General Debate

Members will know that I do not normally participate in the general debate.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Winston speaks in them all the time.

I am talking about me. Quite frankly, most of the contributions to it demean the dignity of the House, particularly those of the two old parties who simply spend all their time hurling abuse at each other. But, from time to time, the general debate offers the opportunity to raise matters of genuine concern. I also say at this point of time that my contribution would be somewhat easier to make if I did not hear “Advance Australia Fair” being played every time I turn on the TV these days, and a whole lot easier if a 17-year-old Australian had not stepped up to the circle and denied Beatrice Faumuina a medal last night. I will put those feelings aside, because Dover Samuels may wear an Akubra, but I am going in to bat for the Aussies in this speech.

The issue is the deplorable manner in which a New Zealand tertiary institution has treated students in Australia and the Australian Council for Private Education and Training. For the benefit of the listeners, I will explain the issue. In 2001 The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand bought the Australian company Stotts Correspondence College and its subsidiary, Stotts Correspondence College New Zealand. The Australian operation was losing money at the time, and has continued to do so ever since. The New Zealand operation continues to make a profit. Indeed, the Australian operation has lost $2.5 million in the last 5 years. Therefore, it is completely understandable that it was placed into what the Aussies call voluntary administration in December last year, owing $3 million, which included $2.2 million to its New Zealand Government - owned parent, The Open Polytechnic. A meeting of creditors was called, and the company was put into liquidation. So far, so good. It might have been an unwise commercial decision, but those are made every day.

But when an education institution such as that goes belly up, the problem is that there are students enrolled in courses, and there is a moral obligation and a cost associated with ensuring that those students are enrolled in programmes with other providers. To the deep discredit of The Open Polytechnic, it simply washed its hands of that particular problem. It just walked away. And that is not good enough. Our national reputation is at stake in this particular case, because however much we throw off at the Aussies, however much we may cringe at their level of sporting success, and however fierce our sporting competition with them may be, they are our closest mates. We have very positive and constructive relationships in education with our Australian counterparts, over a wide sphere. We have the trans-Tasman mutual recognition of qualifications. Our Ministers attend their ministerial forum of education Ministers. We have even flogged the Queensland approach to curriculum delivery in the revamp of our national curriculum.

This issue has to be seen in the same way as if an Australian institution had set up in New Zealand and then cut and run, leaving 600 to 800 students hanging out to dry. It is not an issue that is immaterial in trans-Tasman relations, as Michael Cullen said. The replacement courses found for the students were all organised by the Australian Council for Private Education and Training. The Open Polytechnic dumped the students, cut its losses and ran, and the Australian Council for Private Education and Training picked up the pieces—and at a cost. The Australian Council for Private Education and Training does not want The Open Polytechnic to cover the tuition costs—that is not at issue. It does not even want The Open Polytechnic to cover the full cost of relocation. It is asking The Open Polytechnic to front up with half the cost of relocation, which is a total of A$25,000.

I say to Paul Grimwood, Chief Executive Officer of The Open Polytechnic, and to The Open Polytechnic council: “Do the right thing.” This situation is damaging the reputation of all of our providers in Australia and elsewhere, and it is damaging to our image as a nation. It makes us look small-minded, petty, mean, and penny-pinching, worried only about the bottom line but not about the students for whom we have accepted educational responsibility. There may not be a legal responsibility, but there sure as heck is a moral and an ethical one. The problem is that the image that one of our institutions portrays across the ditch is reflected upon all our institutions, and indeed on New Zealand as a nation. So I say again to Paul Grimwood and to The Open Polytechnic council that they should go and seek the A$25,000, so that the matter can be put to rest and New Zealand’s educational reputation can be re-established.

I want to reiterate some of the points made by Dr Cullen so that my learned Māori colleague from Auckland can understand the good work that is happening in Māoridom. On 1 April—and there will be only one lot of foolish people around on 1 April, and they will be the Opposition—we will see in Working for Families, targeted tax credits to Kiwi families to help them raise their children; in student loans, the scrapping of interest on student loans for those people who live in New Zealand; in increases to the rate of superannuation, the taking care of the old people; in business tax changes, the biggest cuts to business taxes since the late 1980s, which are in the area needed by the people, especially Māori and Pacific Islands people; and in accident compensation, the very important Accident Compensation Corporation levy discount programme.

