Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

This is a resumption of debate in response to the statement that the Prime Minister made on Tuesday, and a number of speakers from all sides of the House have preceded me in making comments on her statement. One of the clear themes that has emerged is that of improper spending by the Government in order to win the last election, and almost half a million dollars is involved. Perhaps that is small beer by United States standards, but New Zealand has never before seen the likes of such excesses.

I do not wish to deal in any further detail with those issues, which have been traversed by others, but personally I was disappointed that the Prime Minister, in her statement on Tuesday, deliberately chose to say nothing about the important issue of access to justice. Perhaps the commitment that the Government earlier made has been abandoned. I certainly hope not, because the present Government, in the last session, identified as one of the two justice sector outcomes: “A fairer, more credible and more effective justice system” as “Being a system in which people’s interactions are underpinned by the rule of law and justice services are more equitable, credible, and accessible”. I would like in the short time that I have available to talk about the issue of access to justice. That is the Government’s laudable objective, but in fact there has been a substantial shortfall in its fulfilment. The two illustrations of that—which are blatant—relate to, first of all, issues relating to court fees and access to justice and, second, issues relating to legal aid rates and access to justice.

On the first issue it is not that the entities of Parliament have been reluctant to tackle the issue of court fees, and I refer in particular to the work of the Regulations Review Committee. To put the issue in context, it is really no more complicated than this. In 2001, under the present Government, regulations set new fees for civil proceedings in the Court of Appeal, in the High Court, in the District Court, and in the disputes tribunals. Most of the fees increased under the regulations, and the increases ranged in magnitude up to an astonishing 650 percent.

💬 Anne Tolley: 650 percent?

Six hundred and fifty percent. For example, in the High Court a fee for filing proceedings increased from $120 to $900. In the District Court a fee for filing proceedings increased from $50 to $120. That was in 2001. But the Government was determined to do worse, so in 2004 a further set of regulations imposed further swingeing increases.

The Government may dismiss those matters airily, but I do not think that in constitutional terms they can be so readily dismissed. The issues directly relate to access to the courts, which is a clear constitutional principle. I believe that the right of access to the courts ranks as one of the universally recognised fundamental principles and, of course, it is also a fundamental human right, codified in New Zealand law by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is a right that underlies the promotion and protection of all other rights. In order to promote and protect the right of access to justice, the Government has a duty to provide the necessary machinery for the realisation of that right and to make the machinery affordable. There cannot be, if the rule of law is important, anything other than equal access to the courts, and access to the courts should not be determined by one’s financial means.

There is a line, “The courts are open to everyone—like the Ritz Hotel”, and the sadness behind that line is that, for those who are wealthy, access to the courts in terms of cost is no barrier. Of course, for those who are not rich, legal aid should be freely available. For those in the middle, there are often significant challenges. So although barriers to access to justice already exist for many people, the Government has a duty to ensure those barriers remain minimal. The court system is founded on the principle that all people must be equal before the law and all must have access to the law. The contribution that makes to the maintenance of a stable and civil society lends weight to the case that the State has a responsibility to ensure access.

A wealth of decided court authority and decided case law from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the European Court of Human Rights, and Canada accepts that the right of access to justice is a fundamental principle. But that is not the case in New Zealand, it would seem—or, in any event, not in New Zealand under this Government. So we now await a decision of this Government on the outcome of clear recommendations made by the Regulations Review Committee as to what should be done about the level of court fees. That is against the background that the Regulations Review Committee, a non-partisan committee of this Parliament, including Labour members and—as Dr Mapp has said—excellently chaired, came to the unanimous view that a review of the regulations that set civil court fees should be undertaken. Why should it be undertaken? Because, quite clearly, the committee concluded that the fee increases the Government has embarked upon have a demonstrable effect on the use of the court and constitute a barrier to access to justice. That is one illustration—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: The former Attorney-General grins about it.

I am not sure whether that is so; it may, in fact, be a smirk of guilt rather than a grin of satisfaction.

