General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What is happening in the Labour caucus, when yesterday in the House we saw Clayton Cosgrove get up and talk about “when Dr Cullen gets hit by a bus”? One knows what sorts of conversations are going on when one’s colleagues start saying things like: “What happens when Dr Cullen gets hit by a bus?”. Well, one thing is quite clear: Helen Clark wishes he would get hit by a bus, because when his Budget went flat, when the public did not get the share of the surplus it is entitled to, and when he was strongly criticised, Helen Clark said and did nothing. In fact, it was so extraordinary that it passed the notice not only of the media but also of many politicians. I can never recall a Minister of Finance delivering a Budget, then having to handle the criticism without the support of the Prime Minister. That is what happened.

Helen Clark cannot make up her mind about tax cuts. She knows tax cuts are very popular and deserved among the workers of New Zealand, but they are totally unpopular among the people who purport to be the representatives of the workers. So now she has a problem—which is why she kept quiet—and it is how to get some tax cuts on the agenda without fatally undermining Dr Cullen’s credibility. That is why members opposite want him to go, because then they will not have to make the choice. Well, the bus that will hit Dr Cullen is one sitting in a street in Mount Roskill. And who is sitting in that bus waiting, waiting, waiting? It is Phil Goff. Not only is he waiting but he is smiling, because he has seen the efforts of his friend and colleague Trevor Mallard, who, in an extraordinary show last weekend on TV, said he wanted the job of Minister of Finance. It is OK for John Key to say that, and it is OK for back-benchers like Shane Jones to go around saying that they deserve the job, but when one’s Associate Minister, a close friend of Helen Clark and message boy for her, says he is putting his hand up for the finance job, then that is another message for Dr Cullen, telling him it is time to go.

I hope Trevor Mallard gets the job, because he has no credibility. But that is a short-term point of view. It would be bad for the New Zealand economy for a man who cannot tell the difference between an asset and a liability to get the job of Minister of Finance. In his case, though, I can understand it, because Trevor Mallard’s assets are his liabilities—his ability to make up anything that comes into his head, to make up wild allegations he cannot justify, including, last week, when we were faced with the very serious business of electricity supply. Electricity supply is one of the biggest public issues at the moment, and that Minister just made up a number. He got up and said that the Government was investing five times as much in electricity supply as was invested in the 1990s. As my colleague Nick Smith pointed out, it is actually investing less. It is not investing 500 percent more; it is investing about 10 percent less. But that does not bother Trevor. Well, Mr Mallard is not going to get the job and Phil Goff is. Helen Clark knows that the sooner that happens in the Labour Party the better, because Dr Cullen—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Why isn’t David Cunliffe in the mix?

That is a very good question, because I think he is an outstanding product of the Labour Party—and I am not the only who thinks that, because so does he! The only one who thinks he is a more outstanding product is Shane Jones. The problem is that Dr Cullen has the job, and those members are just back-bench pretenders. Helen Clark wants Dr Cullen to go, and I think he knows it. Chris Trotter, that close friend of the Labour Party, has got it right. Dr Cullen has lost his patience with the electorate and with the Labour Party and has ended up being where he always wanted to be—being the only one who is right. Everyone else is wrong, and he now no longer has the patience to take the criticism, to do the deals, to make the trade-offs, and to fend off his Cabinet. And his Cabinet colleagues will be putting pressure on him, because he is trying to put the lid on their expenditure. He is trying to stop the runaway train of Labour Ministers who have fed, and fed, and fed money to everyone who ever asked for it. And how is he going to stop them? I do not know. I do not know when Labour is going to take the call—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please sit down.

This is the first general debate in history in which the Labour Party has not sought the call. Well, I will just keep on going—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please sit down.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What do we get? We get a poodle like you, “Mr 20 Percent Loser” of the National Party—

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

My point of order is this. The bell was rung in the general debate, and we all know what it means. No prior notice is given; the bell ringing means that members must stop their speeches. The member kept on speaking for the next 30 seconds. He abused you as Assistant Speaker, ignoring you by turning his back on you, and you let him get away with that. There is not a separate set of rules for other members of Parliament. He should have been ejected from the House because of his contempt for the Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Peters for that. I was waiting for another member to call. But I just say to the member on my left that he has only 5 minutes in a general debate. He knows that. He is not entitled to continue just because no one else takes the call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether, in my 16 years here, this issue has come up before. It is so unusual for this to happen. As I understand it, the determination of who is speaking, and when, is ultimately with you, Mr Assistant Speaker, not with the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House rings the bell; he does not decide whose call to take—you do. Members call and you take those calls. In this case, because there was no call, we were left with the option that the House would have fallen silent—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has made his point; he will please be seated. I just say that if no one takes the call, the debate lapses and finishes. The member should have been seated—and we have both learnt.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not take the call, because I thought it would be rude to interject while the person was still speaking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that, but I ask her now to take the call, because in a general debate the bell goes at 5 minutes—that is it, and everyone knows that. If someone does not take the call, then the whole debate lapses.

Last October Darrin Haimona, the chief executive of Waikato-based Ngāti Hauā Healthcare, told a domestic violence conference in Auckland that prior to European settlement, the role of women and children in Te Ao Māori was one of “divinity and sanctity”. The concepts of divinity and sanctity are ones that I have been again considering, in the aftermath of the latest tragedies that add further to our national shame.