Working for Families is quite simple. About three in every four New Zealand families with dependent children will be entitled to family assistance tax credits from 1 April this year. That is the most effective way to target and support Māori families.

There is no doubt that Māori are a unique people. The contributions that Māori make to New Zealand pervade this country. In the last year Māori actors were amongst those who received nominations for the Academy Awards—great actors—a Māori won the US Open golf tournament, Māori achieved key positions in the commercial sector in New Zealand and Australia, and beat the British Lions solidly in the rugby. So we do not have to pontificate about the heaviness of the past; we are really living in contemporary times and are quite clear and sure on where we want to go. Māori culture reinforces the dynamic identity of Aotearoa New Zealand in the global society, and our team over there in the Commonwealth Games is doing the haka so well—they need a few more medals—that it has upset the Aussies. But the distinct difference in this country is those Māori families, and Working for Families will ensure that they accelerate and keep up with the opportunities that are around.

💬 John Key: According to the New Zealand Herald, they are moving to Australia.

And that is symptomatic of Māori moving to Australia, as John Key moved to London in England. He learnt a lot about the money market and interest rates, and then he came home. He went away and then he came home. So it is all right for the rich and the well-off, but not for people who are determined to find out what it is like to go overseas for the first time.

I will tell the member about the last major transition in this country. It was in 1950 to 1960, when 86 percent of Māori people lived close to their marae—they lived in the villages, as it was perceived by some bureaucrats at the time—and they transferred and came to Wainuiōmata and to Ōtara. That was because the global market at the time required manpower that they never had.

We are right at the cusp of it now, I tell Mr Key and Bill English. They should remember that. We have a growing asset base that the members and their mates should be interested in. We have falling unemployment rates, though our climb in the employment area is four times slower than non-Māori—than that member’s people. On 1 April we will replace the child tax credit with the in-work payment. This is not about just taking people off the benefit—dependency. It is about helping those who are in work—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It’s putting thousands more on a benefit.

Ninety-two percent of those Māori who want to work are in work. The member should wake up.

The family tax credit will increase from $15,000 to $17,680. That is a real increase for families who need that support. At last year’s Hui Taumata it was made clear that the path for Māori from dependency to development is through education, employment, and enterprise.

In this changing time, a dramatic thing is happening in Māori families. If we understand colonisation and if we understand the venturing of new peoples to this land, like what is happening now with Asian people, we know that a familiar thing happens. The settler society ensures that there is the labour force to provide things like the roadways and the telegraph poles. The constraint on that is that they do not get into the upper levels of business, industry, or education.

Contemporary times can be hugely stressful for whānau. They are trying to earn a living, gain more skills and new careers, and raise a family—they are no different from other people. But the Working for Families package is not about welfare. It is targeted tax relief, and it is fair targeted tax relief. It is not for rich mates who get discounts without doing too much hard work. This is a great time for Māori. The Working for Families package is excellent, even in Southland.

That member may be pleased with his efforts on behalf of Māori, but he must have a sick feeling in his stomach when he sees the Cabinet of the Labour Government rotting around him. Dr Cullen told us about the 1 April lolly scramble, and he is right—much money will be pumped into the pockets of middle New Zealand. It is unfortunate that they will not get what they could have had, though, which is 85 percent of New Zealanders on a tax rate of 19c in the dollar and an economy taking a step up instead of slowing to a crawl.

In the last couple of days a number of people in the media, and, to some extent, in the public, have started to talk about the standards in politics dropping. I believe they are wrong. I believe that the standards of accountability and scrutiny in this House are as they have always been, and that is tough but fair.

The Labour Party members have done their best to explain away their own problems as being some kind of change in the National Party’s tactics as an Opposition, but that is absolutely not the case. I say to this House that National members were not sitting in the front seat when Ruth Dyson was caught drink-driving. We were not at the table drinking wine when John Tamihere gave his famous interview and revealed what it is really like in the Labour caucus. No National Party MP posted the false returns that David Parker made to the Companies Office. No National MP was holding the painting when Helen Clark signed it. It was not a National MP who was sitting in the seat beside Helen Clark when she was speeding through the townships of the South Island. No National MP held the microphone while Lianne Dalziel lied to the media about her role as a Minister in the Government.

