General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The National Party looks forward to this general debate, because this week the Government has come back from the “recess from hell”. It has been the “recess from hell” for the Labour Government, because it has completely lost touch with the country, and it has been completely exposed for its mismanagement across a huge number of portfolio areas.

Not the least of those is Vote Health. Pete Hodgson’s speech was billed as the Minister’s grand vision for health. It was billed as Pete Hodgson’s putting his stamp on the Labour Party’s health policy. But what was it all about? Nine out of the 10 pages of speech notes were all about the National Party and the agenda it has been setting in the debate about the public health services in this country. It was all about National setting the agenda in health, just as we have spent the last adjournment setting the agenda regarding the Government’s hopeless performance in the law and order portfolio. We found out today that the Government has been running a secret criminal release scheme, which puts remand prisoners out into the community without telling anybody about that change in Government policy. This Government is also losing control of the housing portfolio, where the chief executive of Housing New Zealand was paying public servants in order to gag them from talking to members of this House.

If we look across the benches, we see a Minister of Health who is very much under pressure, completely out of his depth, and unable to see the wood for the trees—and he is straining, as the New Zealand Herald stated. What is he straining under? He is straining under the fact that after 6 years of a Labour Government and billions of extra dollars in health, New Zealanders are asking where the extra operations are. This Minister stood up at Victoria University and tried to say that this Government had done 107,000 elective operations and only 8,000 people had been turned away. Well, what about the fact that he is no “Good Shepherd”? A “Good Shepherd” would be more worried about those who were missing out than those who were getting surgery—107,000 elective operations in the last year. That number has dropped from the year before. In fact, it is lower than it was 5 years previously. Fewer New Zealanders are getting elective surgery, and those who are, are a lot sicker than they were 5 years ago.

It is not just the New Zealand National Party Opposition that says that. The Auckland District Health Board says that patients have to be sicker today in order to get an operation than they had to be 5 years ago. The Capital and Coast District Health Board has admitted that people have to be sicker than they had to be 5 years ago in order to get an operation. The Canterbury District Health Board has admitted that people have to be sicker than they had to be 5 years ago in order to get an operation, and this Minister cannot stand up in the House and justify that. All we see are those sorts of Goff-like vein-popping reactions, as the Minister tries to shout, bluff, and blunder his way through answers to questions—and he has no answer at all.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m next!

I am glad Mr Peters interjects, because I know he is concerned about the hundreds of people being dumped off waiting lists in Tauranga. And I know that Mr Peters is concerned about the number of people who die while on the waiting list, in Tauranga. I know he is concerned about the fact that potentially thousands of people in the Bay of Plenty region will be dumped off the waiting list—and we will hear that from the Minister tomorrow.

The Minister’s speech on health was completely bereft of any vision, new ideas, or fresh approach to dealing with the problems he has inherited from the much-overrated Annette King. All the things that she could hide with bluff and blunder, and by pretending not to deal with the issues, are now coming home to roost, and Minister Hodgson is completely incapable of dealing with the vital issues facing the health service. What about the workforce in health? There is a massive shortage of doctors and nurses, but there are plenty of bureaucrats. What about dealing with the issues?

If that was a “recess from hell”, it was a “recess from hell” for the National Party—which entirely disappeared out of the sight of this country for 3 weeks. It was an adjournment where that party so failed to find an issue that it could not even put an adjournment letter before the House yesterday, to demonstrate some area where the Government had not been performing. This Opposition is lacklustre, underperforming, leaderless, directionless, confused, and frustrated, and does not even deserve the title “Opposition”.

A consultant’s letter came out yesterday from a political consultancy firm. It is headed: “Labour still firmly in control”, and it has some good advice for the National Party. It states that National’s leadership crisis is a more urgent issue than some in its caucus would believe. We saw the pretenders for the leadership. There was blustering Bill English, trying to claim that a kid charged with murder would be placed back in his school, when he knew that a condition of bail was that the child was not allowed back into his school. Sean Plunket made a clown of that member yesterday—the tried and failed leader of the National Party trying again, because there is a vacuum there.

Then we had Gerry Brownlee—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

Gerry Brownlee, the man who on the weekend said that National was going to reverse its policy on the Māori seats. Why was it going to do that? Well, National believed in abolishing the Māori seats but would rely on the Māori Party for votes next time, so Gerry Brownlee told the country on Saturday that National had changed the policy. But Don Brash then came back and said no. Poor old Gerry had to turn up at the caucus yesterday and apologise for causing confusion.

Then we have John Key, the other intending assassin. John Key is now saying that maybe National will not have the tax cuts, which were the flagship of the National Party at the last election. Poor old John—he is a nice guy, but try to get a straight answer out of him! The Agenda programme on Saturday morning asked John whether he believed in God. Well, there were four answers: yes, no, maybe, or “Mind your own business.” But we heard 3 minutes of prevarication and no answer. If John Key wants to be the leader of the National Party, then he has to learn to give a straight answer.

