Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Whilst we here in this House continue our debate on the Prime Minister’s statement to open the new parliamentary year, we need to be very, very conscious indeed that for the people of New Zealand, particularly business people, life has just got considerably more difficult. They are faced with rising interest rates and a relatively high exchange rate. Perhaps most important of all, we have just seen in recent surveys that the confidence of business people, looking forward, has dropped quite dramatically. Given those realities, in the next 3 years we in this House need to concentrate on trying to improve the New Zealand economy and the conditions of doing business in this country.

I mention in that connection a number of matters that have been raised by the Prime Minister in her statement. First of all, though, she failed to say that the carbon tax has gone. It was not gone by lunchtime but it was gone by Christmas. I remind the House that in the 2005 Budget the Minister of Finance announced that a carbon tax would be levied on the people of this country to the tune of $322 million per annum. I am very delighted to be able to tell the House that the carbon tax is gone and that New Zealanders will therefore be relieved of a $322 million per annum impost from the Government. Why? The reason is that in order to gain the support of United Future on confidence and supply, the Labour Government was somewhat forced to back down and remove the carbon tax. It is just as well the carbon tax has gone, because, as the officials’ papers show, it would have had a minuscule impact on the volume of greenhouse gases in New Zealand, which was the original logic for bringing it in. It was a flawed policy. I for one am glad to see the end of it, as are most businesses.

The Prime Minister also mentioned that a review of business tax would take place during this term of Parliament. It is interesting to remind people of what the situation of the various parties was at the last election. The Labour Party firmly ruled out any reduction in business taxation in New Zealand. The National Party was, I suppose one might say, a little more in favour of the idea. It said that, yes, it would have a reduction in business tax, but not until 2008. In 2008 National was going to drop the rate of business tax by 10 percent, from 33c to 30c.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member but members must be seated. It is a courtesy. I ask them to please not stand and talk while the member is speaking. I am sorry, Mr Copeland.

Thank you for that intervention, Madam Assistant Speaker. I should mention that during the election no policy commitment came from New Zealand First to cut business tax. But United Future went to the electorate and said that it wanted to promote very vigorously in this Parliament a reduction in business tax. Again, as a result of our confidence and supply agreement, that is now going to happen. A cut in the rate of business tax in this country will occur during the next couple of years, and I believe that it is timely and overdue.

The Prime Minister laid stress on the fact that we want to incentivise productivity gains and make New Zealand more competitive with Australia. We must, in fact, do both those things if we are to see our economy grow and New Zealand prosper so that people can make proper provision for their families, and so that, for a lot of them, they can start to address the significant debt burden so many families now find themselves in.

The Prime Minister also laid stress on the need to provide more support for exports. I must say that for some time I have thought about the question of how we go about getting more growth in our exports. In fact, back in, I think, the year 2003 I sent the Minister of Finance a list of 12 ways in which we could boost exports from this country, only to be told, in the majority of cases, that they would breach World Trade Organization rules, which forbid any kind of subsidisation of a country’s exports. So in this particular area I am really beginning to think that if we are to see exports grow, then exporters themselves will have to take a major initiative. I am interested in getting away from rhetoric and in doing things that actually work. I suggest to exporters that in Fonterra and Zespri we have models to build on, in terms of building strong exports going forward. Both Fonterra and Zespri bring together all the players in the industry and create a single desk for exports. They have a company, formed with individual exporters as shareholders, whose sole job is to seek, discover, and develop export markets for New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses.

It is also very important, in my view, that we bring the price of electricity down. For many years surveys have been done amongst Grey Power members, whose No. 1 issue for a long time was elective surgery. For Grey Power members now, the No. 1 issue is the rising price of electricity. That is not surprising, because the price of electricity last year went up to somewhere between 25 and 40 percent—depending on which set of figures one uses—in one single year. That is far too much. The Government must therefore look at ways and means of ensuring that our electricity prices come down.

We in United Future have some worthwhile suggestions to make in that regard. For example, we believe that Transpower should fund the upgrade of the national grid solely from debt financing—debt financing borrowed by the Government against its balance sheet and repaid over a 30 or 40-year period—so that we spread the cost of that investment, which has to be made in the interests of our electricity system, across, if you like, several generations. We believe that we must bring down the cost as much as we possibly can, so that we can give a shot in the arm to our businesses and also keep electricity prices affordable, particularly for our elderly.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

One of the good things about having a break away from Parliament over Christmas and New Year is that it provides an opportunity to spend time with ordinary New Zealanders, and to see and hear what is happening in the many communities that make up our nation. What I see and hear is that times are good. Times are good because people have jobs. Times are good because people are getting off benefits and into work. Times are good because the economy is good. Times are good because we are healing some of the divisions of the past.

The economic policies of the 1990s scarred this nation deeply. It is taking time to heal the wounds of massive unemployment and the erosion of social capital that was the product of benefit cuts and other divisive policies that put profits ahead of people. Profits and the accumulation of capital do matter, but people and the accumulation of social capital matter, too. We have to get the balance right. Times are getting better because for the last 6 years a Labour-led Government has been getting right the balance between economic policy and social policy.

The year 2006 started with the good news that more New Zealanders are in work. We have seen a huge change in our communities, with more people than ever before moving into work. Importantly, those gains have been shared with all regions of New Zealand. That has happened on the back of sound management of the economy, leading to strong economic growth. New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. Unemployment benefit numbers in my Mana electorate have fallen by 20 percent in the last year, according to the latest statistics provided by Work and Income centres in Porirua and Kapiti. That drop is further evidence of a strong economy across New Zealand and across the regions. Results from the quarterly benefits survey by the Ministry of Social Development show that for year ended December 2005, 1,902 local people were on the unemployment benefit, which is down from the previous year’s 2,373 and is a drop of 20 percent. Compared with the 1999 figures when Labour took office, the total number of people receiving an unemployment benefit in Mana has dropped by 2,353, or 55 percent.

Times are better because people are getting off the benefit and into work. There have been warnings of an economic downturn by the doom merchants in the Opposition, but the truth of the matter is that our economy is, as forecast, currently slowing before it is expected to pick up again in late 2007. We have had good jobs growth and an overall reduction in the numbers of people on any kind of benefit. The labour market is still tight but our local economy is in good shape. It is time for people to stop talking the economy down and to get on with business. I get sick of the tire old cliché that too many people are on benefits and are a burden on the State. The latest statistics show that in 2005, the total number of people receiving any kind of benefit in Mana fell by 6 percent. Between 1999 and 2005 the total number of people on the unemployment benefit, domestic purposes benefit, sickness benefit, or invalids benefit dropped by 16 percent. In other words, 1,510 fewer people were receiving benefits.

Behind those statistics is the reality of Kiwis getting on with supporting their families, working towards individual goals, and making real contributions to our communities and our local economy. Long-term unemployment creates lethargy, whereby people lose their sense of self-esteem and often withdraw from their community because they feel they have nothing to contribute. It is a downward spiral that erodes the cohesion of our communities. But when people have jobs they have more time to put into their local community. They participate in their community and add to the social capital of the nation. Social capital is the glue that binds and enriches our communities.

Let me give an example of how that is happening in my community. On Waitangi Day I spent most of my day at Te Rauparaha Park, a wonderful, quiet, green space in the centre of Porirua City. On Waitangi Day Te Rauparaha Park was a musical sea of colour, filled with people enjoying the vibrant Festival of the Elements. During the day all the elements—rain, sun, wind, and fireworks—made their presence felt. The festival was set on course by Ngāti Toa kaumātua Pūoho Kātene and opened by Mayor Jenny Brash. Representatives from the Governments of Mexico, Russia, France, the United States of America, and Germany, and a delegation from Nishio, Porirua City’s Japanese sister city, attended the festival. People from Porirua and from up the Kapiti coast turned out. Thousands turned up that day to enjoy the show put on by 1,000 performers. The Porirua Community Arts Council is to be congratulated on building up the Festival of the Elements each year for the last 14 years. Wonderful Kiwis like Bob Cater, Helen Smith, and the team have done a great job, all based on voluntary effort.

As I watched the shows on the main stage at the Trust Porirua Aquatic Centre, the Porirua Recreation Centre, the skateboard park, and throughout Pātaka’s performing and exhibition spaces, I could see what a vibrant community we live in. Porirua has moved on since the 1990s, when unemployment was high and there was anger and ill will on the streets. Porirua has, as a city, with support from our Government, invested in public spaces where the community can meet, and where people can enjoy themselves and celebrate the good times.

Waitangi Day is a day of celebration and reflection. Amidst the art, the music, the dancing, and the other performances in Porirua, there were opportunities for reflection. The travelling exhibition Treaty 2 U was packed throughout the day by people finding out more about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Hundreds visited and studied the exhibitions. Most people left with copies of the Treaty in the English and Māori texts, and with further study material. The great Jamaican singer and philosopher, Bob Marley, whose birthday was, coincidentally, on 6 February, said: “If you know your history, then you would know where you coming from”. He was right. Knowing our history is important for us all so that we can build our nation on the basis of shared understanding.

As I stood watching the fireworks at the end of a great day in Te Rauparaha Park, in a space named after the great local Māori leader, who was one of only two men who signed the Treaty twice, I wondered whether he would have thought then that 166 years later his descendants, the descendants of the other signatories, and a host of later arrivals would still be discussing the document that founded this nation in 1840. Things are good because there is healing in the air. In my own community of Mana, we can see the future of New Zealand writ small. The New Zealand of today is a multicultural nation, where we are beginning to understand and to respect each other. We have plenty to celebrate in New Zealand.

I also congratulate Joris de Bres on bringing the leaders of the Muslim community and Jewish and Christian leaders together with the editors of the Dominion Post and the Christchurch Press. They showed us that potentially divisive issues can be resolved by people of goodwill listening to each other and respecting different views.

I am very optimistic about our future as a multicultural nation. I think that one of the keys is to develop a society where everybody feels that their unique identity is respected and that they have a place of belonging. That is the politics of inclusion and unity, and it is the antithesis of the politics of exclusion and division that was the hallmark of the 1990s.

As Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, I have been very, very humbled to visit many community organisations built on voluntary effort, such as St John Ambulance, and many other community volunteers in our country.

On 13 and 14 March in Auckland the first Pacific Trade Expo will take place. The New Zealand Pacific Business Council has organised it. All 110 stands have been sold; 57 stands from 13 Pacific countries will be represented. The event will bring business, Governments, and communities together, and will deepen our regional connections and relationships.

Yesterday I attended a launch of the Unlimited Potential Learning Foundation, which is a partnership between the Government, polytechnics, and Microsoft. It is a training programme aimed at lifting information technology skills amongst disadvantaged communities. I am proud to be part of this Government. I am proud that we are weaving together strands of economic transformation, looking after families young and old, and continuing to walk tall and build pride in our unique national identity as New Zealanders.

Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou koutou katoa, tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare.

[Greetings to you Madam Speaker, and to all of us seated here in the House.]

During these last few days I have listened to some of the debate about the state of the nation. For te ao Māori there is a different view, and in the time available I intend to place before the House just one matter that the Māori Party believes is important to this nation and must be addressed urgently. We go further and offer a solution to that problem—a solution that is practical and could be positive in its outcome for Māoridom and this country.