Let me take up a second illustration. It is more recent and in some ways, one could argue, more significant. It relates to the whole issue of legal aid. The issue of legal aid has been before the Justice and Electoral Committee, in terms of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2), which is shortly to be reported. In that legislation there is a substantial hole, which is that the Government has refused to address the need to fairly remunerate lawyers who undertake legal aid work. So it is again an example of a barrier that the Government is not prepared to deal with—a barrier that exists to accessing justice.

One of the things that the committee was told in its financial review of the Ministry of Justice on 2 February—just a few days ago—was that no consideration of legal aid rates would be considered until after the bill was passed. The Prime Minister said that well, it was a Budget item. Of course it is a Budget item. It is an issue that touches the civil purse, in that further funding is required. What was of concern to a number of members on the committee was that the work done by ministry officials to date indicated that because there was no shortage of legal aid lawyers ready to undertake legal aid work at the current rates, there was simply no problem. Now, I am not sure whether the naivety of the officials can be visited on this Government, but clearly that view is stark in its naive and facile approach to a readily apparent injustice.

There is a very compelling case for substantial increases in legal aid remuneration rates. The current rates are effectively as they were in 1996, and are well short of the rates paid by the State for other types of legal services. I would say it is scarcely satisfactory, on any view of it, that legal aid remuneration rates have remained unchanged since then.

What a typical National Party speech that was! What did that speech call for? It called for more spending on courts and more spending on lawyers. The legal profession is the only profession in the country that can print all the customers it can make. It is the only profession I know that can create whatever supply it wants to meet its demand. Now National members say the Government should spend millions and millions of dollars more on subsidising civil litigation in the courts, and on subsidising legal aid for the very crims they say, when they give these speeches in the House, they want to lock up before they have even had a trial, by and large.

Yet members opposite have been saying the Government is spending too much money. Speaker after speaker gets up from the Opposition bench and calls for more money. Last night Tau Henare called for more money to be spent on kindergartens. Today Dr Richard Worth called for more money to be spent on lawyers and on courts. As if the poor man did not earn enough before he came into this House! He wants more subsidies, to come from low-income taxpayers. National wants less money spent on low-income New Zealanders—as in Working for Families—and more money for lawyers. That is the National Party approach to social equity. I am sure Mr Finlayson will unburden himself of similar precise, and precisely expressed, views at some point during this Parliament.

On this side, we have a Government with a clear vision. First is economic transformation, which means building this country, growing productivity, working harder, and doing more—not like the Leader of the Opposition, who since December has put out a total of four press statements. Jacqui Dean has done 2½ times as many press statements as the Leader of the Opposition, and most people think Jacqui Dean is something one finds under a bush somewhere in Christchurch. Second is security and opportunity for our families, young and old. Third is national identity, which does not mean crawling on one’s knees all the way to the Pentagon or the White House to find out what one is supposed to do next. We want proud New Zealanders, living in a country of security and opportunity that is the best country in the world to live in.

And what is the alternative? A stale, tired Opposition, with stale, tired, old policies. If we look at National now in terms of policy, we see it is Ruth Richardson without the charm and Roger Douglas without the eloquence. One has to go as far back as that in our politics to find the policies that National is supporting at the present time. Where are all those new, young, eager MPs opposite, like Mr Auchinvole, who were bursting with enthusiasm and adolescence as they came into this place, but already are tired, jaded, and taking on the impression of their own leader at the present time?

All that National members want to do is cut taxes. Why? Because they will be better off if they cut taxes. When we put the tax rate up, did they work any less? Unfortunately, I have destroyed my argument—yes, they did. But did anybody else in New Zealand work any less hard? No, they did not. When National cut taxes in the mid-1990s, did a single one of them work harder? No, they certainly did not.

National wants to deregulate everything in sight, especially the labour market. Of course, the main reason why Australians workers are better off than Kiwi workers is that they have a more regulated labour market and, therefore, a stronger ability to extract a share of the economy. New Zealand profits have risen at an enormous rate in recent years as the economy has grown, and Dr Brash says that is bad. Well, that is not why he was paid money before the election by his big-business mates and the Exclusive Brethren—to come in here and start parading some form of top-down socialism, and to say we should actually be destroying profits in the private sector.