We are 6 months now into a new parliamentary term, and this Government has consolidated both its position and its reputation for competency, leadership, and having the vision and the policy agenda to take this country forward—a country that is proud and increasingly confident about its national identity, a country that is on the path to transforming its economy to play a leading role in the 21st century, and a country that is committed to looking after its families, old and young, giving them security, and giving them the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

I want to say something in favour of the National Party. I want to defend it, because I have heard it put around that the National Party is a party that does not believe in anything. I think that is wrong. National members do believe in anything, and that is their problem. They will say yes to any lobby group that comes along. They have no credibility at all. They have no firm principles. The firm principle that “We will not have Māori seats unless we need Māori seats to get us into power.”—that is the strength of principle of the National Party!

Six years and 6 months into Opposition, that party has learnt nothing. That party is no closer to being the Government today than when Bill English stabbed Jenny Shipley in the back for the leadership, or when Don Brash then stabbed Bill English in the back for leadership. Now there are three assassins trying to stab Don Brash in the back, but what Don Brash has got going for him is that not one of those intending assassins is worth anything as a leader. That is why he dribbles along as the leader of the National Party—because there is no option. There is no alternative. In all of the years I have been in this Parliament I have never seen such a hopelessly incompetent Opposition.

I think all in this Parliament would agree—certainly, the public would agree—that Housing New Zealand Corporation is in an absolute shambles. I have to say that today the Minister looked very, very grim when answering questions about the corporation. Yesterday he looked very, very grim when defending his chairman of the board, and today he looked very, very grim when defending him again. I recall quite keenly yesterday the Minister saying that the chairman had acted appropriately and promptly in dealing with the allegations levelled against the corporation about the misappropriation of funds, and with the allegations that the corporation had put a gagging order on a New Zealand citizen, who was not allowed to talk to his or her member of Parliament. Housing New Zealand Corporation said that a New Zealand citizen could not approach and talk to his or her member of Parliament! Could our democracy be undermined by anything worse than a State entity, run by this Labour Government, putting gagging orders on fellow Kiwis so that they could not talk to their elected representative? That is a most appalling situation, indeed—and we have seen the paperwork.

When did the chairman know about the gagging order? That is the big question in the House this week. Today in the House Chris Carter would have us believe that the chairman found out at exactly the same time that he did—that is, when it all blew up in the media, in the Herald on Sunday story. But in trawling through the documents—and we have done that—and the media reports, we have discovered that the chairman of the corporation’s board said that he found out about the gagging order several weeks before the Minister did, when he was listening to talkback radio on Newstalk ZB. Now, did he go and tell the Minister? No, he did not. Did he stick to the no-surprises policy that the Prime Minister demands? No, he did not. Did he keep the Minister abreast of the situation? Clearly, he did not. So on the one hand here we have the Minister, Chris Carter, defending in the House the chairman of the corporation’s board and saying that he heard about it at the same time as he did. On the other hand the Prime Minister is saying that it was inappropriate for the chairman to break the no-surprises policy. Who is right: the Minister, who says that the chairman found out about the gagging order at the same time as he did, or the Prime Minister, who said that the chairman broke the no-surprises policy? Well, that question is up in the air, and this House needs to find the answer very shortly.

Another question we will be putting to the House is simply to ask why the chairman of the board of Housing New Zealand Corporation did not have an external inquiry into the misappropriation of funds when he found out last September. Why did it take media pressure before he called for an inquiry? Why, when he called for an inquiry, did he call in the internal auditors—Housing New Zealand Corporation’s usual internal auditors—but, when he talked to the Minister, discover the sense in actually having an external, independent inquiry by the Auditor-General? Clearly, this chairman is not overseeing the function of the corporation appropriately. We have seen that he is prepared to stand down a senior manager of Housing New Zealand Corporation, based on the gagging order letter, but that he will not oversee the standing down of the chief executive officer, who is also implicated in that gagging letter. This Minister needs to be taken to account for his management of his politically appointed chairman.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are still some members of the House and the listening public who are awake, and therefore I move an extension of time for Mr Heatley.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. I say to the member that he has been here long enough to know that sort of thing can lead to disorder.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During that fine speech from Mr Heatley, one of the members of New Zealand First was speaking to the gallery. I understand that is not allowed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Bennett for that. It is during the course of their speeches that members are not to address the gallery.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. An allegation has just been made about a member of New Zealand First. There are three members of New Zealand First here, and I would like to know which member the allegation refers to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say that the member’s point of order did not stand. It would have stood only if someone who had the call addressed someone outside or in the gallery.

I have to say that was a rich speech coming from a National Party member. Mr Heatley should read the historical annals out there in the corridor. It is a bit rich for him and his kind to come in here and lecture us about Housing New Zealand Corporation, when the National Government deliberately attempted to destroy Housing New Zealand and destroy State housing in this country. No one can argue with that point, because that National Government sold over 12,000 houses. That is why we have long waiting lists; people want to get into the houses that National sold.

Not only did that member stand up and pontificate about housing but he also forgot to mention the building sector and the destroyed apprenticeships that we brought back. As I mentioned at question time, there are few rules in the industry. There is a big dose of amnesia over on that side of the House. Mr Heatley is the biggest example of a headless chook in the National Party that members will ever see—running around with no direction and no brains. He is an exact example of why the National members are on the Opposition benches. They are a rudderless crew—completely rudderless.