To put things in context, 166 years ago Te Rarawa chief, Panakareao, told the people at Waitangi: “Ko te atakau o te whenua i riro i a te Kuini, ko te tinana o te whenua waiho ki ngā Māori.” Only the shadow of the land goes to the Queen, but the substance remains with us. What followed was the first Government purchase: the Mangonui transaction. It would not be long before 16,000 acres of Northland land would be awarded to six Europeans, and the remaining 446 acres left to several hundred Māori. It was these sales that led that same Te Rarawa chief to reverse his famous saying by concluding that only a shadow remained, after all.

The Treaty is, and always has been, about an ongoing partnership. I listened just the other night to a collection of speeches pulled together by Hēnare te Ua about Prime Ministers and Māori leaders, and all have the same tenor about their hopes and dreams, based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In fact, all spoke of nationhood and a need for all parties to address mistakes made. For our people, we talk about it in statements like: “Kei te Tiriti tōna ake tapu, tōna ake mana, tōna ake wairua, tōna ake mauri.” The Treaty has its own sacredness, its own strength, its own spirit, and its own life force. Many refer to it as a covenant.

The trouble is that the Treaty is generally spoken about only in terms of the English version. There is, in fact, a version written in Māori, which is quite different from the English version, but it gets little press. We will revisit this matter in the future, but it is clear that there have been breaches of a document that was intended to set out how we would live together. The greatest challenge this nation faces is the need for successive Governments to demonstrate a willingness and an openness to respect that contract. The dollar may rise and fall and mortgages may move by half a percent every 6 months, but the relationship between us causes the biggest disruption to the country. We remember the land marches, Bastion Point, and the great hīkoi of 2004.

To address issues around relationships, there is an urgent need to develop a solution that will resolve historical Treaty claims—a solution that achieves fair, timely, and durable settlements and creates a pathway forward for us as a nation. We must address issues of past land alienation and confiscation, get rid of the Crown’s assertion of unconstrained sovereignty, and take action.

The Māori Party is calling today for an independent and immediate review of the settlement process undertaken by the Office of Treaty Settlements. We do this for several reasons. The signing of the Treaty implied that two distinct people were willing to regard and respect the other as a party to the Treaty for the benefit of the nation. One party should not profit at the expense of the other. Each party should honour the other.

The Office of Treaty Settlements currently controls both the outcome and process on Crown terms. Our people refer to them as the thief, the prosecutor, and the judge all wrapped up in one. Fairness demands that the negotiations framework must be agreed to by both parties, upfront. Yet when looking at the issue of settlements the Hon Margaret Wilson, a former Minister, stated: “the Crown does not adopt a full compensation or ‘damages’ approach to redress, recognising that the cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive.” Well, hold on. What about the grievance? What about justice? It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. We need to face it.

Professor Margaret Mutu suggested that the settlements that have been arrived at are but a fraction of the amount that should rightfully have been paid. The professor concludes that the settlements paid so far are, in fact, 0.06 percent of what they are worth. The difference between what was taken and what can be returned represents a massive contribution by iwi to the national economy. But our people talk about settlements in terms of the land. He whenua muru, he whenua me whakahoki mai. Land taken, land returned. Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. People may perish but the land remains.

I hear a lot of talk in the House about fairness, about the need for one law for all—for justice. So ponder this: is it fair that Ngāi Tahu’s $170 million was 0.01 percent of the $1,192 billion it should have received? Is it fair that Tainui’s $170 million was 0.4 percent of the total value of its claim? Is it fair that the Government is working to a predetermined fiscal cap and that it expects the total value of land settlements to be set at about $1.3 billion? We are talking about the $1 billion fiscal envelope cap.

We remember the policy that was rejected by all tribes when it was taken around the country. Sir Hepi te Heuheu, the paramount chief of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, facilitated the discussion at a national level. The policy of the National Government of the time is now being maintained by the current Labour Government. It seems the policy Māori rejected outright in 1997 is actually alive and well. Māori should have learnt back then that consulting with us is but a farce. A dozen or so hui were held on the foreshore and seabed legislation. Everyone rejected it in its intent and content, but it is still on the books.

The problem is that the benchmark has been set against that cap, and new tribal settlements are gauged against that level. In other words, an injustice created at the start is an injustice transferred to every tribe now and into the future. Will injustice be a durable solution for the next generation? No way. It will come back and bite hard. Think about this. Ngā iwi Māori, to settle 23 claims, were offered half of what was paid out to save Air New Zealand. That is $100 million less than the Government allocated in the 2000 Budget for Skyhawks and frigates.

I would hope that members of Parliament, as representatives of the nation, are fair-minded people. That being the case, we need an opportunity to consider the whole process, from go to whoa. Fairness is about having a transparent process in place in order to have the opportunity to be heard. The Crown has set and controls the process by which iwi representatives are selected to settle the claims and establish the governing bodies. The Crown has a hands-on role in deciding who can speak for the tribe in negotiations with the State itself. This is the sort of approach that has resulted in serious splits in iwi, hapū, and even whānau. The Māori Party is determined to see an end to the sort of “divide and rule” tactic that we are so used to.

If we are committed to moving the shadow of injustice, we must reduce the burden of the process on claimants. A critical part of this is to review the guidelines for ratification to ensure that participation rates are raised and that the issues of mandate and cross-claims are given due weighting. The Crown has made some moves towards acknowledging the real difficulties that exist in this area. The Waitangi Tribunal’s 2002 report, which dealt with claims by Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu, Ngā Rauru o Ngā Pōtiki, and others in relation to the Ngāti Awa claim is useful in this regard. Judge Carrie Wainwright identified in her report that “the Crown did not adequately disclose its policy agenda to the parties affected by the proposed settlement with Ngāti Awa.”

In the interests of fairness and justice one would think it logical that if settlements are to be achieved with tribes that may serve to disadvantage other tribes, where there are cross-claims, then that process will be well-managed, or managed better in such a way as to prevent conflicts. This is not how it works at the moment. Those same issues cropped up again in the case of Te Arawa. Again the tribunal highlighted the glaring shortcomings in the Crown process: “In the case of the Te Arawa mandate, we find that the Crown had failed to adequately identify and address critical issues surrounding the representivity and accountability of the executive council to the kaihautū; and that these were at the core of claimant dissatisfaction.” Some tribes have returned to the tribunal three or four times over issues of mandate, yet still the Office of Treaty Settlements has failed to recognise the problem.

The resolution of grievances and redistribution of resources should be a catalyst to improve Māori economic and social well-being. It would also accrue benefits to the nation. But we have to do it right. An economic report, which was commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust claims funding agency, concluded that New Zealand would benefit to the tune of $96 million a year if the claims were settled earlier. So some would call for the whole process to stop now in order to allow tribes to reflect on the settlement process, and to have wānanga amongst ourselves, without the threat of being put to the back of the queue. We say the time has come for us to review the whole process, and we ask the Government to consider that notion. Kia ora tātou.

Salam alaikum, Madam Assistant Speaker, peace be upon you. I greet you in Arabic with a universal Islamic greeting because pride in New Zealand, in an emerging New Zealand way of doing things, as well as in an emerging New Zealand identity was something the Prime Minister spoke about in her speech. So I am proud to stand up in this House and greet you, Madam Assistant Speaker, with “salam alaikum”, because the Muslim culture in our country, along with a whole range of other cultures in New Zealand society, is shaping a new New Zealand identity. New Zealand is dealing with the realities of being a globalised, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious country.

The Prime Minister spoke of the emerging New Zealand identity, and that is what I would like to speak about today. I am part of a Government that is proud to represent a nation of many languages, many cultures, and many ethnicities. This Government does not regard diversity as a threat; it regards it as an asset for our country. Indeed, diversity, through the increasingly diverse origins of so many New Zealanders, is about building a strong economy. It is about bringing energy and investment into our country. More particularly, it is about building a New Zealand where every New Zealander’s own unique heritage is respected, whether that heritage comes from our traditional and original Polynesian settlers—the iwi who settled in this country some 800 years ago; whether it is the Anglo-Celtic origins of many of those early settlers who came from Britain, Ireland, and Scotland; whether it is the Chinese culture, whose people first settled in our country during the gold rushes, and who have come much more recently in a large wave since the 1990s; whether it is the culture of India; or whether it is the culture of the Middle East. Indeed, the range of ethnicities in our country, as many members of this House will be aware through their constituency work and attendance at functions, is incredibly diverse.

That is a good thing for New Zealanders and a good thing for the future well-being of our country, because the world itself has an increasingly globalised market and a globalised labour force. So young New Zealanders of the future who are comfortable with different cultures, are skilled in different languages, and have an understanding of the cultures that shape those languages will be young people in a globalised world who are enriched, better at seeking jobs—because they will understand the globalised market—and culturally much stronger and more, I use the word again, enriched. That is the way of the future; that is what our planet is evolving into. That is good for our society, because there is an inevitability about it.

National identity is not cultural homogeneity. It is people of different beliefs agreeing on common aims and aspirations; it is people focusing on their similarities, not their differences. As Minister for Ethnic Affairs in this Government, I am proud to be the Government’s voice and its handshake to the many ethnic communities in this country. I have spent 3 years in my role as Minister for Ethnic Affairs, and I have to say that I feel very optimistic about the future of this country. I think that of all the migrant countries on earth—places like the United States, Canada, Australia, and, increasingly, all of the European countries—New Zealand has perhaps the best chance of making it work here, because the basic New Zealand ethos is the sense of giving people a fair go. I detect that in this country there is a willingness by the vast majority of New Zealanders to respect each other, celebrate diversity, be comfortable with difference, and make a multi-ethnic and multicultural society work.

Besides being Minister for Ethnic Affairs, I am also privileged to be Minister of Conservation. The emerging New Zealand identity is not just about people of different ethnic and cultural origins, it is also about people who are passionate about their natural environment. What is it that makes us special as New Zealanders? If we went around this Chamber, around the people who are listening in the Speaker’s gallery today, and indeed around the people who are listening to this debate on the radio, and asked every one of them what is special about being a New Zealander, I suspect that almost all of them would make some reference to our landscapes and to the special places of our country, whether they are the seascapes, the forests, the mountains, or our unique and vast marine environment. They would touch on that, as part of the essence of what it means to be a New Zealander.

They would also probably make reference to the unique species that live in both our terrestrial and marine environments. Why is it that New Zealanders love whales? The question is broader than that: why is it that New Zealanders love the native species that make up our unique natural environment? They love the species not just for their intrinsic value but also because they are about the definition of who we are as New Zealanders. As there is a growing sense of national identity—a sense of uniqueness about being a Kiwi, a New Zealander—it is part of taking ownership of that natural environment and the species that are found there.

So we as a Government have a special responsibility—one that we have embraced with gusto—to protect what is special about New Zealand and our New Zealand environment. Since 1999, when the Labour-led Government came into in office, funding for the Department of Conservation, for example, has increased by 40 percent. We set up the biodiversity funding of $187 million to protect our unique New Zealand biodiversity. In addition, the Nature Heritage Fund, an organisation funded by central government, has purchased quite a lot of unique physical sites on the coastline—and, for example,Birchwood Station in the high country of the South Island—to preserve them as open spaces for all New Zealanders to enjoy forever. That is part of a whole package by this Government, which is about protection of the New Zealand identity, the New Zealand landscape, and the unique species that are found there.