We were here when David Benson-Pope misled Parliament, and is it not a shame that a reasonably promising member of Parliament lost his job yesterday because of something he did that people will regard as being potentially against the law, certainly ill-judged, and that David Benson-Pope, of all people, gets to keep his job? The Labour Party members know that David Parker had to go because David Benson-Pope stayed. It would have been much better for the country if the opposite had happened.

It is not a change in the Opposition that has brought about this avalanche of problems and this list of miscreant Ministers. What has brought it about are the low standards of the Labour Party. Really, there is only one difference between the leader of the Labour Party and those Ministers who have all been dealt with, with justification, and that is that they are not as good at it as she is. She is the master of the half-truth. She has set the environment in which Ministers, some of whom are otherwise competent and capable people, take risks with the truth, do not tell it, avoid it, and, when they get caught, always act as if it is not their responsibility—and who does that best of all and always gets away with it? It is Helen Clark.

So those people in the media who are starting to feel morally superior about what is going on in politics in New Zealand ought to put that superiority aside. It is absolutely vital that a rotting Government is held to account, and the National Party will continue to hold Labour members to account. It will mean scrutinising the decisions and the paperwork of Ministers, it will mean questioning them when they do not tell the truth, it will mean pulling them up when they mislead Parliament, and it will mean making sure that they take personal responsibility for the things they do that break the law.

As a Minister and member of Parliament who has always taken responsibility for my own actions, both good and bad, I reject and resent the whingeing, whining, gutter-scraping behaviour of that member who has just resumed his seat. I remember that when I first came into Parliament in 1993, the brat pack of Bill English, Tony Ryall, Roger Sowry, and Nick Smith were regarded as young and energetic, and frankly they added a bit of flair to this House, so desperately needed from the National Party. Now look at them: Roger Sowry has gone, so I have no comment to make about his contribution, and the remaining three members are tired, bitter, twisted, and nasty contributors in this House.

💬 Hon Bill English: Stop talking about yourself.

I say to Mr English that I have never been nasty, and I am certainly not bitter. I can only assume that the resentment those members exude in the House is because the born-to-rule brat pack does not like being in Opposition for another 3 years.

The first day of April 2006 will be a very good day for lots of New Zealanders. I want to start, though, by highlighting one particular New Zealander who will have a particularly good day on 1 April 2006, and that is my mother, who turns 80 on that day. She will have a good day, but so will three out of four families who are in the paid workforce and have dependent children. Yet again they will receive a significant boost to their income, and that is because of our Working for Families package.

Students and graduates who have been burdened by the interest accumulating on their student loans will know that from 1 April that interest is gone as long as they are in New Zealand. What a great incentive for young students and graduates to stay in New Zealand and pay off their student loans—which they will be able to do more quickly than in the past—or to come home again. We will see that student debt go down, and that is a fantastic contribution to the skills shortage we are facing in New Zealand.

Superannuitants will have a significant increase, longer term, in their standard of living. That will occur not only because of the adjustment on 1 April taking the rate for a married couple to 66 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly wage but also because of the agreement New Zealand First has with the Labour-Progressive Government, which means that that level—the relativity at 66 percent—will be maintained.

Also on 1 April, we will see the biggest changes to business taxes since the late 1980s, and that is a well-deserved initiative from our Government. But the final point I make in terms of the announcements that will come into force on 1 April is about the accident compensation levy discount programme. We have had this scheme in place for larger employers for a long time. I am really pleased that this initiative, which rewards good practice for the self-employed and small businesses, is now being rolled out. We are targeting the six highest risk industries—the ones that have the most injuries: agriculture, forestry, construction, road freight transport, motor trades, and inshore fishing industries, to start with. If those industry players—with small businesses and the self-employed—can demonstrate they have a serious commitment to health and safety in their workplace, they will get a 10 percent reduction in their accident compensation bill, and I know they will really welcome that.