I went to the Canterbury Manufacturers Association president’s function last week, and the great speaker, the great man, the great hope for some—they are few; a minority—was one John Key, who was pretending to be the leader. He got up, and he did not give a bad speech—there was lots of stuff about Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew. He had read a book, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000, and expounded knowledge about that. Then it came to a thing called question time. It is always a cracker, question time. I quite enjoy it on both sides. John Key was asked what his policy was on this, that, and the other. I know that the two National Party members there who were there at the time were cringing away at the speech.

Then a very eminent Cantabrian and Kiwi businessman, Angus Tait from Tait Electronics—he is a superb human being—asked the clanger question: “What are you going to do?”. What was the reply from John Key? A bit of dodging and a bit of weaving. He was not quite sure; he could not really say at that moment. Angus is a good guy. He is a bit like a dog with a bone; he does not give up easily. He then called him again and asked: “What are you going to do?”. John Key replied: “Oh, I can’t really say. The election is a while away. I haven’t really done much policy work.”—that type of thing.

I will tell members the feedback from the members of the Canterbury Manufacturers Association that I have talked to, because I have friends and former colleagues in that organisation. They said the speech was long on rhetoric and short on detail. It was a nothing speech. Did he elucidate all the work he may have done on research and development policy or depreciation policy? Did he tell them he was going to backtrack, as National did on the weekend, on tax? No, he did not say that—heck, no. There was no policy. The National Party is a rudderless pack of headless chooks.

I was really gratified after that speech, because I am also told that the National Party MPs turned up at the Canterbury Manufacturers Association and met with its members—as the Labour Canterbury MPs did. I am told David Carter was there. The National MPs gave a briefing; they sat there and pontificated. The people they met with are manufacturers—guys who make things, and smart business people. So what, in an hour and a half of the breakfast meeting, did the National Party MPs talk about to manufacturers? All David Carter could talk about was dog microchipping. There was no policy on manufacturing—and he was a business person, I am told. I tell members that was the feedback from that meeting, and those manufacturers are eminent Kiwis.

I turn briefly to the ACT party, because I cannot resist. There is the ACT party, down from eight members to two. Heather Roy is off to the Territorial Army—she has a lot of time on her hands—and I commend her for that. Good on her! That is honourable—she is off to join the Territorials. Then we have Mr Hide—“Twinkletoes”. I predict Mr Hide will win Dancing with the Stars. Do members know why? Because his two specialist dances will be, first, the hustle—and we know he is the best at it—and, second, the limbo dance because, of course, no one goes lower than Mr Hide. I am also told that his hearing is going. When a producer at Television New Zealand asked him whether he would go on the show because he could dance like Anna Pavlova—the Russian ballet dancer—Mr Hide misheard. He thought the producer had asked him whether he would like a pavlova. He asked for two, and he said yes. Then he told members he was on a crash diet. I am told he is down to four meals a day. So I say what a wonderful contribution Mr Hide and Ms Roy are making. I think Ms Roy is doing a good thing. She will make a better contribution, I hope, to our armed forces—and good on her; we want to encourage that—than she has in here.

But I say to the Opposition over there and their mates from ACT that they are a bunch of headless chooks. They have no policy. Members cannot turn up at a Canterbury Manufacturers Association breakfast, for example, and talk about everything apart from manufacturing. Members cannot turn up and give a keynote speech to eminent business people and when asked: “What would you do if you were Minister of Finance?” say: “Well, I haven’t quite worked that out yet.” Members cannot do that, because that is a huge credibility gap. Our policies are out there. Our economic transformations policies are out there for everyone to see. We are proud of them. National is hollowed out; it has no policy.

I have a bit of advice for Clayton Cosgrove: the Cabinet reshuffle is over. He can relax now. He does not have to come down to the House and try to outperform his colleagues.

The colleague sitting next to Clayton Cosgrove is Mr Paul Swain, and this House has never seen him look as relaxed as he has in recent months. Initially, members of this House thought it was good on the Hon Paul Swain for making a lifestyle decision to spend time with his young child. That was a very wise decision, in my view. But, actually, in recent weeks we have discovered why Paul Swain is looking so relaxed. It is because he has nothing to do with the Department of Corrections any more. He is a mile away from it, and he is loving it. Paul Swain is nodding away furiously there. He loves the fact that those problems have now been landed on the lap of his good friend Damien O’Connor. Every time a question about the Department of Corrections is raised in this House or a press release goes out, the word around the building is that Mr Swain leans back in his chair, puts his hands behind his head, and says he thanks goodness he has nothing to do with that department any more.

We discovered over the adjournment that more and more problems are coming out of the Department of Corrections. My personal favourite was the fact that in these times of fiscal prudence, the taxpayer will spend $11 million on landscaping four prisons. It does not matter which way the public looks at it; that is a lot of ferns and a lot of pavers. The Government is trying to spin the line that certain environmental standards set by certain local councils have to be met in order for prisons to be built in their areas. That is not the case in terms of two out of four of those prisons. In Spring Hill’s case, we will spend $4.34 million on landscaping that prison. Members may call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that prisons were supposed to be a bit unpleasant, and that the outlook for prisoners was not supposed to be particularly scenic. But this Government has no compunction at all in dealing out hard-earned taxpayers’ money in a way that leads us to believe the only thing that will happen to Paul Swain over the next 6 months is that he is likely to become more and more relaxed and more and more happy.