Then, of course, National members want to flog off State assets. They want to flog off every possible State asset they can get their hands on. They are supposed, in the House, to be concentrating on the economy. They said: “It’s the economy, stupid.”, looking in the mirror, yet when they get in here they follow every little byway and highway the can find about State spending in terms of political publicity. They themselves, of course, have had their noses deep in that trough over many, many years.

But, of course, what we also find out is that National members have no principles at all. This afternoon Mr Brownlee produced a paper called National’s Relationship with Māori. National had a fourth principle. Their fourth principle was to bash ethnic minorities, particularly Māori. They said: “Don’t worry about the Māori vote, because no self-respecting Māori votes National.” Some used to. This afternoon a National member—I cannot remember whether it was Dr Brash, or which one it was—was so ignorant as to start referring to Ngāti Porou as though somehow they were traditional Labour Party mates. Well, I have news for members opposite: Ngāti Porou used to be strong supporters of the National Party, by and large, but it managed to burn them off. The last iwi left, in terms of supporting the National Party, is now—[Interruption] I have to tell members that Api Māhuika turns up to Labour Party functions. Indeed, some senior members of Ngāti Porou are pretty active in support of my good friends Parekura Horomia and Moana Mackey in terms of the East Coast, and we are working hard with them on foreshore and seabed issues.

But now Mr Brownlee, fresh from his long experience in te reo—he was the Māori teacher at St Bede’s College—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, he wasn’t. He was the woodwork teacher.

He was the woodwork teacher, but I understand that when they ran out of wood he used to teach a bit of Māori on the side, as well. Is that right? I think that is what he claims these days in terms of his record.

Mr Brownlee is not all that happy, because, although National used to go on and on about race-based funding and too much money going to Māori, he has had a great road to Damascus experience. He has suddenly discovered that when one looks at the needy in New Zealand, one finds they are disproportionately Māori. So if we are going to focus funding on the needy, we end up focusing money disproportionately on Māori. This has been an epiphany—I think that is the technical word in this particular context. Of course, we can see that that is stunning to members opposite. Mr Auchinvole thinks the needy are, in fact, business people and lawyers. He is a bit surprised to find out they are basically not Pākehā. This has come as a shock to him. He has acquired his accent after many years of practice, having been born in Glasgow, and now he finds out he has to speak with a slightly different accent because Mr Brownlee is telling him some different things about life.

But, also, National members have been talking about the foreshore and seabed legislation. Do members remember what they said? They said it was to be opposed because it did not do enough to protect the Crown’s interest in the foreshore and seabed. But then, after the election, they started talking to the Māori Party, and now they are saying some very interesting things. Mr Brownlee states: “The Maori party are talking about putting up a private members bill to repeal the act. I’m not convinced they will do it. However we need to consider public opinion and decide on our position.” So on the fundamental issue of New Zealand’s sovereignty, the nature of New Zealand, our identity, and our right to access to the foreshore and seabed, Mr Brownlee sticks a wet finger up in the air—hoping to miss some of his colleagues on the way—and tries to work out which way the wind is blowing, and that will determine how National votes in this House.

It is no wonder that, when National members go on in this House about supposed misuse of public funds, one is reminded that the National Party rests upon the fidelity of Mr McCully, the loyalty, discretion, and silence of Mr Williamson, the intelligence of Mr Brownlee, the eloquence and rhetoric of Dr Brash, and, of course, Dr Mapp. Since Christmas, Dr Mapp has managed to put out one press statement, and so far has not hunted down a single example of political correctness. This afternoon his colleague was burbling on about something to do with drownings and Water Safety New Zealand, and I suggest that he should have been taken outside and dealt with like a mislaid puppy at birth because of his views on taxation. This is the arrogant National Party, which supposedly thinks it can sleepwalk and dream its way back to power in 3 years’ time, in the meantime having kicked to death every possible coalition partner and support partner in the House. It is confident that, come an election, they will recognise the natural governors of society, and will come forth and ensure that National can subtract and divide, because the one thing it can never do in this country is multiply.