I take my responsibility as Minister of Conservation very strongly. I see myself as having a special burden, if one likes, but it is one that I am happy to carry. It is making sure that we lose no species at all, and that we expend the resources, which, of course, are taxpayers’ resources. It is a sacrifice for the community to give those resources to empower the Department of Conservation to do its biodiversity work and to purchase land for the public estate. It means that funds are taken from other priorities, like health and education, to do that, but this Government really believes that we have a special responsibility about our identity as New Zealanders, about future generations of New Zealanders, and about being special for New Zealanders. [Interruption]

I hear an Opposition member commenting. He is a man who I believe, if I recall correctly from the last election campaign, has a special dislike of cats. I tell the member for Rakaia that I agree with him that cats in the wrong place are not good. They can be a real nuisance in the natural environment.

That touches on pest management. I am pleased that the Prime Minister talked briefly in her speech about our responsibility to deal with biosecurity issues. I am pleased to say that in our work with United Future, in particular, as well as with the Green Party, we are working on that issue to make sure that we do indeed empower ourselves with the ability to look after our unique natural environment.

I see that I have only a couple of minutes left, so I would like to touch very briefly on my final responsibility, which is as Minister of Housing. Social housing is about how a community looks after itself.

💬 Simon Power: Social housing? It’s just housing.

I hear some chuckles from the other side of the Chamber. I have to say that the measure of a fair society is how it looks after those who are least able to look after themselves. Every developed country struggles with the issues of having social housing and of caring for people who, through circumstances, are not able to afford decent housing themselves. Accidents occur, people lose partners, people get sick—all sorts of things happen in any community. In a modern, developed country, how we look after those people—how we provide the safety net—is a measure of how caring and healthy a society is. European countries, Australia, Canada, and others are well down this path. We are too. I am proud to say that we are a Government that introduced income-related rents for housing. We recognise that different people have different abilities to pay. We recognise that there will always be a need for social housing in any community. We are absolutely committed to every New Zealander having a decent home to live in, because that is an investment not just for now but for the future.

There has been a lot of comment in the media about Mr John Key—a man who, it is said, is after the top job in the National Party. He grew up in a State house. He is a good example of how every family in New Zealand, given a chance, can succeed.

I am not quite sure what is going on in the House this afternoon, but the last two Labour speakers have given community columns about their time in Parliament and how much they are enjoying the local school fairs and what has been happening on the trails of different conservation schemes. This is the opportunity that those MPs should have taken to support the Prime Minister’s statement and to get behind the Prime Minister’s agenda, not talk about curious little things that they enjoy in their electorates, as meritorious as they may be. But members on this side of the House have one message for members opposite who are sitting there, representing Labour, and it is this: Labour owes the New Zealand taxpayer just over $400,000 and it should pay it back. It is as simple as that. There is no doubt that they must have had, at the very least, constructive knowledge of what the Auditor-General proposed in June 2005, as defining the rules, at the very best, as ambiguous. In June of last year, Labour’s pledge card was well and truly signed off, I bet. It was well and truly given the nod by the top brass in the Government. And Helen Clark should immediately offer to reimburse the taxpayers of New Zealand for having used hard-earned tax dollars to fund a campaign that she led the public to believe had been funded by the Labour Party. That is unacceptable.

Helen Clark herself told the public at the Labour Party congress in 1999: My signature is on it. I am accountable for it.” I tell Helen Clark to pay back the money. It is not the Labour Party’s money. It is not the money of the Labour Cabinet. The money belongs to the taxpayers of New Zealand. Members opposite should hang their heads in shame, knowing that they deliberately, or at the very least had constructive knowledge of a rort when they decided to use a pledge card about which they purported to say—and in fact we have been told since—that the same process applied in 1999 and 2002, even when the Labour Party secretary-general had his signature on those cards, authorising them as part of the Labour campaign. Well, we on this side of the House await with interest the return of the Auditor-General’s report. I have no doubt that the Auditor-General’s office is taking this matter extremely seriously.

💬 Brian Connell: So are the police.

I hope that they, when they talk to the police, manage to rectify this matter once and for all.

I am delighted to be back in the House after the summer break. We have a leader in Don Brash who is clear and unequivocal about what he wants for New Zealand. We have 22 new MPs who are bringing energy and diverse views to our caucus, and that is to be welcomed. I have to say that it is a great joy to stand in this House and look back at those benches and see familiar faces—including that of Tariana Turia—who are supportive in large of National Party policy, and that is something we are very grateful for.

But one thing that has become absolutely apparent over December, January, and February is that Damien O’Connor is completely out of his depth. This is a Minister who has struggled from the start with the corrections portfolio. It is worth just revising some of the matters that have fallen in his lap since he took control of this portfolio in a way that can be described only as bordering on negligent. We have seen that of 3,000 prisoners tested for drugs in recent months, 17 percent returned positive drug readings. We have seen that at the Manawatū Prison, the local prison guards passed and carried a motion of no confidence in the management of that prison. We have seen a massive budget blowout in the building of prisons throughout New Zealand. It is worth just thinking about that, because that is money that could easily be put into decent rehabilitation programmes, given that the Minister himself stood in this House last week and conceded that those rehabilitation programmes were not working. In fact, an inmate who goes on one of those rehabilitation programmes has a better chance of reoffending than if the inmate does not go on a rehabilitation programme. What does that say about the way the Department of Corrections is working?

In October 2002 the chief executive officer of the department fronted up to the Law and Order Committee and said that to build these four new regional prisons would cost $400 million—at the last count, the cost was $890 million. And when Damien O’Connor took off on his soirée over to the Netherlands and Finland, just before he got his hot little feet on to the plane he dropped the bombshell that it is nearly a billion dollars now.

💬 Brian Connell: How much?

It is nearly a billion dollars now. So there is more to come in this prison blowout. I have to say that the answer that he brought back from Finland was not to reinvestigate and make more effective rehabilitation schemes, it was not to bring in early interventions for behavioural difficulties in children who might be heading on the wrong trajectory and ending up in jail, and it was not a victim-centred policy for those people who have been affected by crime. No, Damien O’Connor came back from his overseas junket and says that what we will do to alleviate the prison blowout is to let a whole lot out. We will just open the doors and let out the 30 percent of the prisoners who Damien O’Connor says are no risk to society—despite those prisoners including thieves, those who have committed sexual assaults, drunk drivers, and fraudsters getting around 6 months’ worth of prison time. Let them out! Open the doors, Damien O’Connor says—these people are no risk to society, as he told National Radio last week!

Well, I say to Mr O’Connor that we are not going to stand by on this side of the House and see that Minister pull the wool over the eyes of members in this Chamber. If that Minister were serious about a bipartisan approach to corrections policy, my office would have been contacted. I am sure I would have been invited to sit down with him and have a discussion with him about it. My office was not contacted. No attempt was made to formulate a bipartisan approach to corrections or prison numbers. So that Minister is on his own with a crazy idea when 92 percent of New Zealanders said in 1999 that they wanted longer sentences, better rehabilitation, and better early interventions. They do not want prison doors opened and people told to go for a wander and come back at their leisure, to go and take a job, and to have the weekend off.

I say to Mr O’Connor that the real people who are affected by that policy are the victims of crime. Members on this side of the House believe in victim-centred law and order policy, not offender-centred law and order policy. If the Government were serious about rehabilitating people in prisons, it would be looking at the appalling state of its own programmes in those prisons. That is where money should be invested in a way that is accountable, rather than just disappearing down the proverbial toilet.

I finish by saying that the National Party will hold the Government to account in every portfolio and every area, no matter how big or small, for the rest of this parliamentary term. Those Ministers opposite will feel Opposition members breathing down their necks on every little decision they make. Let me assure Judith Tizard that she will not be able to escape to another luncheon or to another dinner out with people, drinking from champagne flutes, because the portfolio that that Minister has responsibility for—

💬 Hon Member: What is it?

Primarily carrying Helen Clark’s handbag. The areas of responsibility that that Minister has will be equally under scrutiny. This party is here to hold this Government to account. The time is coming, I say to Labour Ministers.

That really was a very sad little speech with its whingeing and whining from the sad old men of the National Party—even the young ones are sad old men.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the member is referring to my age, I just want to make sure she knows I am not old.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that is not a point of order.

Is that not pathetic? Those members do not know the Standing Orders, either. I want to say to that speaker that my problem at arts functions—which are burgeoning all around New Zealand, as at the New Zealand International Festival of the Arts, which starts this week—is batting aside National Party MPs who have nothing to do except hang around hoping for a free lunch or a glass of wine. They are sad, sad old men—even the young ones and even the women, because that is how they are behaving. They have no policy, they have no beliefs, they do not care about New Zealand, and they are trying to talk down the economy, although this country is in better shape than we have ever seen it.

This Government has delivered an economy, alongside New Zealanders, that has seen us have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. What does “Dr Doom” on the other side—all the “Dr Dooms” on the other side—

💬 Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I do not need any assistance. The member will withdraw that. The member knows she must refer to all members by their correct name.

I withdraw. Every member of the Opposition does not care about New Zealanders, because the Opposition’s only policy is making multimillionaires richer. This Government works collaboratively with New Zealanders. We work alongside New Zealanders, because we are here for the long term. I just find it astonishing that John Armstrong, after the National Party’s best hit last week, could say Dr Brash still has difficulty thinking on his feet. Dr Brash wonders why he is still leader when he lost so badly in the last election. After that speech made by Simon Power I can see why Dr Brash is still leader. He cannot think on his feet, but at least he can put an idea together. I have not heard any speaker from the Opposition put any ideas together in this debate.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her speech to Parliament. It was a great speech about where this Labour-led Government believes we are going, what we are aiming for, what sort of country we want to live in, and what we will do about it in the next 3 years. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on yesterday passing the Rt Hon Sir Walter Nash as the second-longest-serving leader of the Labour Party ever. It is an indication of the enormous respect in which Helen Clark is held by this party and by this country.

There was a clear message in her speech about economic transformation. This Government will be working on a strong economy, which we will build alongside all New Zealanders, and we will make sure that every New Zealander can participate in it. We are a Government that believes that all families in New Zealand, young and old, matter. We want all New Zealanders, in their families, young and old, to be working, having opportunity, having security, and able to look each other in the eye and say they have done their best to make sure this country will be a better place for our children and our grandchildren, while also making sure that those who have done the work to build this country get their fair share, as well.

We are working for a unique national identity for New Zealanders. That is not just because we like the arts. We do like the arts; they are intrinsically important, they are about good use of energy, and they are about families and communities and this nation coming together and confronting the things that divide us, reconciling with each other, finding a way forward, and sharing our values. We want to build pride and opportunities in this wonderful country. I congratulate the Prime Minister on getting up and saying that that is what she and this Government are doing. I heard nothing from members opposite about what they would do.

I want to talk briefly about my portfolio responsibilities. I am an Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and if I need to hold the Prime Minister’s handbag, I am very happy to do that so that she can deal with the thousands of New Zealanders who want to shake her hand because they can see the wonderful things that she and this Government have done for them and their children. I have heard many mothers in this country say to the Prime Minister: “Thank you for your arts policies. I think they saved my son’s life.” They say: “Thank you for your film policy, because my son and my daughter have got jobs.” Those young people have got jobs they care passionately about, in new, emerging industries. What does the National Party want? It wants to send them back to coalmines. It wants them to line up outside post offices to get make-work jobs.

💬 Jill Pettis: But there aren’t any more.

But there are not any post offices any more; they are called post shops. Dr Brash should get with it.