From 1 April those businesses will be able to apply to join the programme. and I really encourage all small businesses to do that. Not only will it be good for their pockets, in that they will have a 10 percent reduction in their bill every year, but also—and I am sure everyone in this House will agree—it will be better for every New Zealand worker if we can improve health and safety standards within the workplace. Too many of our workers go to work in the morning and do not come home at night, so if we can do anything to reduce the fatalities and the number of serious injuries that happen in our workplace, I am sure this will get very strong support from all parties in the House.

The initiatives I discussed at the start of my contribution are the result of a lot of hard work by the Labour and Progressive parties over the last few years. We are doing that work because we are committed to having a better future for all New Zealanders. We want a country where we have a strong economy, where our families can enjoy better opportunities and are secure, and where we can have pride in the unique identity of our nation.

Today I do not intend to canvass the behaviour or the actions of the two Ministers who have been in the centre of the news media swirl over recent weeks. Others, in the fullness of time, will make their own judgments on those issues.

What I do want to raise this afternoon is the judgment of the Prime Minister over the last 6 to 8 weeks. I have been pondering that at some length, because I find it extraordinarily curious. I find the behaviour of the Prime Minister and her decision making particularly interesting from an objective point of view. Why would the Prime Minister spend valuable political capital on Mr Benson-Pope, leaving herself out of valuable political capital for Mr Parker? Although I do not excuse in any way the original mistakes of Mr Parker, at least in my view he had the dignity to act in an appropriate and responsible way. As a student of political science prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I guess it was, in a difficult way, reassuring to hear a Minister at least refer to the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility at the point he handed in his resignation, and refer to his respect for the Westminster system. But it was curious from my point of view that although huge political capital from the Prime Minister—and from the front bench, when one thinks back to the nature of supplementary questions and the like from the start of this year—was afforded Mr Benson-Pope, none of that protection or political capital remained to give Mr Parker in any way the type of buffer he must have sought.

The curious thing about that is that both Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Parker were well recognised as protégés of the Prime Minister—people she regarded as having bright futures in this Parliament. That was not just the talk in this building; it was the talk around Wellington. I find it curious that one was given the full strength of support of the Prime Minister’s office and the front bench of Cabinet, and one was not. I wonder at what point the decision makers came to the view that that capital was to be invested in one member but not in the other. I suspect it was because that political capital had been well and truly exhausted on the first member, and the Prime Minister was simply left without the political capital to deal in any way other than in the honourable way—in my opinion—that Mr Parker reacted, seemingly without those same support networks.

I guess it begs the question now of who would want to be a protégé of Helen Clark’s, because those protégés are now in a very difficult position. There will be members opposite thinking they would rather be in Phil Goff’s camp. I think it will be particularly interesting over the coming weeks to see how the Labour caucus repairs itself in relation to its respect for its leadership structures. I will use my usual litmus test to decide how that is going, because I will watch how David Cunliffe moves over the next month and a half as I decide exactly where the power balances are shifting inside the Labour caucus.

In the meantime there are serious issues in the law and order area that I will continue to scrutinise while that sideshow carries on, and while others make decisions about issues relating to the future of those two members. There are also issues in the corrections area that continue to burn considerably. Damien O’Connor’s constant refusal to face up to the fact that Parliament and the public of New Zealand should have an opportunity to scrutinise the Department of Corrections is almost beyond comprehension when one tallies up the list of awful incidents that have occurred in his department over recent months. Not only has there been a massive budget blowout of nearly $890 million—double the original $400 million—but Damien O’Connor has still not told us that that amount is capped.

I am delighted to have the opportunity today to talk about Labour once again delivering on its promise to people in New Zealand. The Working for Families package is delivering targeted tax credits to Kiwi families to help them raise their children. Almost three in every four New Zealand families with dependent children will be entitled to family assistance tax credits from 1 April this year. Not many New Zealanders will think that is anything but fantastic news. It is just plain dishonest for anyone, including the Opposition, to suggest that those families are getting welfare or becoming beneficiaries.

