was not “mōmona roa”; it was “mōnaroa”, referring to a tipi haere or a tipi whenua—someone who loiters around.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

The key point I was seeking to make when my eardrums were blasted yet again by another vacuous contribution from Mr Brownlee was that he cannot expect us to treat seriously what he says when we know, both from the media and from his own colleagues, the nature of his behaviour.

But let me continue on the subject of the fine speech that was delivered this afternoon. It focused, first, on economic transformation. We won the election on the basis of having vision, courage, and boldness to lead with policies and programmes that will leave working-class, poorer New Zealanders infinitely better off. Indeed, their children will have better opportunities through schooling, enhanced apprenticeships, and have better opportunities to tertiary education, and it will no longer be the preserve of a small number to enjoy—disproportionately, I might say—the economic buoyancy of the last 4, 5, 6 years, which would not have existed unless we had the mixture of policies and their careful implementation over the last two terms.

The second point that the brilliant speech accentuated was the importance of families. Families come in many shapes and many forms, and there is a great deal of diversity. But the one thing that the programme—and this was reflected in the speech—will do is ensure that families, which are the building block, the unit of our society, continue to be supported, and that financial support is dedicated to those who are tirelessly raising children and giving them a better education. We have not been hoodwinked and tricked by the idea that with a simple and crude tax-cut mechanism there will be the opportunity to address the needs of all families, as opposed to the small minority who would have done exceedingly well out of such a blunt, crude instrument.

Of course, the third thing was national identity. Nothing distinguishes more what we, our Prime Minister, and the programme she outlined stand for and what Dr Brash stands for than the question of identity. He trotted up to Ōrewa wearing an imported set of Australian flip-flops, and announced a policy that he had tāhae-ed—borrowed without asking—from Winston Peters as to how he was going to be strict and over-the-top about immigration. The man obviously knew nothing, as he wore his Australian flip-flops, of the danger of such shallow, divisive thinking as we have seen in Australia with the Lebanese and other elements from the ethnic, Muslim-orientated communities and the damage they can do. As opposed to our inclusive approach of looking for all streams of identity to contribute to a greater nationhood, he has demonstrated the opposite. He will pluck, he will demonise, and he will stigmatise any element as he seeks a momentary, ephemeral fix to improve his popularity.

In a perverse sense, the longer he stays there the better a number of us might feel. Why?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.