This Government believes in the arts. We believe in them because they are good and they are about reconciliation and making a way forward. They are about jobs and industries. They are about New Zealanders having the pride and the ability to stand up for the things their ancestors came to this country believing in, and came here to build. I am pleased to have a portfolio in that area. We are training young people to be good business people in the arts, through the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment scheme. I am proud to be the Associate Minister of Commerce, where I am working on intellectual property issues so that New Zealand artists and creative workers can benefit now and long term from their unique and original ideas.

I am proud to work, as the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand and as Minister responsible for the National Library, on the digital content strategy, to make sure not only that we have these wonderful collections but also that New Zealanders and people around the world can access them. Indeed, only last week we signed an agreement with the national library of the People’s Republic of China. Why? It wants to work with our National Library because it is very interested in the work we are doing to make that content available to all New Zealanders. The Chinese love the work we are doing. Later next month, we will make a similar agreement to give New Zealanders access to libraries in Australia. I am really proud of the work we are doing to make sure New Zealanders have access to their own history and the stories they need in order to go on working in a whole range of areas.

I am proud to have spent some of my summer at the opening of The World’s Fastest Indian, which has just overtaken Once Were Warriors as the biggest-selling New Zealand film ever. I am delighted that the story of an astonishing, energetic, bloody-minded mechanic from Invercargill has overtaken a story of domestic violence. New Zealanders have many, many proud stories such as that that we will tell in film and that will be seen all around the world. I hope everyone in this House and everyone listening has gone to see the film River Queen. It is a great film and I congratulate Vincent Ward on producing that amazing story of early New Zealand. He pulled no punches about the Land Wars; he pulled no punches about the pain and the difficulty that many New Zealand families and communities had in forging a shared identity back in the 1860s. As we have heard from other speakers, this goes on. I look forward to No. 2, a fabulous film by South Pacific Pictures about a Fijian family in Mount Roskill, and to Sione’s Wedding, which is the story of a Samoan - New Zealand family in Grey Lynn. I look forward to New Zealanders getting good, high-paying jobs, and winning awards at the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs for new films, because it is not just Peter Jackson with King Kong, or Vincent Ward, or Roger Donaldson who are doing such astonishing things; lots of New Zealanders are now using digital technology, in particular, to do all sorts of smaller projects.

Our music industry is absolutely astonishing. I congratulate the Music Industry Commission on announcing the Outward Sound grant, which will assist New Zealand music and musicians internationally.

We are doing extraordinary things in the area of transport, particularly in Auckland. I am proud of the fact that the North Shore busway is already such a huge success. People are noticing less congestion because of the North Shore busway. It is a simple project, a major, huge project, which is being delivered on time and on budget for the benefit of all Aucklanders. It has the upside of not only reducing congestion but also reducing vehicle emissions and improving air quality.

I am really proud of what this Government has achieved in 6 years. I am really proud that the Prime Minister stood up in this House and told us what we are going to do over the next 3 years. I want to quote again from Dr Brash. He said Parliament is puerile and he does not believe in coming in here. We can see why he does not. It is because he performs so badly. If the Opposition cannot bring some policy and some argument to this House, then we will be the Government not only for the next 3 years but on and on and on.

First I would like to tautoko the words of Te Ururoa Flavell, who spoke just before in the House about the need for all of us to understand and support the real meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi Māori version. It was a very sound, coherent, and deeply thought-through speech that I think everyone in this House should listen to, if they were not here to hear it immediately.

The Prime Minister in her statement to Parliament last week at the start of the 2006 session talked a lot about our nation being on a journey from an old economy to a new one, about improving living standards and services, and about building pride in our national identity. That is all good stuff, if somewhat platitudinous, but where I think the Government is fundamentally missing the boat is in having any sense of urgency about the crises that are going to confront us sooner rather than later in relation to peak oil, climate change, and the impacts of the increasingly insecure and war-torn external environment on our own economy and society here.

The Values Party and, later, the Green Party have been trying to get their messages across in this country about the urgency of the situation since the early 1970s. All too few have believed us or have wanted to hear us. However, we are now in a situation in 2006 where we are fast approaching a point of no return locally and for our planet. This Government, alongside any and all Governments around the world, needs to find its focus and to do everything it can to help to future-proof our country against the coming shocks. That impacts on all aspects of our society and economy, not just on the most immediately visible areas like issues around Kyoto commitments, biosecurity, waste reduction, and conservation, but also in other less obvious but equally far-reaching areas.

For example, one of the two areas of closest cooperation the Green Party reached with Labour, following last year’s election, was with regard to the Buy Kiwi Made programme, which I am now working to implement on behalf of the Government. I would like to thank Labour for its support for that initiative, originally that of our late co-leader, Rod Donald. Along with colleagues and many interested people in the broader community, over the next 2½ years I am determined to extract the best possible outcome from our agreement. I have already been in discussion with many key stakeholder groups, including businesses, manufacturers, and unions. There is a stunning awareness and commitment that crosses traditional political, ideological, and sectoral lines to try to achieve a common goal: a major culture shift in how we all think about buying goods and services produced in our own country.

The need for that culture shift does relate strongly to the urgency with which we need to become less dependent on imports brought here by transportation, the cost of which will just keep rising, and to the need to maintain and develop whatever infrastructure capacity we can on our own shores in this isolated little country of ours. That is why the current imbroglio around Air New Zealand’s heavy engineering and aircraft maintenance capacity is so unfortunate. Business and Government should be doing everything they can to keep that capacity onshore, without expecting employees to bear beyond reason the brunt of changing conditions. I continue to hope that a way will be found through this issue that keeps as much capacity as possible here without an unreasonable sacrifice of jobs, wages, and conditions.

The Government is—having made a deliberate choice some years ago—the majority shareholder in Air New Zealand, at 82 percent. I do not believe that there is some magical dividing line between its role as a majority shareholder in a business critical to our economy and its role as a Government. As I asked in the House earlier this afternoon, does the Government really know what Air New Zealand’s long-term strategic plans are? Does it have any opinion on the fact that those plans for business transformation seem to revolve around cutting costs at the expense of workers’ jobs, wages, and conditions, and at the expense of losing a big chunk of our aircraft maintenance capacity as a country? I hope that this Government will do everything it can not only to ensure the commercial viability of Air New Zealand but also to retain and develop its public-good components, in terms of the need to keep jobs and infrastructure here before peak oil really hits home.

The Green Party’s commitment to greater self-sufficiency, in the face of the fact that oil is running out and of other looming environmental catastrophes, means that we want to see as many jobs as possible kept in this country, and we want those jobs to pay wages that people can actually live on—hence our ongoing and total support for the campaigns to raise the minimum wage to at least $12 an hour immediately, abolish discriminatory youth rates, and work for more secure working hours for those in insecure part-time and casual work.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Unite! union in particular, but also all the other unions and community organisations involved in current campaigns to improve pay and conditions for all those who work so hard for so little recompense in our low-wage economy. I look forward to the debate on my member’s bill to abolish discrimination in youth pay rates, which will happen here tomorrow night, and to progressing it through the House over the months ahead, with the support of a number of parties here. It is high time those of us with good, and even high, salaries and conditions spared a legislative thought for those who are working their hearts out for wages that are way below survival levels.

Alongside the Green commitment to try to raise the incomes of the employed workers who have the least, we remain committed in this term of Parliament to achieving a welfare system in this country that actually provides a sufficiency of help to those who need it most. We need an approach to income support that means it comes in at a level that enables beneficiaries and their children to survive with dignity, and with neither the further harassment and intrusions on privacy nor the reductions of actual benefit levels that I fear may happen as the result of intended Government reforms to the welfare system. The Prime Minister talked in her speech about the fact that the Government will be stepping up its work on the new benefit structure. It has been saying that for a number of years now, and I look forward to hearing more sometime soon about the detail of how it will actually work. I asked the Minister, the Hon. David Benson-Pope, last week whether he could tell us more about those details. But, as with previous questions, the answer is deferred indefinitely.

Given what has happened with regard to the changes from the special benefit to the temporary additional support system, which is one aspect of the reform about which we do have some information, I am quite apprehensive about what the move to the single core benefit will actually mean for beneficiaries and their families, especially in what will almost inevitably be an era of rising unemployment. I just hope that Mr Benson-Pope was correct when he assured me last week in the House that no beneficiary will lose out under the new regime. We will see whether that is the case—as I believe, in fact, that the impact of the loss of the special benefit alone will see a lot of people lose income support that they previously would have been entitled to.

When we in the Green Party consider the whole raft of possible ways that we might do more to future-proof our country against prospective economic and environmental collapse, one of the key solutions we see is to genuinely localise the production of, and access to, goods and services as much as possible in the communities where we live. That brings me to conclude today with a very local issue—that of the hospital in Kaitāia, where I currently live.

I believe that the Government is making a big mistake in the health area by not re-examining its overarching policies with regard to the provision of hospital services in rural and provincial New Zealand. The people of Kaitāia continue to fight a rearguard action in a long war of attrition for the return of 24/7 surgical cover and other services to our local hospital. The Government and the Northland District Health Board continue to think it is OK that we transfer hundreds of patients a week by road at personal expense, or by ambulance and helicopter at public expense, from a vast area of the far north to Whangarei Hospital. This is at a time when Whangarei Hospital itself cannot cope with its patient loads, and queues grow longer by the day. From a commercial as well as a public health point of view, would it not be better and make a lot more sense to restore just the basic services, at least, to Kaitāia, allowing Whangarei to do its job better for the people further south, rather than hoping that somehow the problem will go away—that the health of the people in this low-income district may miraculously improve, or that the population will suddenly decrease rather than increase, as it is doing at the moment?

Many people living in the far north, from the Mangamukas to Te Hāpua, cannot afford the long trip south for basic hospital treatment. Hundreds of thousands—ultimately millions—of dollars are being wasted on helicopter and ambulance fuel and overheads. In the slightly longer term, and in the face of peak oil, it would make a lot more sense for the district health board and the Government to admit that they have taken a wrong turning on this issue, and to join with the local community to restore basic services to one of the most far-flung districts in the country. Along with three fellow Northland MPs, including my colleague Hone Harawira, and John Carter from the National Party, I took part in a public meeting on this issue in Kaitāia last Friday. I can assure the Minister and the district health board that the local people will not give up on this one, and nor will the Green Party. In every part of the social, economic, and environmental life of this country, the Government should be working to rebuild and develop local production and services. It is at the peril of all of us, from the far north to the deep south, that we ignore that imperative at this critical juncture in the history of the world.

I always appreciate listening to Sue Bradford’s speeches, and that was a good one. [Interruption] Well, I have said that before, and I will say it again: I always enjoy listening to Sue Bradford’s speeches.

That aside, one of the things that happens around here occasionally is that one has to pinch oneself to check that what one has heard is correct. I am not referring to Ms Bradford, at all. One of the things I have had to pinch myself about a bit lately is this new-found friendship between the National Party and the Māori Party. I guess they are working on the principle of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Those of us who were not born yesterday know exactly what is going on there, despite the racially divisive comments that have been made by National members for many years. This is just after an election—that is what people say just after an election instead of just leading up to an election.

I am very proud of the Labour Government, because it is a Government that wants to move New Zealand forward on a journey to being a far more prosperous, dynamic, and secure nation. We know that working together in the interests of everybody is in New Zealand’s best interests. We know that we need a country that produces high-value goods, and certainly in provincial New Zealand we know that adding value to our goods is the way towards economic prosperity for all New Zealanders.