Ninety-nine percent of that $1.6 billion package is being delivered to families by way of the tax system. Families will access their tax credits from the Inland Revenue Department, which will calculate and pay their entitlements. At the last election Labour put it to the electorate that by targeting families through the tax system we have the best chance of helping Kiwis create strong families and healthy, confident young people. The electorate agreed and, on 1 April, Labour will deliver in spades.

Let us take the example of a couple earning the average income for families with dependent children, because that gives a pretty good idea of the amount of tax relief the average New Zealand working family can expect from 1 April. A family with two teenaged children aged 11 and 16 that earns $67,000 a year and pays $350 a week on its mortgage will, from 1 April 2006, get an extra $68 a week in the hand from the family assistance tax credits. From 1 April 2007 that amount will increase by another $20 a week, to $88 a week, when family assistance increases again.

The good news gets even better. Almost all families with children that earn less than $70,000 a year will become eligible for family tax relief. Many families earning between $70,000 and $100,000 will also be eligible. Around 85,000 more families will become eligible from 1 April this year as a result of this tax relief package.

In total, 350,000 families will be receiving family tax relief in 2006—because Labour wants all New Zealanders to have a stake in the future. Working for Families is the most effective way to target and support our New Zealand families and their children. It also reflects a common approach internationally. Supporting families and children via tax credits is a widespread approach in the OECD. Australia’s annual spend on family tax credits is $15 billion, and 82 percent of Australian families with dependent children are supported in this way by their Government.

New Zealand tax credit income limits are now comparable with Australia’s. Families are eligible for the family tax benefit, up to a combined family income of around A$90,000, depending on the age and the number of children. For a New Zealand family with three children, that amount is up to $93,760. The UK also operates a system of tax credits that is very similar to ours. It provides assistance to help beneficiaries and working families with the cost of raising children through a child tax credit, which is similar to New Zealand’s family support. Around 85 percent of families are eligible for that assistance.

We can contrast this system with across-the-board tax cuts, which deliver the highest gains to people with the highest incomes, regardless of whether they have children. Tellingly, it is lower and middle income families who get much, much less from a tax cut. Targeting through the tax system is fairer and more cost-effective than having general tax cuts, because it ensures that families with the greatest need get the most support. That is why the Government has invested in a 3-year communications campaign to make very sure that newly eligible families know their eligibility and know how to pick up their entitlements.

In addition to helping working families through targeted tax credits, the Government is also improving the incentive for families to find work and to stay in work. Under Working for Families a new in-work payment will be introduced to provide more support to working families with dependent children, to make work pay, and to make it more worthwhile for unemployed families to move into work. This means that, rather than making more New Zealanders beneficiaries, the Working for Families package has, by design, set out to contribute to fewer families being reliant on community support.

To work out how much tax relief a person is entitled to is easy, and people can check by visiting the calculator on the Inland Revenue Department website or simply by ringing 0800 257 477. The Working for Families package is delivering targeted tax credits to Kiwi families in order to help them raise their children. Labour, once again, has delivered on its promise.

Kia whakawhenua au i ahau! Hi auē, hī! Ko Aotearoa e ngunguru nei! Au, au, auē hā! Let me become one with the land! This is our land that rumbles! It is my time! It is my moment! Those are the concepts of nationhood, of passion, and of strength that create a distinctive international presence for New Zealand. Yet, when the new haka of the All Blacks was first performed at Carisbrook last August, it was greeted with insults and attacks from the media and the English public alike. A throat-cutting gesture at the end of the haka was interpreted as implying the slaughter of opponents, which was reason for particular anxiety. Indeed, the editorial in The Times had this to say: “if a crazed thug drew a finger threateningly across his throat while screaming into someone’s face on a high street, police would have good grounds for arrest.” Yet if this editor had talked to haka expert Derek Lardelli, he or she would have heard that playing rugby at that level and with that intensity is the cutting edge of sport. The across-the-throat action symbolises the intensity of first-class rugby and the consequences of defeat.