I think there must be something wrong with me because I keep feeling sorry for the Labour Party. I feel very sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister must be on the way out, because the chief whip has given him such a crummy timeslot in which to speak. I feel very sorry for the Labour MPs on the back benches. In particular, I feel very sorry for Maryan Street, who is the best of the new MPs. She came into this House to do something for New Zealand. Instead, throughout this debate Labour MPs have had to regurgitate the same third-rate, uninspiring speeches. Even the Deputy Prime Minister had to. They were told that the key messages to emphasise were to talk about economic transformation, celebrate national identity, avoid doom and gloom, and, above all, emphasise the leadership skills of “she who must be obeyed”, the Prime Minister.

Watching Labour MPs respond to the Prime Minister’s wooden address reminded me of the news broadcasts in the early 1980s showing the members of the Politburo mindlessly applauding their half-dead leaders like Leonid Brezhnev or Yuri Andropov. But what must have been most galling to Ms Street and other Labour MPs is that they were forced to laugh at the puerile contribution of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Let us face it, Labour members loathe that person even more than his own party loathes him.

Where is the Deputy Prime Minister going? He should sit down and take his medicine. In his “Walter Mitty” way Mr Peters probably sees himself as being like Ernest Bevin—Clement Attlee’s great Foreign Secretary. Labour members know, however, that he is really like Lord George-Brown—an embarrassment who will lurch from public relations disaster to public relations disaster, and eventually end up in the gutter.

Then Ms Street and her cohort had to pretend to be interested while the pontificating member for Ohariu-Belmont, using his best archdeacon’s voice, bored us all to tears with his usual lamentation about low standards of conduct. He conveniently overlooked the fact that the Prime Minister was able to give her address with minimal interruption, whereas the Leader of the Opposition was yelled and screamed at by the Labour rabble on the other side the moment he got to his feet. They set the standard for this session, and the chief Government whip should reflect on that. The member for Ohariu-Belmont has sold his soul for a Nissan Maxima self-drive car and minor ministerial office. Ōhāriu electors will not forget that they gave their party vote to National and their electorate vote to Mr Dunne in the expectation that he would support the National Party. In an eleventh-hour act of treachery he went back to his old Labour Party buddies, and the Ōhāriu branch of the National Party will not let him forget it.

In 1999 the Labour Party copied Tony Blair’s “New Labour” and mounted a campaign against sleaze. Seven years on, this regime is being investigated by the police for misappropriating $400,000 of public funds to advance its own political purposes. In fact, to call this Government a regime is misleading. It is really a racket. New Zealand’s electoral law needs urgent review, and I look forward to that review, which will shortly be undertaken by the Justice and Electoral Committee. One major question will have to be how it is that Labour can misappropriate all this money for pledge cards, and what sanctions there should be for this immoral behaviour. We send observers to monitor elections in Third World countries to ensure there is fairness, yet the actions of this Labour Government are as disgraceful as anything done by Robert Mugabe.

There is no point recounting the litany of double standards of this Government in the last 6 years; I have only a 10-minute speech. But there is one recent and particularly nauseating example of the Prime Minister’s double standards that I want to address. It concerns religious tolerance. Last week the Prime Minister criticised the Dominion Post for republishing Danish cartoons that ridiculed Mohammed. She expressed her concern that the publication did nothing to build understanding between communities. When it suits her the Prime Minister likes to come across as the very model of reason and tolerance. That was certainly the case last year when she went to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and it was certainly the case last week when she was communing with her socialist brothers and sisters overseas.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the Prime Minister attended a mosque, in an act of reconciliation, and even wore a veil, out of respect for Muslim sensibilities, though that same respect was not shown to the late Pope John Paul II when she visited him. She goes to Rātana each year to pay homage to the prophet, because the Rātana Church has for years supported the Labour Party. But where people from other religions have spoken out against her, they have been subjected to abuse from her that is so extreme that the ayatollahs in Tehran would be proud of her efforts. The obvious example is her attack on the Exclusive Brethren, whom she has described as the Taliban. The same thing can be said about her reactions to the Destiny Church and other religious groups that have criticised her. She even seems to have a problem with the Jewish faith. Last year her comments about Israel went far beyond diplomatic criticism, and she was praised by Muslim radicals in the Middle East for her remarks. Her comments appear to have encouraged some depraved individuals to desecrate Jewish graves in the Mākara Cemetery.