I can tell this House, and I can tell Damien O’Connor, his staff, and his department, that the Department of Corrections is leaking like a sieve. If that Minister thinks that the leaked internal memo presented to the House today is the last of it, let me reassure him that it is the first of it. The Department of Corrections is leaking like a sieve, and there is much more to come. So during the time that we have a $490 million budget blowout on the new prisons, what does the Department of Corrections decide to do for the individual charged with overseeing the construction programme?

💬 Mark Blumsky: Pay him more.

Pay him more. So $1,000 a day plus GST when the original contracts—I was going to say were tendered, but that is not quite right, I say to Mr Mark. They were never tendered originally, nor were they tendered at the second bite. I say to Mr Swain that it was only the third bite that saw those contracts tendered. In the meantime, we have seen the people in charge of producing those prisons have a 30 percent pay increase, taking their pay to $1,800 a day plus GST. That is $2 million over the time the prison-building project has taken so far, to the point where nearly half a billion dollars has blown out in that budget.

That money could have been spent on quality rehabilitation programmes. That money could have been spent on quality employment programmes for inmates. But, no, that money is being paid out to an entity and an ex-Department of Corrections individual who are completely wrecking the building project process by having those budget blowouts. Then what does the Government do? It pays the individual concerned more for the privilege of doing that, which is just extraordinary.

On top of that, in recent weeks we have seen such a range of appalling revelations in the corrections area that I predict Paul Swain will grow hair over the next 6 months, because he will be so relaxed. He will grow hair, and it will go from a distinguished grey to a young, fawn brown colour, as all the pressure lifts off his shoulders. I predict that all the hair dye in the world will not save Damien O’Connor from going grey over the next 6 months, because we have only just begun on our revelations.

During the adjournment I went to Happy Valley, a beautiful area of native bush, very fragile wetlands, and a thriving ecosystem of native birds and animals. Happy Valley is on the West Coast of the South Island, just north-east of Westport. It takes a few hours to climb up there—for me, especially—but I strongly recommend it. It is well worth the effort.

💬 Hon Member: I thought she was talking about Malaita.

Not quite Malaita—it is much prettier than Malaita.

Happy Valley is home to many threatened species, including the great spotted kiwi and the native patrickensis land snail, kākā, kārāriki, and western weka. New Zealand falcon, kea, kererū, and the long-tailed cuckoo have also been seen in that area. The valley is now also the home of a long-term occupation of committed environmentalists who, since January of this year, have been highlighting the devastation intended by Solid Energy’s plans for an open-cast mine. The mine will consist of two open-cast pits covering half of the 265 hectare site. The open pits will be up to nearly 100 metres deep. Solid Energy will extract 500,000 tonnes of coal from the mine every year for 10 years, mostly for export. This will require the removal of 29 million cubic metres of the rock and soil that cover the coal, approximately half of which will be acid-forming. The Government has estimated that between the Stockton and Happy Valley mines, up to 6.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere per annum.

The chief executive of Solid Energy, Don Elder, has been reported as stating that there will be no net increase in jobs for the West Coast from the Happy Valley mine, but despite this the classic tension between those who support the mine, ostensibly for jobs, and those who want to protect New Zealand’s indigenous species from extinction is raging again. Conservationists, like Coaster Peter Lusk, are being subjected to criminal harassment, threats, property damage, and abuse because of their conservation ethic. There is no justification for that criminal behaviour; we are supposed to live in a free country.

When I went to the valley I spoke to a few of the locals. One guy I met told me that his family was brought to the Coast a hundred years ago for the mining, but although coalmining attracted his old people to the Coast, it will not be coalmining that keeps him and his family there. In fact, he does not work at the mine; he is in the tourism industry.

The fact is that Westland can no longer rely on extractive resources as the basis of its economy. It simply must move towards sustainability if it is to have any hope of surviving in the future. There are alternatives to extractive resources. For example, significant dairying—which has good features and bad features—is going on there. It could be better developed for the area, with a stronger emphasis on local processing into high-value cheeses, for example—and at least the area has good rainfall, as opposed to the drought-ridden dairy farms of Canterbury.

Ecotourism is a growing development on the Coast. There is plantation forestry, which could be very significant if highly skilled wood-processing facilities are established. If that industry was to be combined with the development of the port, so that the Coast does not have to keep transporting everything to Christchurch by train, the Coast would then have the beginnings of the infrastructure it needs to grow a local, independent, and sustainable economy that is not reliant on the destruction of the very natural resources on which it depends. Those examples are at least some attempts to move away from extractive resources, which not only lead to the extinction of native species but also to acid mine drainage, for example, that poisons the rivers on which those other industries and the community depend.