Yesterday, Aotearoa celebrated Race Relations Day. The theme for this year is tūrangawaewae—our home. What better way to celebrate tūrangawaewae than by celebrating and seeking to understand the haka as a national icon—the source of pride and belonging. The significance of the haka overseas, with comments made about it being past its use-by date, is a theme that the House needs to give some consideration to. Is it time to replace our haka with something akin to the national chant across the Tasman: “Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi oi oi!”? A haka was first performed in an overseas representative rugby match by our native team in 1888. Then, in 1908, an Aboriginal war cry was performed by the Wallabies. The Springboks came up with a Zulu war dance in 1928, the Fijians chanted the Cibi, Tonga performed the Kailao, and Manu Samoa performed its own Le Manu Samoa.

Embracing the uniqueness of the indigenous identity is not just the domain of sports teams. I know many New Zealanders who, when travelling overseas, have burst into a haka or sung “Pokare Kare Ana” at the top of their lungs, claiming that Aotearoa New Zealand is their home, and why not? Indeed, Tourism New Zealand has identified Māori culture and branding to sell New Zealand’s uniqueness. We should be proud of the haka, we should understand it, and we should celebrate it as an art form of intense passion for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Henare Teowai, an acknowledged master of the art of haka, was asked on his deathbed what was the art of performing haka. He replied: “Kia kōrero te katoa o te tinana—the whole body should speak.” Last Saturday night the 12 spontaneous haka that the Sevens rugby team erupted into during their victory lap displayed their expression of honour and pride to its fullest extent. In fact, the team did so to such an extent that the captain, Tafai Ioasa, lost his voice and Tamati Ellison broke his medal—haka can be a dangerous sport!

Since the age of 7 I have been doing haka and competing in the national clubs—it is my love. We must cherish our haka as a traditional Māori performance art form that is unique to New Zealand and, perhaps in doing so, we may understand the richer stories beyond the haka, because every haka expresses a universal truth. Our haka tells us who we are, what we thought of this action or that action of the Government, how we honour our Commonwealth Games swimmers, how we celebrate marriage, how we acknowledge our ancestors, how we welcome people to the marae, and how we pay our final respects to those who have passed beyond the veil.

I was so enthused to see the Pākehā boys of our national swimming team clearly owning the haka as they celebrated and honoured with great joy the efforts of our swimming team in Melbourne. Haka is a point of identity and a point of difference for Māori and, on the world stage, for all New Zealanders. It has such rich potential, as a form of cultural expression, to honour, to welcome, to farewell, to acknowledge, to celebrate, to mourn, and to be. The haka may well be part of our formula towards building a united nation.

First, I acknowledge the speaker before me, Dr Pita Sharples. I have felt the chills go down my spine many times while standing on a marae, in a meeting, or something like that. But to watch telly the other night and see those skinny white boys doing their thing made me feel every chill, as well. I felt they did us really proud, and it is one of those moments when one feels proud to be a Kiwi.

I have been here for 6 months. I came into Parliament on 17 September, so, obviously, I am a new MP. I did not expect to agree with how Labour was running the country. I stood for Parliament because I did not agree with the Government’s agenda and with a lot of things that were happening. I felt that it was not listening to the people, that “Big Sister” knew what was best, and that there was not a real debate going on in society about what sort of society we were going to be. Instead, things were getting pushed through, and decisions were being made at that level. That is what drove me to stand for Parliament.

Things have changed in this term. It is not so much that I do not agree with the Government’s agenda; I have discovered in my short term that I do not feel that it has one. I am struggling to see, quite simply, what this Government is doing, and what it intends to do in this term. It is tired, and there is a real lack of vision. Well, maybe the Government does have an agenda, actually, and maybe that agenda is to do as little as possible.

💬 Hon Annette King: Give us one policy today from the National Party and I will go home happy.

I have just realised that that is something, as well—I thank the member for raising what the National Party policy is—because everything is our fault! Even though the National Party has not been in power for the last 6½ years, everything is actually our fault! Labour has done nothing to fix the Resource Management Act, which it put on our shoulders, and everything else, but that is our fault. The Minister can stand up and veto a decision made by our courts, and it is our fault that he is vetoing that decision. So everything really is about the National Party. I am quite happy for everything to be about me, quite frankly, but it is not.