So the Prime Minister is quite right to call for religious tolerance, but she could show some herself. New Zealanders should be religiously tolerant because the right thing to do is to respect one’s neighbours’ beliefs, or lack of them, and not despise them simply because they hold beliefs that are contrary to one’s own. That is a principle to be applied consistently, not just when it suits us. It is a principle that applies to the Rātana Church, and to the way we deal with Islam, the Exclusive Brethren, and any other religious communities.

Contrary to what the Prime Minister may think, tolerance does not always mean silence. These are important times, and we must as New Zealanders be able to discuss Islam in the modern world. It has been described as one of the world’s great religions. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has inspired great civilisations. But the sad reality of the matter is that it has also known periods when it has inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence, and we have to confront that part of the Muslim world while it is going through that particular phase. New Zealanders have to be able to discuss these matters, and not be bullied into silence by extremists and by thugs.

It is also extremely important that religious tolerance should not be equated with being precious. People have the right to be irreverent and to poke fun. For example, I saw nothing wrong with the film the Life of Brian. Indeed, I thought it was quite funny. But there is a line that has to be drawn. One can understand the offence taken at the Virgin in the condom display, which many thought was offensive, although our sensitive Prime Minister did not seem to think so—the double standard, no doubt.

Governments generally assume office with the best of intentions, but the passage of time means that pragmatism becomes more important than principle. But never before has the double standard been so starkly on display as with this Government, and the $400,000 is a disgrace to New Zealand democracy. The other day I read the maiden speeches of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. In between the usual smart alec comments the then MP for St Kilda talked about the struggle to find justice and to realise a moral purpose in politics. How is that to be reconciled with the $400,000 theft?

The Prime Minister concluded her maiden speech by saying that her greatest wish was that at the end of her time in the House she would have contributed to making New Zealand a better place. As late as last Tuesday she said she wanted to make a difference. As she comes to the end of her premiership, beholds the scruffy administration she leads, and thinks about “paintergate,”“corngate,” “Waitaki-gate”, and now “pledge card - gate”, she should reflect on the old saying that all political careers end in failure—and her failure is more spectacular than most.

That was Chris Finlayson, and I think he was referring, with some lack of accuracy, to the early points in the Prime Minister’s career. I suggest to him that it is good to consider the maiden speeches that are made in this House. The best advice I was given, however, was to regularly review one’s own maiden speech for the fine comments one makes. Mr Finlayson may recall the way in which only a few weeks ago he regaled this House with his views on the sad habit of so many members to get into personal attacks and abuse. I invite him to re-read his own maiden speech, read the Hansard of the contribution he has just made, and perhaps have another think about his style in the House.

Something that has been lacking from Opposition members, in any of their contributions, is the recognition of the great privilege it is for any of us to return to this House. I acknowledge what a privilege it is to have been re-elected as a Labour member of Parliament, as part of a Labour-led Government, and to be re-elected by my colleagues for a third term as a Cabinet Minister. This Government is making solid progress and will continue to do so. Yes, it is good to know that Mr Finlayson has been taking some notice of that, because some things do bear repeating. We are engaged in the economic transformation of this country, because we want to have a strong, enduring economy for our children and grandchildren. Yes, we are indeed committed to our strong and unique national identity. Yes, we do want to promote that, to strengthen it, and to celebrate it with New Zealanders. Why would we not want to? And, yes, families, young and old, are a strong focus of this country and this Government. We are committed to ensuring that more and more of our people, young and old, enjoy the security and the opportunities they deserve.