One of the other things about which I am particularly proud of the Labour Government is our arts, culture, sports, and music policy. That is cutting-edge work that is being done in New Zealand, and I am so proud of our growing international reputation in the whole of the arts field. The other thing that is really important to me is that, under Labour, New Zealand will remain nuclear-free.

The district of Wanganui, which is the area where I was born and raised and am very proud to say I come from, has had quite a rapid transformation in its economy. On 26 November—one month after the local government elections, by coincidence—a report was published in our local paper stating that the Wanganui economy is a five-star economy. One does not often see headlines like that in Wanganui newspapers, but I was most certainly delighted to see that. The ASB/Main Report Regional Economic Scoreboard stated such fantastic statistics as Wanganui’s unemployment level being at the lowest in 23 years. That is very good for Wanganui and very good for its people.

The new Wanganui District Council commissioned a report to be carried out by Business and Economic Research Ltd, a very reputable and reliable research company, and that report was published 5 months after the local body elections. The comments from it are absolutely stunning, and I am delighted to see those results. The headlines said that Wanganui is booming. Those kinds of headlines are good, because it means that people are benefiting. The Wanganui district GDP per capita growth at 5.2 percent is higher than the national average of 2.8 percent. Employment growth in Wanganui is 3.3 percent, which is very good for all of Wanganui.

💬 David Bennett: What’s your population growth?

No, the population growth is not that great—I acknowledge that. Provincial New Zealand is feeling a slight decline in some of its population figures. There is no doubt about that, at all. The member is correct.

But central and local government spending has been rising in the last 4 years, so the statistics in Wanganui are fairly consistent with that trend of increased spending. The Labour-led Government has invested heavily in Wanganui, and one of the areas in which we have invested with particular benefit to our local business sector is that of business grants approved in 2005. Business grants worth $2,294,799 were approved. That money goes directly into the pockets of those businesses and is then transferred into the pockets of employees.

Government investment in Wanganui is significant, and there has been an upward trend in that spending for some years. The main areas of earnings in our GDP in 2005 were in health services, with $75 million—directly and clearly money from central government—education with $50 million, and government administration with $46 million. Other categories of expenditure in this area were defence and community services.

One of the strongest performers in employment in Wanganui was the road and bridge construction industry. An extra $16 million was spent on transport in the Manawatū-Wanganui area in 2005, and of course we all remember the significant contribution of funds made following those disastrous floods in Wanganui in 2004. That increased spending—[Interruption] Well, they will have to get up early to beat me, so I will just carry on. Maurice, your voice is just not loud enough—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name, please.

Mr Williamson should keep sucking those Throaties.

One thing that is particularly pleasing to see is the increase in employment levels in our region. Fifty-one percent fewer people are on benefits in Wanganui—that is a drop in benefit numbers across the board. The greatest drop is in unemployment—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Less than half.

That is quite right, I tell Mr Duynhoven. The greatest drop in benefit levels is in unemployment levels, which is benefiting families right across the board. Wanganui lost proportionately more jobs than any other district in New Zealand in the 15 years to 2001, so that increase in employment levels is fabulous for our local area. Not just the city area has benefited but also the larger region, because South Taranaki unemployment benefit numbers have fallen by 17 percent.

Government investment in Wanganui has also been significant in recent months. In February it was announced that $3 million would go towards the Universal College of Learning, and $112,000 was given by the Ministry of Youth Development to assist with a project whereby young people would be able to develop their own youth centre. That is good funding for youth. An extra $100,000 went to the Wanganui District Council’s roading budget because of a subsidy increase that went directly to the council. In relation to tourism, $516,000 extra was given to the Ruapehu District Council as part of assistance to deal with the growing number of tourists that smaller towns throughout New Zealand are experiencing. Schools operations grant funding is up by nearly $3 million, which has a direct benefit on future educational opportunities for our young people.

In the area of early childhood education, $50,000 went to Wanganui, $15,000 went to Pātea, and late last year $284,000 went to Mataroa in Taihape, which is not in my patch but is certainly very close by.

One of the schemes of particular benefit for older citizens who live in our area is the rates rebate scheme, whereby 27,400 people in Wanganui-Taranaki who receive State-funded superannuation will directly benefit from the rates rebate scheme. Our senior citizens who live in State houses will also be $35.28 a week better off than they were under the previous Government because of the income-related rents policy that the Labour Government brought in. The comments from the National Party members when the Minister of Housing used the term “social housing” indicate that the Tories clearly do not understand that concept, or how important social housing is.

There has been huge investment and a huge partnership between this Labour Government and the rest of New Zealand. I am proud of that partnership, and of the very real, tangible benefit it has brought to New Zealand.

As I have listened to the speeches from the Government, from the Prime Minister’s opening comments through to what we have heard today, I believe that it is becoming palpably clear that this Government has run out of soft options, and that that is beginning to tell—it is beginning to show. It has run out of soft options in terms of underlying ideas, it has run out of soft options in terms of its internal political arrangements, and, most important of all, it has run out of options in terms of economic management. It has no real vision as to how to lead this country and discharge the responsibility it asked the New Zealand electorate to give it in the course of the last election.

Let me start with the level of ideas, and I want to pick a couple of examples of what we have heard in the last 2 weeks to make my point. First of all, the Minister for Economic Development on the subject of the New Zealand exchange rate—and I will come to the economics of that soon—said to the New Zealand Herald on 17 February: “In fact, I hope and expect that in the medium to long term the dollar will be higher than it is now.” In a moment we can deconstruct the economics of that, which are a little more complex than the Minister appears to realise, but I particularly liked the immediate reaction of the Chief Executive of Business New Zealand, Mr O’Reilly, who was asked to give a response, given that many of his members are suffering from a combination of an obvious slowdown in the economy, high interest rates, and, if they are in the traded sector—the import-competing or export-oriented sector—that over-valued exchange rate of ours, and was hoping to see at least some signs of recognition from the Minister.

When asked for his view Mr O’Reilly said he thought the Minister’s comments were probably—and I think this is a wonderful word—“aspirational”. Now, the word “aspirational” is of course straight out of a speech and text from Yes, Minister—the type of word that an important lobbyist such as Mr O’Reilly, or a senior official, as I was until I entered this Parliament, uses when he or she wishes to describe the Minister as barking mad, but simply cannot afford to say that in terms of their ongoing relationship.

Let us examine the economics of that. What I imagine has happened is that we are in the phase of this Government when it has to start defining problems it has no means of dealing with, as solutions, and I imagine that the Minister has received some type of briefing paper from Treasury or the Ministry of Economic Development that will have stated something along the following lines: “Under certain circumstances”—and they may even have used “ceteris paribus” if they were very unwise, and we do not know whether the Minister has had the benefit of a classical education—“an appreciating nominal exchange rate and an appreciating real exchange rate may, in fact, raise living standards.” Now this, of course, is unquestionably correct. But there are a set of mightily important conditions behind the phrase “other things being equal”.

Let me explain the point a little bit more deeply by reference not to economic theory but by a comparison between Switzerland, where I spent 9 years of my life, and New Zealand. So we have the real Switzerland in the Northern Hemisphere, and this country, which has from time to time aspired to be the “Switzerland of the South Pacific”. Of course, back in 1950 we and the Swiss were third equal in terms of per capita income levels. Since then they have left us in their dust. Things have improved a little bit because of fundamental economic reforms, not the sunny election of the Helen Clark Labour Government in 1999. But we still have a long way to go.

The Swiss have left us in the dust because of three principal factors. First, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Switzerland, unlike New Zealand, and, indeed, most of the developed world, had inflation under relatively strong control; second, it had a growth rate of around 2 to 2.5 percent—not much above the OECD median, but about twice as much as our own growth rate over that period; and third, it had an appreciating exchange rate. The question is: why could Switzerland support an appreciating exchange rate? It is because Switzerland, unlike New Zealand, is an export machine. Some real structural weaknesses in agriculture aside, it has a set of financial services companies, and engineering companies that produce consistently large current account surpluses. Under those conditions an appreciating exchange rate will, indeed, raise living standards, and has indeed raised them.

But I can see what has happened. This is a classic case of a little learning being a dangerous thing. The Minister for Economic Development, who should be deeply concerned about the imbalances facing the New Zealand traded sector, and deeply concerned to find long-term solutions to New Zealand’s continual incapacity to pay its way in this world, grasps hold of this straw like a drowning man and comes out with this frankly absurd statement that he wants to see the exchange rate even higher. It is absurd not in terms of some idealised set of circumstances, but utterly absurd in terms of the underlying situation facing this country, this Government, and his ministerial responsibilities. I have an analogy in mind. My youngest daughter has just turned 7. I could say that one day I hope she may win the Nobel Prize in mathematics. But there are two problems with this. One is that there is not a Nobel Prize in mathematics, for fascinating reasons better explained over a drink.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Make it a white!

Yes, it is a case of cherchez la femme, exactly! The second reason is that before I even start to talk to her about such aspirational ideals I really want to make sure she has nailed down her eight-times table. That basically is the position of the New Zealand export economy and the Minister’s ministry. There are some fundamental things that have to be done to promote a business-friendly future for this country, and until this Government starts to grapple with the real next reform agenda, to talk about an appreciating exchange rate is dreaming in nana land.

But the Minister is not the only person who I think has recently indicated the poverty of ideas of this Government. My colleague Mr Power was on the back of the Minister of Corrections on this rather naive view that he brought back from the Nordic countries, so he looks at our incarceration rate—and let me say I find the fact that we have the second-highest incarceration rate after the United States a shocking issue facing this country, one that we should be trying to develop bipartisan and constructive long-term solutions to, but simply letting go a third of the prison population to solve it shows that this Government has simply run out of ideas and is clutching at straws. In fact if we put these two creative thinkers together, the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister of Corrections, they might even come up with the right solution to our current account deficit, which would be: “Why don’t we label exports ‘imports’, and imports ‘exports’, and there we are, we have a current account surplus?”! I mean, I am sorry, but we need some higher-quality thinking out of people who are responsible for New Zealand, rather than these dimly understood phrases from our Ministers.

Secondly, in terms of economic management, I am just staggered by what the Prime Minister gave up as her vision for New Zealand. First of all, in terms of the political reaction to it, let me quote, for example, what might seem on one level a public relations triumph for the Prime Minister. For example, the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc. congratulated the Prime Minister on putting the emphasis first and foremost on business success, and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce stated: “The language is right and Government’s intentions are very clear and believable,”. There is only one problem; I do not know whether to put the emphasis on “intention” or “believable”. The point here is that what the Prime Minister has been saying is exactly what she said in her Knowledge Wave 2001 conference, which I have here, about economic transformation. It is exactly the same message that she gave about infrastructure before she had her personal epiphany last week in her Prime Minister’s statement—suddenly realising that something had to be done. What we will hear more of from this Government is nothing more than the same rhetoric, but without the political capacity to deliver. I am afraid that I have to reach for that cliché to sum up my view of the next 2 years if the Government can survive as long as that: this Government, yes, it can talk the talk, but I am sorry, it does not have the political capacity to walk the walk.