It is also crucial that the value of development remains on the Coast. Solid Energy’s profits do not go back to the Coast. They are sent elsewhere and benefit other areas. Regional business support schemes, strong ecotourism, and “buy local” strategies would all keep Coast money in Coast hands. Supporting coalmining on the grounds that it provides jobs for Coasters is dishonest and irresponsible. It binds the Coast to an unsustainable, dead-end economic cycle that will only eat away at those very communities, either because they push away committed Coasters like Peter Lusk, or because the economic opportunities become so narrow and mean that it is no longer viable to live and raise a family there.

The only way to avoid conflict between the conservationists and Coasters over issues like the snails in Happy Valley is to protect the economic future of the Coast through truly sustainable opportunities.

“To be, or not to be,”—that indeed is the question. It is a famous line from that well-known English writer William Shakespeare—from Act III, Scene I of the famous play Hamlet. In the last few weeks this country has witnessed a modern version of that play, starring and directed by Gerry Brownlee and Don Brash. To be or not to be? That is the question the public is asking. There is mass confusion out there amongst the people who saw Don Brash at Ōrewa. He made that wonderful speech about how he would abolish the Māori seats and everything Māori. The speech in Ōrewa catapulted his popularity in the polls—and led to mass confusion over who really was the leader of the National Party.

The co-leader of the Māori Party Tariana Turia said yesterday: “Of course, he did not behave like that after the election. He did not care that our seats were won through the Māori seats.” She went on to say: “I cannot quite read the National Party leader.” I say to Tariana Turia that I support her 100 percent. So, probably, do 99 percent of the people of this country and the public who are listening to this debate. What is sadder, I believe, is that 90 percent of those who supported Don Brash in his Ōrewa speech are also confused right now as to who the leader of the National Party is.

I will outline for members the script of a new play. This, then, is Act I of “To Be or Not to Be”, a play about National and the Māori seats. National members want one thing; Don Brash wants another. People can imagine the stage. The curtain rises; enter, Don Brash. His first line is: “I think having any Māori representation at any level of Government is a fundamental mistake, dangerous for New Zealand’s future.” He goes on to say: “We have already said we are not in favour of separate Māori electorates. We propose to scrap them if we become Government.”—God help us!—“The issue is, therefore, do we contest them because they still exist or do we not contest them on the grounds that we do not think that they should exist?”. The play goes on with his next line: “We do not see the logic of retaining the Māori seats themselves. We think the whole logic for those seats has long gone.”

Enter, Gerry Brownlee. In response to this question from a reporter: “Would you be prepared to move away from your policy of abolishing the Māori seats?”, Gerry Brownlee says: “Well, that is a question that I think we need to ask, and that is why I am raising it.” Now, enter, the king of the waka jumpers, Tau Henare, whose line is: “We will not get rid of them in the next 3 years, so they are around for the next election cycle and most probably the one after that, as well. I mean, it is all about what we put on the table and whom you negotiate with after the election.” The star, Dr Brash, then says: “Well, I am making it clear to you that the National Party remains committed to the abolition of the Māori seats.” Georgina te Heuheu’s line is: “I have always thought that one day the seats would not be needed and that Māori should make that choice. I question whether the time has come.”

I can imagine Georgina te Heuheu, a very respected wahine from Ngāti Tūwharetoa, climbing on the volcano of Tongariro and wondering what was happening to the National Party. Tony Ryall has said: “The National Party’s policy has always been that the Māori seats will go when the Māori people chose for them to go.”, and Bill English has said: “The new voters will be young and brown, and if we’re not getting their vote, we’re not going to get into Parliament at all.” That is the party that the Māori Party wants to dance with on the political stage. I wonder what the voters of Te Tai Tokerau, Tamaki Makaurau, Waiariki, and Te Tai Hauauru think about all that.

I suggest that that member leave Shakespeare alone and concentrate on the shameful position that Helen Clark has taken on PlunketLine. If we are going to bring out the old cliché of “to be or not to be”, we should remember that thousands of mothers and families who use the Plunket service are wondering just that question. The Prime Minister’s position on PlunketLine is duplicitous, dishonest, and just plain dumb. We have seen an explanation in the House today from the Prime Minister that demonstrates exactly the misinformation that the Government is pedalling about PlunketLine.

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is unparliamentary to refer to a member as duplicitous and dishonest, and I ask that that comment be withdrawn.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, if the member had been listening she would have heard that I did not refer to Helen Clark; I referred to the position and the argument. I am able to do that under the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Just before the member resumes her speech, I tell members that the use of cellphones in the House is not permitted. They should be switched off within the debating chamber. The use of cellphones is against Speakers’ rulings.

If we are looking at misinformation, we need to look only at the answers that were given in the House today. Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson continue to point out that PlunketLine handles only one in nine calls. What they do not point out is that PlunketLine is contracted to handle only a certain number of calls, and the number of calls to PlunketLine far outnumbered the volume of calls paid for by the Government. What they also do not point out is that Healthline had a huge resource that was not available to PlunketLine.

In terms of the low call-answering rates, Ministers ignore that at certain times Healthline had three times the number of nurses answering one-third of the call volume that PlunketLine had to face. Of course, Healthline looked like a star. What Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson have not explained is why the Government has snubbed a national icon for a multinational. Being overseas-owned is not in itself an issue, but if one looks at the directors on that board, one will find that there is not one domiciled director of McKesson New Zealand Ltd. Members can contrast that with PlunketLine. Kay Crowther and Plunket are supported by hundreds of thousands of Kiwi mothers and babies who use that service.