So it is indeed a privilege to be back in my fifth term, serving the good people of the south Waikato, Taupō, and Ruapehu districts as their local member of Parliament. It is great that despite the enormous trickery of the Opposition members—the members of the once-great National Party and of the never substantial ACT party—in their conning, coercing, and outright bribes, New Zealanders were just too damn smart. In their wisdom they rejected the negativism, divisiveness, and shallowness that we have seen those members revisit day in and day out during this session. They said no to the National Party, because New Zealanders as a people, I think it is fair to say, decided to support—as the Prime Minister said in her wide-ranging opening statement to Parliament—a Government that would continue to build on the solid progress that has been made, grow the economy, and drop the level of unemployment, maintaining it at the lowest level in the Western World. That is something that the Opposition members are not interested in. We have not heard them comment on that. We have heard them call for more money for lawyers, but they have said nothing about the celebration of more than a quarter of a million new jobs for New Zealanders—jobs that did not exist 6 years ago.

We have invested in critical health services, in education, and in the police. We are proud to promote our rich culture and our unique identity, which is a celebration of the diversity of New Zealand. We are proud of the work we are doing to protect our environment—which will continue—and to maintain our nation’s reputation as a principled, independent, and, yes, nuclear-free country. We have heard the latest gambit on that—the latest flip-flop. I do not believe a word of it. It would be nice to think that Murray McCully really meant it, but we know that his mate Lockwood Smith certainly does not—he does not want a bar of it. We know that in my home town of Taupō there was a stoush over that one. Murray McCully said that National had to have a think about that issue because of where the votes are—a deeply principled National Party position, just like Mr Brownlee’s paper tabled in the House today! Actually it was tabled because he did not want anyone to miss out, given that it had been so widely leaked. There may have been a member who did not already have a copy. But boy, have we seen the depth of principle of the National Party! I have never been a fan of Lockwood Smith, but at least he stood up and said: “You do that and I’m gone.” Well, I suppose that swung quite a few votes to Murray McCully. But I do not believe that, although I would love it to be true.

I think that what we saw during the election campaign was the same sort of puffery and self-righteous humbug we have seen over the last couple of days, and it is what turns New Zealanders off National and ACT. It is nothing more than what we have seen over the nonsense about the use of parliamentary budgets on material to talk about policy.

💬 Shane Ardern: Tell us about your credit card.

The member opposite is squeaking about credit cards. The member knows—he has put out newsletters, as has his colleague Katherine Rich. They have put out large amounts of material stating what their party would do if they ever got back into Government. It is not likely to happen; it is pretty fictional, to be true. But the member knows that that is typical of the sort of material that has been circulated.

I am absolutely gobsmacked that the member and the member’s party have learnt nothing. That is not what New Zealanders want from the once-great National Party. They want to see a demonstration of a party that has some substance, and frankly we have seen no evidence of that at all. The once-great National Party—and I say that with difficulty, but it is true; National was once great—is now nothing more than a repository for the shallow, and for the negative whingers and the knockers, and that is simply not the sort of future New Zealanders want. Most of all, if we go back to Mr Brownlee’s paper, we see the evidence of a party that is devoid of any defining principles at all, in terms of its direction as to where it is going. The truth of the matter is that the wheels are falling off the National Party machine. As for ACT, I think it is fair to say there is not much left of it, except perhaps a worn-out—

💬 Hon Member: Needs a retread!

A bit of a spare tyre.

But let us look at the wonderful public relations extravaganza the National members had at Wairākei. It was a great choice of location—the best place in the country. They went into the heart of the central North Island, in the Taupō electorate. They spent 3 days at Wairākei, and I do hear that it was very successful from the point of view of the local golf course and the pubs and bars—they did very well. So there was some gain from the National Party’s presence. On day one, what dominated every single news report of that great public relations exercise? Well, it was the leadership. It was about a certain gentleman—what do they call him; something “velvet”?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: “National Velvet”!

“National Velvet”; that is right. He arrived, and it did not look as though he was going to be the centre of attention.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That was the name of a horse.