It has been 6½ years, I tell those Labour members, so it is time to take some responsibility. It is time to actually see a vision. It is time to actually give us some direction on where the country is going, and what they will achieve. They cannot make up their minds about anything. They just say “Let’s review, review, review.” There is no vision; there is just meddling. An example of it today was when the Minister of Health answered questions. [Interruption] Sorry, I should rephrase that, really, should I not? The Minister of Health did not answer the questions. He did not know—

💬 Hon Annette King: Why not ask the questions you want answered?

Well, you probably could have answered them, Annette King—

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

Sorry, I should speak through you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sure that Annette King could have answered the questions, because she has been there for some time—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member brought the Speaker into the debate by using the word “you”.

Sorry, I do apologise for using “you”. As I was saying, through the Assistant Speaker, I feel that answers could perhaps have been given in some other way. But the Minister did not have answers, so he could not answer those questions.

Let us talk about Working for Families, because I notice an agenda is going on with Labour Party members this afternoon. They have all sat down and decided what they will talk about today, and they will talk about Working for Families. I am quite happy to talk about that package. I can give quite a few examples, but here is a nice key one. There are two workers in Auckland, in a company I used to work for, who sit next to each other and do pretty much the same job. They have the same key performance indicators and they are on the same salary. They are doing the same work, they are enjoying their jobs, and they are doing the same hours. But, quite simply, under Working for Families one of them will be getting, through the benefit system, a heck of a lot more money than the other one. Why is that? Because one has younger children and the other has adult children. So are you going to say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has done it again.

Will we say that the work of one of those workers is worth more or less than the work of the other? Will we actually make a judgment like that?

The Government has spent this whole general debate outlining what its policies are, but not one member of the Opposition or the previous speaker said anything about what they would do. There was not one policy from members of the Opposition. I gladly pick up the challenge of the previous speaker to outline what this Government’s position is. It is going forward. More important, it is going forward together. “Ehara taku toa he toa takitini; he toa taki tahi he toa takitini—my strength is not that of one who stands alone, but of one who stands with many.”

Māori are now reflecting their Māori selves in a more vibrant, creative, and innovative way, and this Labour-led Government wants to support that energy and that trend. We are serious about that, because we know we have a good story to tell. Māori are moving forward into new territory and, in part, the Working for Families initiative helps to support that direction by supporting families into work, and by investing in a skilled workforce. We need that. In fact, in the Hui Taumata, it was said by Rob McLeod, one of the members there, that by investing in the human capital of Māori we will do much to elevate opportunity for Māori, going into the next generation.

So I pick up the challenge, and reiterate that this Labour-led Government contributes to a vision for this country of going forward together—all of us, together. We are not leaving people behind. That is why the Working for Families package is so important. Across New Zealand, 350,000 families will benefit from the Working for Families package. We want to support families young and old. We know that on 1 April there will be many good stories to tell, and the announcements will be good for families, good for whānau.

The whole emphasis of the Working for Families package is to support people by giving them a hand up, not a handout. It will help to build a skilled workforce. It will help more people into employment by recognising that it is important to support families where it matters most. How? The Working for Families package will help by providing support for accommodation costs, childcare costs, and in-work payments. Members can go to any case managers who help people move off the benefit into work, and they will tell them that the Working for Families package helps people into meaningful employment—long-term employment. In fact, it helps people who never thought they would ever get off the benefit. I know that the previous speaker knows that more than most. I know she knows that; I know she agrees with this Government; and I know she knows that the Working for Families package will help people to get off the benefit and into long-term, meaningful employment.

How do I know that? Going into communities where it really matters, we hear stories every day about people from real communities and real families who say: “This package actually helps me to see a future not only for myself but for my children. It helps to provide a direction that says they don’t have to be on the benefit. In fact, they can make a meaningful contribution to this society and their community.” That is an important thing. The Working for Families package will help real families in real communities make a difference, not only in their lives but in the lives of their communities.

Māori in New Zealand are in a good position, to some extent. The New Zealand unemployment rate is the lowest in the OECD. The Māori unemployment rate stands at about 7.6 percent—the lowest in 28 years. If that is not a good story, then I do not know what is. The Opposition did not proffer any policy that would help to support people who have been on the unemployment benefit to get back into work. The announcements on 1 April about the Working for Families package will do much to support many families to get back into work. It will help real families in real communities to change and make a difference in their lives, and in the lives of their families, to get ahead. It is a hand up, not a handout.