The Government does not point out that it has given the Well Child service to an organisation that has limited experience in handling Well Child calls. McKesson does not even have enough nurses to answer the calls. Evidence of that can be seen in the local papers, where it is advertising for Well Child nurses. It is salt in Plunket’s wounds that most of the nurses will actually come from its own service to staff the new service run by McKesson.

This Government continues to put out misinformation and to promote the idea that Plunket has made huge mistakes. Actually, Plunket was caught between a rock and a hard place. The Government paid for it to answer only up to 70,000 calls. Plunket surpassed that contracted figure; it answered 76,000 calls. The problem for Plunket was that it was a successful service, and double that number of people tried to call. The Government should introduce a bit of honesty to the debate, and take into account how New Zealanders feel about that service.

One of the things that many New Zealanders already feel for Plunket is a great amount of trust; they do not feel that trust for Healthline. When mothers speak to a Plunket nurse or a PlunketLine nurse, there is already an inherent trust that has been built up over a hundred years. They do not feel that way when they talk to any other Government agency—a Department of Child, Youth and Family Services worker, or a worker from Work and Income New Zealand. They will talk about certain sorts of things with Plunket nurses; they will not do so with other people.

PlunketLine is a well-known brand. Now the Government will give millions of dollars to Healthline so it can be promoted. That was not necessary, because most New Zealanders know PlunketLine—it is probably one of the most well-known brands in this country. One of the things that needs to be emphasised is the connection that organisation has with New Zealand families, and that has been built up over a hundred years. That connection cannot be replaced by a new organisation.

The key issue here is the two-faced way that some members of Parliament who are still in this House campaigned while in Opposition to save PlunketLine, yet they do something else when they are in a position of power. Helen Clark led protests up and down this country to save the service. She said: “Don’t let PlunketLine go cold.” But she is the very person to axe it—the very person who has made the decision that PlunketLine will not be supported. So I think she needs to look at herself in the mirror. Her political nose has gone off. Now she is backing something that in Opposition she spoke very strongly against.

When leadership is in question, divisions are rife. That is what we have in the National Party. There is no leadership, and that leads to what my colleague referred to earlier, if I could use his words, as the “headless chook” syndrome. During National’s 3-day caucus in Taupō some time ago, its number one leadership contender, John Key, suggested that one of National’s own MPs was behind claims that he was running a campaign of destabilisation against Dr Brash. The MP had accused Mr Key in the Weekend Herald of encouraging media speculation about the leadership, and claimed the caucus was furious with the finance spokesperson. The claims about a destabilisation campaign were regarded by Mr Key’s supporters as an attempt by the Brash camp to spoil any attempt Mr Key might make on the leadership. John Key confirmed he knew who the individual in the caucus was, but he declined to name the person and said he would not be confronting him or her.

That level of toxicity within a party tends to be terminal for one contender or the other. The question is which contender it will be terminal for. Over half of National’s supporters backed John Key to replace Dr Brash. A TV3 poll showed that 33 percent of National voters wanted Dr Brash to be replaced, which is a margin that must surely be causing the National leader some discomfort. Perhaps of even greater discomfort to Dr Brash was the clear-cut result—again, amongst National voters—when National voters were asked who should replace Dr Brash, if there were to be a change in leadership. The polls showed overwhelming support—some 53 percent—for John Key to have the top job.

That level of dissatisfaction with the current leader is clearly causing concern within the National Party. It must be causing some of the more able, new intake of National MPs to despair. One of two of them with, perhaps, some useful ability to bring to this House are sitting back and watching their front bench lead them to disaster. This cannot be what they thought would happen when they put themselves up for selection.

There is, however, a cure for their ailment. It is policy. Where there are ideas, where there are policy initiatives, and where there are novel solutions to the challenges before New Zealand, even a divided caucus will fall in behind its leaders and work together to address the critical issues of the day. Where there is a compelling vision behind which thoughtful polices are positioned, there will be a united caucus effort to realise them. The truth is that the National Party has neither a compelling vision nor any policy, thoughtful or otherwise, behind it. Dr Brash is incapable of articulating a vision, and incapable of leading policy development to a point where it can be remembered—even by himself—and that is driving the National caucus to gnaw itself to pieces.

In marked and absolute contrast to the National Party, Labour has a vision for this country of economic transformation, shared prosperity, inclusive celebration of our identity as New Zealanders, and giving families the best chance possible to bring up their children. We have secure, capable, and popular leadership. We have an easily articulated vision of pride in our country and its achievements. We have a team fired up on our policies and on moving forward to get them supported and implemented. In stark contrast to the lame, divided, inarticulate, unpersuasive Opposition, Labour will continue to lead this Government in a way that New Zealanders who care about fairness for all can be proud of. The policies that we have, and that we are working to get implemented and to gain popular support for, and on which we campaigned and—in fact—won the election, are policies around economic transformation, fairness to people, and giving families the best opportunity possible to bring up their children. They are about ensuring that the prosperity of this country is given a chance to continue to grow, and that it moves along on a stable policy platform and is shared equitably among New Zealanders.