It was, too. But the member started to talk about someone bagging him—one of his senior colleagues, and he was not going to mention names. I thought through it. I thought of Mr Brownlee. No, it is not his style. Obviously Bill English was a definite contender. But I actually think that Paul Swain got it right. My former ministerial colleague has taken the good sense to look after his daughter, and to take a bit more time to reflect. I think he got it right: I think John Key leaked, because the one thing John Key had to have was the headline that day, at Don Brash’s expense.

I certainly say this to Don Brash, although I am running out of time and there is much more I could have said. “Bill English has my full support.”, said Don Brash in April 2003. “There has been nothing which you would call a coherent or organised plot.”, he said in April 2003. Do members know what John Key stated in the Sunday Star-Times in October last year? “There is no grand master plan behind the scenes, like we go after him after six months.” In May 2003 Dr Brash said: “I was at no point aiming at leadership when I came into politics.” Interestingly, Mr Key, in the Sunday Star-Times last year, stated: “I have no intention of challenging Don”. We all know how the story will end. I say to Don Brash that he was right in what he said before the election; he should have gone with dignity. He will not do so now. No party—and certainly no leader of any party—can survive an array of headlines like that at the beginning of an electoral term. Those headlines include: “Are Don Brash’s days numbered?”, “Gloomy Brash at odds with analysts”, “Brash on a hiding to nothing”, and “Don’t believe Dr Doom”.

That, most of all, is the message to National. “Dr Doom’s” gloomy negativism is a thing of the past. New Zealanders do not want a bar of it. This Government is building a future for and with New Zealanders, and that is why Labour is on the Government side of the House, and National is on the Opposition side.

Earlier this week, during question time in this House, the Minister of Education made glowing references to the apparently smooth running of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement examination. Today the same Minister proudly announced that in literacy rates New Zealand has ranked well on a worldwide scale. I would hate to think that these pluses—and I suspect they are genuine pluses—were taken as some sort of signal that all is well in the education sector, because there are a number of concerning trends that Cabinet should focus on during this term.

At the chalkface of education, teachers are becoming increasingly concerned at the burgeoning staff numbers at the Ministry of Education at a time when they are desperate for essential tools such as more teacher-aide hours for special-needs students. I invite any member of this Parliament to spend an afternoon in a classroom with a special-needs child when the teacher-aide hours for that day have run out. They will then see what teachers are coping with and realise the urgent need for this funding to be increased. In July 1999 ministry staff numbers were 608. Staff numbers peaked in July 2004 at 3,186, and settled down slightly at 3,116 early last year. The reason offered for the increase to staffing levels was that Group Special Education staff were integrated into the ministry in 2002. However, if one takes the time to deduct Group Special Education numbers from the total, one will see that staffing numbers have still gone from 608 to 1,092—which is an increase of nearly 44 percent. This third-term Government must start to take a very close look at these important issues.

In classrooms and schools, there are clear stress points that will not improve by being ignored. One has only to sit down for an afternoon with a school principal to come up to speed quickly with what those pressures are.

At the secondary level in education, we need to see further developments around an improved response to the very transitional nature of teenage years, so that schools, while continuing to focus on excellence in core subjects, also take a more holistic look at the life skills needed by young people after compulsory education finishes. The current piecemeal approach, which largely focuses on reducing risk behaviours, falls well short of some of the exciting developments in those kinds of programmes overseas. With our household debt reportedly rising by 77 percent in the last 5 years, maybe Tony Blair’s call for British secondary schools to include units of study on personal financial management has huge merit.

At tertiary level the changes that are needed are clear and generally well acknowledged. Firstly, there is a need for a complete overhaul of the funding system, so that the New Zealand taxpayer gets value for money. Second-chance educational opportunities remain important, but there is a desperate need for greater investment across other parts of the tertiary sector. United Future has secured, as part of our confidence and supply agreement, assurances that serious attention will be given to reducing the amount of debt that students incur, and the criteria for qualifying for living allowances need to be, in our opinion, where one begins. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, let me remind the House that students are the only group in New Zealand who have to borrow to live.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.