After listening to that speech, members of the public who are listening to this debate will be desperately hoping that this Government lasts another 2 years, if that is the quality of analysis that is on offer from the Opposition. When they extrapolate back to this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, which has really emerged as a leaders’ debate, we can see how to judge the Leader of the Opposition. One judges a leader by how strongly the foot soldiers can follow the party line. Either the foot soldiers of the National Party are following the party line very seriously, which really suggests that they are capable of double standards, or there is mayhem among the foot soldiers.

We just need to look at a recent example in Hawke’s Bay—on Thursday and Friday, in fact—which was referred to today by the Minister of Immigration during question time. Craig Foss, a money speculator who has turned into a vote speculator, decided to take on the judicial system by way of a press statement, because he realised that the only way to get known in Hawke’s Bay and to retain any standing, having ridden here to Parliament on the coat-tails of the Exclusive Brethren, was to try to hog the headlines. After 5 months he is becoming increasingly desperate to make sure he gets headlines. So on Thursday he published a press statement that described the arrest of 16 illegal immigrants as lacking in common sense and foolish. Of course, the judge, having read those comments, locked those people up, remanded them in custody, and ordered they not leave the cells until they were deported from New Zealand.

Craig Foss not only took a cheap shot at the Government, but he has also brought into question the judgment of the judiciary. Is he saying that Judge Watson—Richard Watson—was, in the Hastings District Court last week, lacking in common sense? Is he saying that was flawed judgment? Is he really trying to tell the populace of Hawke’s Bay and, in fact of New Zealand, that an experienced District Court judge who has been sitting on the bench now for about 12 years—with an outstanding reputation in practice—is a man who is lacking in common sense? The alternative could be, of course, that the one law for all mantra, which is one that appeals, of course, to the Exclusive Brethren—who choose not to vote but just to subsidise some very unsavoury practices—only applies when one wants it to apply, and is put to one side when one does not want it to apply. So when, after those 16 people were arrested because they had been here illegally, that man Craig Foss rushed off to the media and said the arrests lack common sense and surely those people could have been allowed to work, in breach of the law, we wonder where the leadership of the National Party is on the mantra of one law for all. We know where that leadership is, and I will come to that in a short minute.

The third most important message that the actions of one Craig Foss gave was that alluded to by the Minister today. It is that there is a desire by the National Party to drive down the wage rates of unskilled or low-skilled workers in New Zealand below decent standards, down to the standards of Viet Nam, India, Pakistan, and other countries that Craig Foss clearly feels we should emulate when it comes to wages, whereas this Government, as the Prime Minister said at the opening of the debate, is striving to lift the wage economy to a standard we can all be pleased about and have some pride in.

We can see where Mr Foss is learning his practices from—practices that he may one day live to regret and that will upset those people of moral fortitude in the Hawke’s Bay. We have heard repeatedly, from experienced members of the National Party, the use of words that suggest corruption and rort, and terms that should not be allowed in this House but that are being waved around freely. National Party members are confusing two different concepts—and deliberately, one might say. They are accusing the pledge card that came out of the Prime Minister’s budget of being a party expense. The pledge card has been funded from the leader’s budget for the last three elections—that is 9 years. There was not one murmur of any sort of corrupt practice until someone suggested that the matter should be referred to the police. No finding has been made of any bad or illegal practice, and, of course, there will not be any such finding.

But, of course, the argument is not really about the Labour Party; it is about the National Party trying to create a smokescreen for its own practices, which fall foul of section 214 of the Electoral Act 1993. Section 214B(3) defines what may be a corrupt practice. It states that any person who “… pays or knowingly aids or abets any person in paying for or on account of any election expenses any sum in excess of the maximum amount prescribed by this section is,—(a) if the act is done with knowledge that the payment is in excess of the maximum amount prescribed by this section, guilty of a corrupt practice;”. And what do we have in the National Party? [Interruption] Yes, this is embarrassing; members are lifting the volume. They are trying to hide behind a smokescreen. Those members should vent their lungs, because this is important. When the National Party spent up to the maximum on broadcasting and did not include GST, its members tried to say that they did not realise they had to pay GST. But what did the High Court find in 1988? It was reported in the New Zealand Law Reports of 1988 on page 77 that payments must include GST for the purposes of the Electoral Act.

Since 1988 it has been declared law that advertising costs include GST. That is one of the aspects that got Wyatt Creech into this House. Every National Party member who supported Wyatt Creech would have read that judgment—as would National’s lawyers. National members cannot come to this House and allege corrupt practice, when they know what they are trying to cover up: a wilful breach of section 214 of the Electoral Act. It has been settled law since 1988 that payments attributable under the Act must include GST. Where is all the bellowing now?

💬 David Bennett: It’s our money.

“It’s our money.”, says “Shylock” over there, turning the other cheek. Of course it is the New Zealand public’s money. That is what the National Party is worried about, because it is hiding practices that clearly breach the law. You can only argue against that by creating a smokescreen, in the hope that the police will say that there is too much going on and that they will not prosecute. That is the only defence you have, and your legal team will have advised your leader that that is the only possible defence.

💬 Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member on his feet, despite your earlier warning, is continuing to bring you into the debate, and I do not think that he should do that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. I had noticed it. The member was quite passionate in his debate, but I ask him to be careful about that.

The National Party is guilty of an egregious offence under section 214 of the Electoral Act, because it has known since 1988, from one of its own cases, that GST is payable on election expenses, including broadcasting. The Act states that if a party knowingly exceeds those expenses then that is a corrupt act—signed, sealed, and delivered. The National Party’s only defence against that, as its high-priced doctorate legal team will be telling it, is to cause so much confusion that the police will say to the National Party—the leaderless National Party—that they regard it as a trivial matter. National members think that if they create enough confusion, then hopefully the issue will go away and they can live to fight another day.

So we will watch with eagerness the way the National Party deals with section 214B(3) of the Electoral Act. We can already see the electoral returns of some of its other foot soldiers. I of course refer to the property speculator—now a votes speculator—Chris Tremain, the member for Napier. Following the Bob Clarkson petition, which has outraged many people who have read the law for many years on the issue, Chris Tremain has decided to omit from his return matters that previously would have been included and driven his return to in excess of $20,000.

The interesting thing about that return is that the law and order policies of the National Party have been subsidised by supporters of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, so much so that—

💬 Bob Clarkson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a little offended. Three judges in the High Court made a decision on what I spent, and they decided that I was correct.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debatable issue, and the member is quite entitled to take a call when the occasion arises.

💬 Bob Clarkson: The member is saying it; why can I not argue about it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I direct the member to Speaker’s rulings 36/4 and 37/4, which are to do with misrepresentation. I suggest that the member look at those Speaker’s rulings and also at Standing Orders 106(1) and (2).

The member is probably getting hot from sitting down, and we know the problem that the member has with heat when he sits down for too long. He is probably airing the areas that need to be aired from time to time.

I conclude my speech by referring to the poverty issues that exist in Hawke’s Bay, which are being relieved by the very, very thoughtful Working for Families package that comes into effect on 1 April. Hawke’s Bay has some of the saddest poverty levels in the country. That is revealed by the district health board analysis of last year, which showed that the district health board has some of the worst health statistics in New Zealand. They arise because, on an objective analysis, being on a benefit is a status of poverty in New Zealand. The poverty study of 1998 described poverty as being applied mainly to beneficiaries and to perhaps 80 to 85 percent of New Zealand’s Māori population. Working for Families is a celebration of the end of poverty, which was institutionalised by the previous National Government during the 1990s. I am delighted that the package will come into force in New Zealand and, in particular, in Napier on 1 April.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, I advise members of the House that the New Zealand First members have split their call and will get a bell at 1 minute.

It is probably a blessing in disguise that this debate is nearing its finality, and the previous speaker’s contribution is a perfect example of why. Throughout this debate National MPs, virtually to a member, have maintained the monotonous refrain of slamming Labour for using taxpayers’ money for its pledge card, and with feigned indignation have demanded that Labour pays back the money. Labour MPs have retaliated by claiming that National had done the same, and that it did not include GST in its returns, and have thrown in the Exclusive Brethren’s involvement for good measure.

But the reality is that the only conclusion any listener to this debate could draw is that both—and I mean both—the two old parties, which between them have almost 80 percent of the members in this House, continue to treat the taxpayer with cynical disdain. Between the two of them those parties have actually written the rules for expenditure, and when they break their own rules they both claim that the rules are unclear. I leave it to Joe Citizen to work out what is really going on there. But I shall start 2006 in the same vein as I plan to proceed for the year, and that is positively—to look at some positives.

The first comment I wish to make is to congratulate Toa Fraser on the success of the film No. 2. I do so not only in my role as arts and culture spokesperson for New Zealand First but also because I have a personal connection. I grew up next door to No. 2—or No. 55 to be more exact. The State house I grew up in in Mount Roskill was right next door to the Frasers—Toa’s grandparents, father, uncles, and aunties. Those were the days of pepper-potting policy, and all I can say is that there was a very amicable, friendly, neighbourly relationship between the Frasers and the Donnellys. Indeed, the only tut-tutting I ever heard was when the Fraser men prepared the chickens for Christmas. They evidently chopped off their heads and let them run headless around the backyard. My mother did not think that was quite the right thing for suburbia. I never witnessed the spectacle but spent the lead-up to Christmas in the next few years trying to look over the fence to find out when they were killing the chickens. My brother remains close friends with Toa’s father, who, for those of us old enough to remember the first few years of black and white television, was one of our first pin-up newsreaders, a man by the name of Eugene Fraser.

My second bouquet is offered to Karen Sewell, acting chief executive officer of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. It is not news to those from the last Parliament that the select committee that I chaired had a fair bit to do with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and I have to say it was not an organisation that inspired one with confidence. Moreover, I believe that the organisation had got itself into such a defensive role that it was going to be very difficult to analyse its own errors and fix them up. It is therefore a credit to Karen Sewell that she seems to have very quickly changed the culture of that organisation in respect of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). The year before last, NCEA was a dog’s breakfast, and this year NCEA seems to have gone pretty smoothly. The fact that subjects like agriculture, horticulture, and technology showed variations in standards is explicable—the first two because of the small number of students and teachers involved over the years, the latter because of the relative newness of the area. The important thing is that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority recognised quickly that the variations were too great, publicly acknowledged this, and moved to do something about the problem. This is a credit to the New Zealand Qualification Authority and, most especially, a credit to Karen Sewell.

The final point I want to make is this. I have just enjoyed a fantastic Christmas break; the weather was great, the fish were biting, and there were opportunities aplenty to meet up with friends and family. As we caught up with old friends, ranging from crusty old farmers in the far north to business people and professionals from Auckland, everyone had the same message: “You guys in New Zealand First did a marvellous job in your post election negotiations—good on you.” The message was consistent: “Those additional frontline police are going to make a huge difference.”, or: “An extra $10 a week will really make a difference to what I can do as a pensioner.” The praise went on and on. People I had never seen before came up to me in the mall in Cameron Street in Whangarei and thanked me for the gold card. People I knew to be true blue voters congratulated New Zealand First on ensuring that the Greens and the Māori Party were kept out of the Government. People who have always advocated ACT policies shook my hand and said: “Thank God you saved us from another election before Christmas.” Then there were those who said that Don Brash could try to pinch New Zealand First’s immigration policies, but that we were actually doing something about immigration problems.

New Zealand First is a non-aligned party of the centre, and I hope that one of the outcomes from the last election is that the media may have realised that this is the case.