I remind the House this afternoon that the original intent of Parliament in introducing the microchipping law for dogs was the protection of New Zealand children from dog attacks. I also remind the House that all of the parties in this House, with the single exception of ACT, voted in favour of the new microchipping regime. That included the Green Party and the National Party. Those facts seem to have been lost sight of in recent days, when we have seen some real flip-flops in their positions. I say that that was the intent of the microchipping law, and I liken it to the attempts of Parliament, over many years, to reduce the road toll. If we can take a step, as a Parliament, to protect New Zealand children from dog attacks, then we should do so. That was what we had in mind a couple of years ago, when we put the legislation in place.

Having said that, I want to say immediately, however, that United Future supports an exemption from microchipping for working farm dogs. We support an exemption for two reasons. First of all, 40 percent of all dogs in New Zealand are working farm dogs, but dog attacks on farms constitute about 2 percent of all the dog attacks in New Zealand. In other words, 40 percent of our dogs are working farm dogs, but they are responsible for less than 2 percent of the dog attacks that occur on a daily basis in this country. Second, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that in New South Wales there has been a microchipping regime for about 7 years in which all applicable dogs are microchipped. But in that state, where about 28 percent of all dogs are farm dogs, working farm dogs are excluded from the regime.

Accordingly, the position that United Future has on this matter is one of principle. It addresses the real issue, which is the 98 percent of dog attacks that are committed by non - working farm dogs, and has regard to the reality that those attacks occur within urban communities and not on farms. Let us not forget that all of this happened after a dog attack occurred in an urban community on little Carolina Anderson. I was here in Parliament when people from Auckland and other parts of New Zealand came here in big numbers. They said we must address the issue and make the streets of New Zealand’s cities and towns safer for children when it comes to attacks from dogs.

We do not resile from our support for the principle of a microchipping regime. Nor will we, just because the Greens have done a massive backflip. They informed the press of this country 24 hours ago that they supported an exemption for working farm dogs, and then last night they went and said that no, it was all or nothing and they opposed microchipping in total. That is illogical and not a good example—

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Copeland is making a serious misrepresentation of the facts of the Green Party position. What is your advice as to how we can remedy that misrepresentation in the House, as it misleads this House and may bring the House into disrepute?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I suggest to the member that what we have is a debating matter, and misrepresentation must follow from the speech of the member. If he is misrepresenting what the member previously said, that is a different matter. If not, then it is a debating matter.

Nor will we resile from our position on the microchipping of dogs, with the exception I mentioned of working farm dogs, just because the National Party has decided to jump on the Greens’ bandwagon by abandoning in total the requirement to improve safety for children in our towns and cities in this country. I think that is a disgraceful action.

National has chosen to go with a narrow interest group. United Future supports the farmers—I have made that very clear—and that is what our amendment aims to do. But to do that at the cost of abandoning the children in our towns and cities is just not acceptable to United Future. We will therefore persevere with our Supplementary Order Paper to exempt farm dogs from microchipping, and we will not, in any circumstances, join with the Greens and National in trying to repeal the regime in total.

My advice to the Greens and National is simply this. You do not have the numbers to repeal this legislation. Therefore, if you are sincere in your intentions, you should at least go—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate.

I beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise for that. But my advice to the Green and National parties is that they, as parties, knowing that they do not now have the numbers to repeal the microchipping legislation, should go back to the position they had 24 hours ago. The National Party has already said it will support an exemption for farm dogs. [Interruption] Yes, it has said that today publicly, and the Greens should do the same thing. That would mean that we are back to where we were and New Zealand gets a good outcome. We must keep in mind the two realities that we are endeavouring to protect children from dog attacks, and that farm dogs, by and large, are not involved in those attacks.

How do we describe this Opposition? It is hard to work it out, but I have heard a few of my parliamentary colleagues use the phrase “headless chooks” and I think that fits. It is a very, very apt description. Why are Opposition members headless chooks? They are headless chooks because, first of all, they are leaderless. There does not seem to be any leadership coming from the Opposition whatsoever, and they are running around in circles like headless chooks. They are running around in circles because they cannot decide what their policy platform is, and what it is not. As we have witnessed in previous months, they have been scratching around in the dirt, as headless chooks do. That is what they have been spending their time doing.

In today’s debate I think we have seen that the description of headless chooks has been even more apt, because there has been a really good impersonation of Chicken Little hanging around in this debating chamber today. Chicken Little—the sky is still falling. That is what we have heard during this debate. The sky, which we have been waiting to fall in for 7 years now, is still about to fall in. Headless chooks are being Chicken Little yet again today. So, the sky has not fallen in and, even though we have had those predictions now for 7 years, we just keep going forward and New Zealand keeps going forward in terms of its statistics in the OECD. We keep proving ourselves and the country is going forward.

Just like headless chooks, Opposition members are all right when they are kept in the coop. If they are kept cooped up, they can run around in circles, bump into the fence, and peck each other, but they are still contained so it is not too difficult. But what happens when they are let out of the coop—if they are given a parliamentary adjournment? I ask members what happened during the parliamentary adjournment. First of all, we had the National Party regional conference. I was looking forward to seeing what its vision and strategy would be; I thought good policy could come from the regional conference. National members were let out of the coop—let out during the parliamentary adjournment—and, sadly, once again, they quickly exposed their lack of strategy and their lack of cohesion.