I want also to talk in brief about the numbers of people in tertiary education, because again 1 April signals quite a significant change in terms of students, and one that is welcomed—interest-free student loans for all those students and graduates in New Zealand. It is great; we hear a number of students saying they want to celebrate that on 31 March.

Last Wednesday was members’ day, and my member’s bill to remove the exemption that Pharmac currently enjoys, under Part 2 of the Commerce Act, was narrowly defeated. Unfortunately, New Zealand First members, who over the last 6 years have complained terribly about what Pharmac is doing to the access to medications in this country, saw fit to support the Government and prevent the bill from going to a select committee.

💬 Mark Blumsky: They are the Government.

💬 Paula Bennett: They are the Government now.

That is dead right. Since then, we have had some toing and froing between the Researched Medicines Industry Association, representing the pharmaceutical industry, and Pharmac, with regard to numbers. Since 1993, when Pharmac was first established, New Zealand has progressively moved backwards in terms of the accessibility of pharmaceuticals for New Zealanders. Less and less choice has been available.

Australia now has 729 chemical entities available on its pharmaceutical benefits schedule, compared with 713 here in New Zealand, and there is a total of 2,500 products on Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits schedule, but only 1,815 here in New Zealand. Earlier this week Pharmac came out disputing those figures, but further investigation showed that when it was counting—on its fingers and toes, presumably—it was fudging the difference between non-medicines and medicines. When Pharmac put its figures out, it included things like condoms, bandages, and peak flow meters—all of valuable assistance to people, of course, but not, in fact, medicines. So there was quite a lot of dishonesty in the figures that were being passed on to the Minister, who then repeatedly stood up in the House during the week and said what a wonderful job we were doing in New Zealand.

Pharmac produced a table, which it has put on its website, and it is very enlightening. It shows the difference in both the breadth and the choice of available funded drugs in each country. What the table does not show, though, and what is even more telling, is the restricted access to medicines, to new pharmaceuticals, in New Zealand.

What has been lost in this whole debate, however, about numbers of listed medicines and those medicines that are not available is the patients themselves and what they cannot get access to. A general practitioner I saw earlier this week gave me several very good examples of things he comes up against day upon day when patients are sitting in front of him in his surgery. The first example—and this is a terrible example of waste—is a patient with quite bad diabetes who requires an insulin pump. Because the general practitioner is not a specialist, when he is prescribing the insulin to go in the insulin pump that the patient uses at home, the general practitioner cannot prescribe the sort of insulin the patient actually needs, because Pharmac rules prohibit that; he must prescribe two different sorts of insulin. The first is the sort that Pharmac says general practitioners, because they are not specialists, have to prescribe. So the patient goes to the pharmacist with his prescription, picks up the two different sorts of insulin, and throws the first one in the rubbish bin outside the pharmacy on his way out, because it is totally useless to him. What a terrible waste that is!

The second patient the general practitioner told me about is a young Māori man who, like many young men of his age, has acne. He has tried all sorts of treatments but nothing has worked, and he requires a drug that specialists can prescribe freely but general practitioners have much more difficulty with because they are not dermatologists. Because the patient gets the medication from his general practitioner he has to pay $60 a month for it, as the prescription attracts no subsidy when it is prescribed by a general practitioner. If the patient were to see a dermatologist he would pay only $5 for a month’s supply of the medicine. The difficulty, though, is that the patient cannot afford to see a dermatologist, because that would cost $175. So he is stuck seeing the general practitioner and paying $60 as opposed to $5 a month. Again, it is absolutely ridiculous.

The third example concerns my own mother-in-law. She has lived a long, hard, fulfilling life, but unfortunately in her old age she has started to develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmac, in its wisdom, despite the fact that in other countries people have ready access to the cholinesterase inhibitors that are very successful in treating those symptoms—only about 30 percent of patients do not respond to such treatment in some way, and 30 percent of patients who do respond get quite a significant reversal of their symptoms over a period of time—is denying patients good-quality treatment.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.