I would like to commence by assisting Bob Clarkson. I can understand his frustration—somebody said something about him, he did not agree with it, and he does not have the opportunity to correct it. But I say to Mr Clarkson that as I recall, the judges determined that he spent $18,000-plus whilst he had told them when he appeared that he spent $10,000. That is an error of 80 percent.

💬 Bob Clarkson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 116—I have some facts this time—I am deeply offended again. That is not true. I will not allow him to say that because it is just not factual.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I say to the member again that it is a case of misrepresentation. If he looks at Speaker’s rulings 36/4 and 37/4, he will see that at the end of Mr Brown’s speech he can raise a point of order. He should have a look at the Speaker’s rulings.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will alert you to the point that I said I was recalling, as best as my memory tells me, that the judges ruled that he spent $18,000-plus, and Mr Clarkson submitted that he spent $10,000. That is an error, in my book, of 80 percent. [Interruption] It might be reasonable for National Party members, but it certainly would not be reasonable for New Zealand First. I have to say, whilst I am on the subject, that I have some real concerns about the account from Toby Hill, to which reference was made, because in 1993 Toby Hill made a sandwich board for me that cost more than painting Mr Clarkson’s van, as I recall. But I want to move on from there. I just thought I would help the member understand the situation.

National members seem hell-bent on pinching—that is the only word I can use—New Zealand First policies, and the latest policy they have pinched is our roading policy. We have advocated for a long, long time that the amount of petrol tax taken from petrol motorists should fully go into the land transport account and be spent on roading and those sorts of matters.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: You’ll get more than you’d get from them.

No, I am not going to acknowledge that, but I acknowledge that the Labour Party has increased expenditure on roads, which pleases us no end, because had the Greens had their way—and they did for a while with the last Labour Government—the Government would have been spending less. It pleases me that Maurice Williamson has taken this on board. He now has the gall—and that is the only word I can use—to attack a person, by way of media release, who said that he supported all the petrol tax going into the land transport account. The Hon Maurice Williamson said he was just stealing National Party policy. But there was a time, in 1995, when a bill called the Road Transport Revenues Fund Bill came before Parliament.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I remember that.

The Hon Harry Duynhoven remembers that. The Minister of Transport at the time was the Hon Maurice Williamson. This is what he had to say in the House: “Let us not try to be derogatory. The member for Tauranga, who introduced the Bill, and New Zealand First are clearly seeing it as a chance to win some votes.” So 12 or 13 years later, is he doing exactly the same? Is he as genuine as he makes out? I doubt it. He goes on to say, and I find this appalling for a Minister of Transport to say: “The first thing is, there would not be enough roading projects out there to do, or enough contractors out there to do them,”. He says further: “To say that taking some general tax from a road user is wrong is like saying that because someone buys a loaf of bread they should not pay tax on it.” Now the National Party has finally recognised that roading would be better if it had more funding injected into it. [Interruption] I say to the honourable members there that they should listen. If that bill had passed in 1995 there would have been something like $6 billion or $7 billion invested in roading additionally, and I have to say that economically we would be a lot better off. Further to that, a lot more people who have been killed on our roads would be alive in New Zealand today.

We applaud the Labour Government for disowning the Greens and putting more revenue into roading. It is not enough, and they should look at the actual system—the funding mechanism—because we fund roads on a “pay as you go” system, and that is not good enough.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will have another crack. Under Speaker’s ruling 36/4, I have been misrepresented. I would like to bring the member’s attention to the fact—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member can only say what the member said, and then state the actual case. It is very specific what the member can do. You can only say that what the member said was incorrect, and then correct it.

The member said that I went to court with a figure of $10,200. That is totally incorrect. If the member has been educated and can read—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is all the member has to say, and his word is his bond in this place. You have now corrected what the member said—what the member said was incorrect .

He is incorrect. Can I say the true figure?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes.

If the member could read and he had read the papers the day before the court case, he would know the figure was $18,600. We were advised by the judge and by my barrister to take all the arguable items out of the figure, which is why it came down to $10,200. The final judgment given by the three judges was $18,160—a lesser figure than I started with.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much.

A Government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul, and in this case we all know who Paul is with this Government. With this Labour Government—this Labour-led shambles of a Government—we all know who Paul is. It is its trade union mates, its school union mates, and, of course, its university lecturer mates.

Much has been made by this Prime Minister about the growing diversity of New Zealand, and most New Zealanders would agree with that statement. There is a growing diversity in this country. But what this Prime Minister does not understand is that in no circumstances do trade unions, school unions, and university lecturers make diversity. This country is being run by a bunch of loons—there is no question about it. And if this Prime Minister believes in what she has been saying—and I quote: “New Zealanders can continue to rely on a Labour-Progressive Government putting in place good policies to strengthen the economy.”, then I suggest she comes down from her mythical mountain and takes a close look at the lacklustre Ministers whom she has in her Cabinet. In particular I refer to the Minister for Biosecurity, the Hon Jim Anderton.

The reason I say that is, whether or not the Government likes it—and it praises the arts, the film industry, the tourist industry, and all those exciting things this Government loves to praise—at the end of the day the New Zealand economy depends on the primary industries. And it always will, as far into the future as anybody can see. But does this Government understand that? Not for a moment does it understand that. So I say to the Prime Minister that she should look at the competence level of her current Minister for Biosecurity, because of what he has said in recent times. The Minister has already admitted that he knows nothing about biosecurity. He has already said that he spent the last 6 years as the Minister for Industry and Regional Development going around the country promoting regional development, particularly the manufacturing industry. But what the Minister has left out of that comment is that during that time the primary industries in this country have had 2.8 percent growth, year on year. The Minister, who has been promoting industry around this country, which has had 1.1 percent growth over the same time, does not now need to advise the primary industries on how to get growth going in their area. After 6 years, 1.1 percent growth is not good. There is no way that this Prime Minister can measure that as a satisfactory performance from this Minister.

I have said repeatedly to the Minister that there needs to be a generic pest management strategy, and that it is vital for the biosecurity future of New Zealand. Our new Minister for Biosecurity has said that I was living in a fantasy world by suggesting for a moment that that kind of set-up could work: that we could exclude the pests we do not have. So here is the first lesson for the Minister, the Hon Jim Anderton: he should read his briefing papers. Page 15 of the biosecurity briefing paper to the incoming Minister, under “Strategic Priorities”, states that having generic incursion response systems is one of Biosecurity New Zealand’s top eight projects for 2005-06. What does the Minister say to that? The paper also explains to the new Minister: “MAF must make a greater investment in scenario and generic response planning.” That was the advice to the Minister. So I hope that the Hon Jim Anderton will show some integrity and apologise to me for remarks he made in a press statement dated 2 November 2005, when he commented on my call for generic incursion response systems and pest management systems, and stated that: “… National is unrealistic, clearly not ready for government, and can’t be trusted with the taxpayers chequebook to make adequate decisions …”. That is what the Minister said. Our officials must have been totally embarrassed and must have shuddered at the ignorance of their new Minister. However, I am pleased to note that slowly—very slowly—the Government is adopting National’s biosecurity policy. It has taken time, but then no one could accuse Government members of being quick thinkers.

As we are adopting the policy on generic incursion responses, I see from Cabinet papers that the Minister is investigating an emergency response capability or fund—another good National policy. I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to carry on with National’s policy release and to bring in higher instant fines for those who flout our biosecurity laws at the border, and the deportation of those who, clearly, are trying to get through the system without making an adequate declaration, and so forth. The Prime Minister has made a mistake; she needs to change her Minister for Biosecurity. But I can see her problem: who does she give this important portfolio to? There is not too much talent on that side of the House. Who would she pick from?

This naturally brings me to rural affairs and the Minister for Rural Affairs. The briefing paper to the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Hon Damien O’Connor, states: “Much must be made of the isolation funding and the funding of rural school buses in isolated areas.” I thought that that seemed interesting, and I wondered how the Government was implementing that policy. I have with me a letter from the Minister of Education, the Hon Steve Maharey. It says that he has told an isolated community that the Government does not fund school buses in such places, and that it is the parents’ responsibility to get their children to school. So where does the Minister for Rural Affairs stand in relation to that example? This school is very isolated. It is way out in the back of eastern Taranaki. It has no access to the normal kind of school bus or alternative transport that everybody else enjoys. The Minister has told the school that it is not his problem; it is the school’s problem. So where is the fight for rural communities from that Minister for Rural Affairs?

However, any Government is all about leadership. We all know what the leadership of this Government is like. It is no wonder that Cabinet lacks the initiative, talent, and ability to understand some of these issues. Two official bodies have determined that the 2005 pledge card was an election expense. Helen Clark has said that her signature is on it and that she is accountable for it. We all know what that signature is worth. We have seen that signature on paintings; we know how good that signature is. We know how much currency it can carry.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: What did the High Court say about your expenditure?

I say to the member who is interjecting that he should go back and look at the law and the determination that has been brought forward by the Auditor-General with regard to that particular issue. No wonder Helen Clark refuses to meet with the Auditor-General; she knows she is wrong. She knows that she has taken money, and she should pay it back. But Helen Clark refuses to do so. When this matter was brought before the Auditor-General, we all thought that it was to raise the issue of the “You would be better off under Labour” campaign, which was also funded out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Now we know the real reason: she had plans afoot to swipe nearly half a million dollars of taxpayers’ funds to prop up the Labour Party election campaign. Clearly, from the leader down, this Government is rotten to the core. It is time that this Government moved on and allowed somebody with some real integrity to take over the management of this country.

In closing I say that if Helen Clark really believes that what she did was within the law, why does she not allow it to be tested? I am somebody who received the wrath of the Prime Minister. I had to go to court and prove that what I had done was not against the law. I ask why the Prime Minister does not do the same. Why does she not front up? Why do her Cabinet colleagues who are baying away not front up before the appropriate authorities and say to them: “We were within the law, as best we understand it.”? It is because they know that the advice given to them at the time was that they were not within the law. The reality is that they know they are outside the law.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I begin my contribution this evening by wishing you and the officials in the Speaker’s office a very, very happy new year. From my perspective I am looking forward to a very happy new year as well, and I wish that all members of the House could do so, but frankly I doubt it in terms of what faces the National Party. It has had a whole summer during which every day different stories from different leakers in its own caucus talked about their frustration with the clear failure of Don Brash to provide any leadership. What a dreadful thing it is to go through the whole summer hearing and reading about this, day after day. I thought the communication skills of the National Party members were at their peak over summer. Tragically for them those skills had leaks.

Then National had its major breakthrough, which was the opportunity to show Dr Brash as a strong, competent leader, with Ōrewa III—his third speech in the series. I have not seen the final film in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but apparently everybody was disappointed—in exactly the same way they were disappointed with the third of the Rotary speeches from Don Brash. John Armstrong described it in this way: “They set low expectations with the speech, and they deliberately played it down, but I think it even struggled to meet those low expectations.” That was what one of the best political commentators in our country said of the speech. He went on: “I think we know what National’s secret weapon is for the next election. Don Brash is going to try and kill Labour with politeness. He is meek. They needed a ripsnorter to get into the year proper, and I would have gone for the jugular, but not Dr Brash.”

The Nelson Mail wrote: “Few voters are likely to rate his speech as much better than dull.”, and the Marlborough Express summed it up for me and certainly for my constituents, from what I have heard from them: “It was too negative, and it failed to deliver the solutions New Zealanders are seeking.” Well that is exactly the point. That is why National was defeated again at last year’s election, and now it looks forward to 3 long years in Opposition again, while we have 3 more years of a Labour-led Government. I want to acknowledge the support of our partners, New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens, in the work we did to become the Government.