So what did we get from the regional conference? We got a lot of confusion about what actually is the National Party’s stance on the Māori seats, for example. That comes hot on the heels of the debacle of National’s last caucus gathering in Taupō during the last parliamentary adjournment. Really, the chickens should be kept in the coop. They are displaying no leadership on the important issues—issues like the Māori seats and antinuclear legislation. What is the National Party position on those issues? Confused? It certainly is.

💬 David Bennett: What about economic growth?

That must be particularly confusing for that member, and the other new National MPs. It must be particularly confusing for them. They add further confusion to the mix. As Ruth Berry noted in the New Zealand Herald, the maiden speeches of National’s new MPs raised more eyebrows in the House because of their repeated acknowledgment of matters Māori. That is true of the new, male, provincial members in particular. Ruth Berry wrote that National’s “PC Eradicator”, Wayne Mapp, “must have wondered where he was supposed to look when Napier’s earnest Chris Tremain delivered nearly half his speech in te reo.” That just adds to all the confusion. It is no wonder there is division in National.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Where is the “PC Eradicator”, I wonder?

Yes, where is he? It is no wonder there is division in National’s caucus. In contrast—and, thank goodness, there is a contrast—to that performance, is Labour’s. Labour is in Government to make a difference for the better, and we are making a difference for real people in real families in good, practical ways. We are not fighting against ourselves; we are getting on and doing the job.

So what did getting on and doing the job mean for the Labour Government during the parliamentary adjournment? It meant that almost three in every four New Zealand families with dependent children are now entitled to family assistance tax credits. I am sure that while we were working during the parliamentary adjournment, and while school children were on holiday, that policy made a real and practical difference to New Zealand families. I know it did. What else was going on during the parliamentary adjournment? Well, students were having their first interest-free break from lectures. What a relief that must have been for them. New Zealand is going forward.

I listened to that contribution with interest. I think that the one sentence that actually said something to me was the sentence in which the honourable member said she and the Labour Government want to make a difference for the better for real people in a real way. Much else that was said was just an attack on the National Party. The Labour member who spoke a couple of calls before that, spoke very well on a number of issues, but she told us that Labour stood for fairness. Well, let me invite Labour members, and indeed National members, to think about what is fair in this country. What should be done to make things fairer and to make a difference for real people in a real way?

This issue is a small thing, but it is a very important thing, and it is an issue that New Zealand First has stood by, and will stand firm on for many a day yet. We want GST to be removed from petrol. It has now reached the level of a fraction under 19c a litre on 91 octane petrol, and a good deal more on 96 octane petrol. Something in the vicinity of $700 million in GST is now being collected by the Government, and much of that is a windfall tax. It is a tax that the Government has not budgeted for; it just takes it and pockets it.

I heard the Minister of Revenue today repeat what the Minister of Transport said a few days ago on television, and I heard the Minister of Finance say the same thing: that when people buy petrol at the expense of something else, that makes the whole thing tax-neutral. That is a myth—a fallacy.

To put it simply—and I have put it simply because I am not allowed much time—there are three categories of people. There are people who can afford to buy petrol whatever the price, and whatever other commodity they also need. In other words, the increased GST is a windfall gain. I recognise that there are people who, when they fill their cars with petrol, have to make a choice. They know that if they fill the car up that week to take the children to school or take grandparents around, or whatever, they will have to cut out something else. That, it might well be argued, is tax-neutral. The third category of people are those who have to fill their tank with petrol but cannot pay their accommodation costs—their rent or their mortgages, which are GST exempt—and that represents a gain to the Minister of Finance.

I have to say that when we look at the exemptions—and there are not many of them; accommodations costs are one, financial services costs are another, and charitable donations are a third—we see that, in essence, the tax take by this Government is increasing at the expense, to some degree, of charitable donations and, to some degree, of people paying their mortgages or their rent. We say that is not good enough.

Would the Government lose all the $700 million, or whatever figure it is, if it removed GST from petrol? The simple answer is no, because many businesses use petrol to drive their equipment, their cars, and what have you. A successful business, which most businesses are, makes a deduction for the GST it paid on fuel, or indeed on any other commodity, against the GST it owes the Government. If, say, a business accrued $100 in GST on fuel-related earnings but spent $10 on GST, it will pay the Government $90. If that business has paid no GST on the cost of its petrol, then it will pay the Government the full $100.

New Zealand First is saying, as strongly and as loudly as it can, that it is about time we parliamentarians recognised the importance of a car to an individual in this country. I am not saying anything against public transport, but people need their cars, and they cannot afford to go out and buy smaller cars, as some people have suggested, because the loss of capital value is huge. I note that the Automobile Association has taken up this issue since the election. The Automobile Association is an organisation that represents over 1 million motorists. We in New Zealand First say that it is about time that the Government and the finance sector of the Government looked outside the square and applied some reasonable, compassionate thought to the tax take in this country.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.