Last week I had the pleasure of going to the start-of-the-year function hosted by Business New Zealand. The President of Business New Zealand, Stephen Collins, got up to welcome everyone to the function, and his opening words were: “Business in New Zealand is in very good heart.” He has listened, I am sure, to speeches from members of the National Party and wondered what planet they are on. Why does the leader, who is now widely called “Dr Doom” in the business community, insist on trying to talk us into a recession? Why is he so set on causing depression for New Zealand, and not looking to promote our country and be proud of New Zealand as the most fantastic place in the world to live in, to work in, and to relax in? That is what I am proud of, and I just wish the members of the National Party would show some leadership on that issue.

As the Prime Minister said in her opening remarks to Parliament last week, Labour and the Progressive party are not in Government to manage the status quo. It is never good enough. We have seen progressively over the last 6 years that as we have raised the bar people’s expectations and opportunities have been raised, and their expectations for future opportunities have increased, as well. That is what I look forward to contributing to over the next 3 years. We want our country to be more affluent and more dynamic. We need a strong economy to deliver the living standards, the services, and the quality of life that our citizens deserve, expect, and are prepared to work for. We want all New Zealand families to enjoy more opportunity and more security, and to share in the progress that our country makes. We want to build pride in New Zealand’s national identity, and to celebrate the achievements and successes of our people, not to run them down. Those people who have achieved both in the past and in the present have brought great credit to our country, both within it and internationally.

We have spent the last 6 years working hard with and for the citizens of our country; growing the economy; dropping our level of unemployment to the lowest in the Western World; investing heavily in the critical services of health, education, police, and our social services; promoting our unique and rich culture; protecting New Zealand’s environment; and maintaining our nation’s reputation as principled, independent, and nuclear-free. It had to be the joke of the year when Murray McCully persuaded his caucus to come out publicly and say: “Nuclear-free? We’ve changed our mind.” The whole country laughed. It was the best joke they had played on New Zealanders for a long time. New Zealanders just laughed at the thought of National expecting to have any credibility at all on the nuclear issue—not a chance. Labour has stood strong on that policy for over 20 years, and will continue to do so.

It is clear that the confidence of the National Party has taken a very significant blow over the last few weeks. Its caucus, expanded as it was since the election, gave it a born-to-rule arrogance in the House. But after Don Brash’s Ōrewa III speech, after National’s caucus retreat in Taupō, which was totally dominated by the increasing factionalism of its caucus, and now after the blunder of its new and obviously one-term MP, Craig Foss, it is starting to look very shaky. Craig Foss is happy to encourage illegal workers to take the jobs of New Zealanders—New Zealanders who had been sacked, so that those illegal workers could take their jobs. What an absolutely disgraceful position for any member of Parliament to take, let alone a member of Parliament who comes to this House to represent those people who were sacked. What an absolute disgrace!

But the icing on National’s crumbling cake is its feigned horror at the electoral expenses of the New Zealand Labour Party. That horror came from a National Party that forgot to include GST on its broadcasting expenses return. One would think the former Governor of the Reserve Bank might know how the GST system works. He forgot that, and he forgot his meetings with the Exclusive Brethren—he forgot to include their expenditure for the National Party on its tax returns. That is why New Zealanders were very happy at the last election, and I predict that for the next three years they will forget the National Party and look to our Government for leadership and support of their aspirations.

I begin today by paying tribute to an extraordinary man, a Gisborne resident, who sadly passed away 2 weeks ago. Jim Holdsworth was born in and grew up in Gisborne, and spent most of his life in the Gisborne district. He served in the Mounted Rifles in World War II, played rugby, tramped extensively in the area, played snooker extremely well, read widely and voraciously, and also played chess. It is often related how he once travelled on the Trans-Siberian Railway, and played chess for days with a Russian general who spoke no English at all. Jim was a great traveller, but most important of all he was a farmer—a Hereford breeder, a wool classer, and one of New Zealand’s early farm foresters. In fact, he was a founding member of both the national and local farm forestry associations, and he headed both organisations during the early years. He became an expert in Australian eucalypts, and planted many varieties on his station, as well as large plantings of pine.

He was way ahead of his time in regard to farm forestry and his knowledge of trees. He was way ahead of his time in many other aspects of life. He became frustrated because he could not understand a gang from the Ureweras who were working on his farm, so he approached a local kaumātua and asked to be taught the language, and he became a fluent speaker of Māori. Jim was an honourable man, a man of honesty, straight dealing, and huge integrity, and he will be sadly missed in the Gisborne district.

Honesty and integrity are two words that, unfortunately, we cannot associate with the current Labour Government. I am ashamed to live in a country where the Prime Minister has been referred to the police not just once, for signing a picture she did not paint herself and allowing it to be sold as her own artwork, not just twice, for also knowingly travelling in a motorcade that deliberately exceeded the speed limit by 40 to 60 kilometres per hour at times, in order for her to catch a plane to watch a game of rugby, but three times, for also allowing her parliamentary budget to be used deliberately to pay for a $446,815 pamphlet and pledge card as part of Labour’s election campaign.

I well recall the two campaign meetings held in my electorate by the Maxim Institute. They were excellent public meetings and very well-organised and well-attended—possibly because they focused on the issues rather than on the candidates. However, during the course of the evening the representatives, who were mostly MPs, were able to ask a question of one another. My question to my Labour opponent was exactly this: why was Labour using taxpayers’ funds to fight the election, when other parties had to fund-raise through donations, raffles, and cake stalls to fund their campaigns? When I asked that question at the first meeting, my Labour opponent sneered—as we hear here tonight—and answered that she doubted that National Party campaigns were funded by cake stalls. On the morning of the second meeting I had had a very successful cake stall in the main street of Ōpōtiki—in fact, it was the third cake stall we had run in Ōpōtiki, so I felt I was on pretty safe ground.

As a candidate I had no parliamentary salary to rely on, no parliamentary-funded travel or accommodation to support me, no parliamentary office to send out letters, etc. That is at the heart of the Electoral Act laws. Those in power have an enormous advantage over their challengers. This country prides itself on its democratic principles; we believe that any Jack or Jill has the right to challenge his or her master or mistress—has the opportunity of equal rights. The underdog is always our favourite—except when it is the All Blacks—so a system that protects those with few resources against those with many, in an election process, must be upheld.

Typically, my opponent’s response and the party line we have heard trotted out for the last week has been: “Well, everyone else does it, so it’s OK.” Well, I have never accepted that blurring of the line between right and wrong. I have never accepted it from my children; I have never accepted it from my families or from my work colleagues, and least of all from my Government. The law is clear: the leader’s budget, funded by the taxpayer, is not to be used for electioneering.

Is the pledge card I am holding up electioneering? The common-sense answer has to be yes. It was put out by Helen Clark and Labour, and only in the 3 months leading up to the election. It spells out the seven election promises of Helen Clark and the Labour Party. It was used by Labour candidates and MPs throughout the 3-month lead-up to the election. The only time Labour put this out was in the 3 months prior to an election. Therefore, it has to be an electioneering tool. What about this pamphlet I am holding up? Is this an electioneering tool? It states: “Helen Clark—

💬 Hon Members: Show us the photo.

Members might not recognise her. It shows Helen Clark’s and the Labour Party’s policies for the future. [Interruption] Labour did not put out a pamphlet like this at any time during its 6 years in Government, except before the last election. It lays out all Labour’s policies, all nicely wrapped up. Who it is in the photo might be questionable, but that is just another part of Labour’s spin and deception. But it does not take a law degree to work out that this, too, is electioneering.

The Electoral Commission thought it was. It insisted that Labour include that $446,815 in its election costs, and thus Labour has exceeded its legal limit. The Auditor-General now agrees, and two official bodies have found that Helen Clark and Labour were in the wrong, deliberately and calculatedly so.

So what do Labour members do? They blame everyone else. They blame the law, saying that the law is unclear. They ridicule, they point the finger, and they throw up smokescreens. They were wrong; they got caught. They should apologise, pay back the money, and take their medicine. The medicine is not very strong; it is not particularly nasty.

I ask this House where the justice is in that medicine. My colleague Bob Clarkson can be taken to court and made to prove that he did not overspend his limit. His punishment would have been that he would be out of Parliament. But Helen Clark and this Labour Government cannot be held to such account by the public, whose money they have looted. There is just a fine, to a maximum of $3,000, for illegal practice, as my estimable colleague has pointed out, or a year’s jail and a $4,000 fine. Helen Clark, who was responsible for her budget, will cop neither of those two. She will again step back and allow a staff member or a party faithful to take the blame, just like she did with those poor police drivers in Oamaru.

There is no honesty in this Labour Government; there is no integrity in this Labour Government. It should apologise and pay back the money.

I heard the member over there make reference to Jim Holdsworth, and I want to pay respects to Jim. I worked for Jim for 18 months. My people taught him how to talk Māori. We shore his sheep. He talked about politics, and told me he never trusted the National Party. I want to mihi to Jim about that. I will tell members about Jim Holdsworth, more than anybody else can. I also want to recognise Wi Kuki Kaa, my uncle, who has passed on. Those great people who have passed on, I wish them well.

The National Party is passing on. I have listened to that bunch of booming brats over there, who will not listen to their leaders in the front there. In the opening stages of this debate we heard one of the greatest deliveries in contemporary times, by a long-serving Labour leader, Helen Clark, and she will be here a lot longer. My colleague Anne Tolley even moved to Gisborne to live amongst the great people, and that is what this Government has done for Māoridom. So I see that bunch of booming brats developing at the back of the Chamber. I see their abusive, contemptuous, insulting behaviour, and I tell them to be wary of their leadership, for it has been put asunder. But, like the great leader who started this debate, Helen Clark—[Interruption] Those members will be there for another 3 years, and they will listen to a lot of great debates led by this great leader and this great Government. Certainly, at the end of the day, Māori will be an important and integral part of this House. My friend Tariana Turia used to give out the cards, and she knew that, all right. [Interruption] You know it was good, and you know the delivery of this debate was wonderful.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister brought you into the debate, Mr Assistant Speaker, so he might like to withdraw that comment and rephrase.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Tisch. I was just about to bring the Minister to order. He has seconds left so I ask him to please wind up.

I used to work with certain people in developing enterprise—and that is what this Government has done for Māori. It has created all the economic glory in this country right now. You should be thankful—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know the member is going to say that the Minister again brought the Speaker into the debate, and I ask the Minister to desist.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know what you are going to rule, and I accept that, but because of those interjections in the last 30 seconds or so, I think the Minister should have an extension of time to compensate. I know he is on his closing statement, and his speech has been very good to hear. This side of the House, certainly, would be privileged to hear the end. I would like to give him until 5 minutes to 6 to finish off his speech in that last breath that he had.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that he is a senior whip and he knows full well that he cannot seek leave for someone else. I suggest that he look at Speakers’ rulings 1/5 and 1/6. I am now going to put the question.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know it is a fact that the House is the master of its own destiny. Part of the House agreement is the amount of time that someone has to speak. Mr Tisch sought leave for the vote on the confidence motion to be delayed until 5 to 6 in the expectation that Mr Horomia would fill the void—something that he is quite good at.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. The House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.