The answers lie within ourselves. Researchers, historians, and analysts have revealed that in traditional life, abuse by Māori against women and children was regarded as a whānau concern—whānau who would inevitably take action to restore the balance. Indeed, Stephanie Milroy has noted that “the community intervened to prevent and punish violence against one’s partner in a very straightforward way”. The strategy in those times, of recognising the central importance of whānau empowerment and liberation as a way of addressing violence is just as applicable today as it was then.

So how did we get to a situation where our divine nation is ranked as the third worst among 27 OECD nations for child deaths, behind Mexico and the United States? How did we get to a situation where Child, Youth and Family reports that 30 new cases of abuse are confirmed each day? These are real questions, and they are questions that all members in this House must ask themselves. But they are also questions that every member of every family in this nation must consider as we step up to the challenge of addressing abuse and violence within our families.

Child Abuse Prevention Services chief executive officer, Tau Huirama, has risen to that challenge, saying that the best way to stop these tragedies from occurring is speaking out. He says that too many people are closing their eyes and looking the other way. Well maybe he has a point. It is time to stop the useless hand-wringing, the desperate blaming game, and the knee-jerk judgments that being Māori, being a teen parent, or being a single parent is the cause of this nation’s woeful record. The Māori Party has consistently spoken of our desire to ensure that all people realise their potential, that the gifts and special qualities of every New Zealander are supported, and that our families are treasured as the collective cultural capital of Aotearoa. Gasping in horror or pointing the finger of blame will not achieve anything. We need as a nation to commit, as a nation, to protecting all our vulnerable, innocent tamariki through building a strong family network around them. And we can start that new beginning here, today, in this Parliament.

I was reflecting back on a time some 6 years ago, after another similar child tragedy had gripped the nation. Māori members of Parliament from Labour, National, New Zealand First, the Alliance, and ACT met together in a wonderful demonstration of kotahitanga, the principle of unity of purpose and direction. We were all sickened by the very thought of losing another child, and shared together our various histories and strategies that could be useful in making a difference. As it turned out, the politics power-game prevented the good ideas of that cross-party parliamentary team from ever taking life, but the very experience of working together for a common goal showed to me that it was definitely possible. It happened then; it could happen again.

My colleague Hone Harawira yesterday shared some of the exciting initiatives occurring in the north, with the Amokura project, and spoke of the Ngāti Kahungunu violence-free iwi approach. There are many other good ideas that we could call on. Te Korowai Aroha has much that they could share about Project Mauriora, which has produced teams of whānau practitioners who take practical steps to dispel the illusion that violence is acceptable. The Family First Lobby believes that we could reduce the prevalence of child abuse by providing relationship, marriage, and parenting education, and early intervention support, so that families have optimal chances for success. There is the Family Start programme, instituted by the Government, which I believe has a huge opportunity to make a difference.

There will be many other ideas, right across this House and right throughout Aotearoa, that we could call on to help restore our nation to a world where children are truly cherished as symbols of divinity and sanctity. The Māori Party calls for that transformation to begin today, with this Parliament, working across Parliament to find solutions to what is truly a tragic situation.

It is a pleasure to follow such a thoughtful contribution from Tariana Turia. I thank her for her contribution, and say there will be no difficulty for the Government in working with the Māori Party—and, I hope, with other members—on an issue of this gravity. Her words were very well placed, and I congratulate her on them.

There was an election campaign 9 months ago, in which the National Party said an $11 million bribe would probably be enough to get it into power. It said it would put the money on the table—it was money that it did not have—and see whether it got a big enough bite. But when that bribe was put to the sniff test, the New Zealand population said it did not think the bribe was affordable, and that it would rather have a future where there was investment in services, investment in infrastructure, and investment in economic development.

So this Government was returned to office. Within 6 months the results of our promises had started to flow—we began to deliver. On 1 April this year we rolled out the next phase of the Working for Families package. We said that interest on student loans would be abolished on 1 April this year. Those were policies that National fought bitterly. National fought them in the public press and in the House, and it certainly fought them throughout the campaign. National does not like the idea of addressing childhood poverty, if it comes at the expense of tax cuts for the rich. It does not like the idea of lightening the load of the New Zealand student population, if it comes at the cost of lightening the tax load on the rich.

The problem for National is that more is coming. We are now just a week and a bit away from the next tranche—on 1 July this year more promises will be kept. Month after month and year after year, this Government keeps its promises and rolls out solutions to the problems that it sees are facing this country. So it is with the next phase of the primary health organisation roll-out. From 1 July a further 700,000 New Zealanders will have access to lower doctors’ fees and to prescription charges of $3. That is the second to last change in the low fees roll-out of the Primary Health Care Strategy. The last phase of the roll-out will happen on 1 July next year, when 25 to 44-year-olds will get access to cheaper doctors’ visits and a $3 prescription charge.

Did National like that policy? It did not. Does National oppose it? Yes, it does—it is National’s policy to oppose it. National members say 25 to 65-year-olds should not have access to cheap doctors’ visits. They think that 25 to 65-year-olds should have access to expensive doctors’ visits and to a prescription charge that is well above $3 per script. National has a view that that is the best way to run a health system, because if it makes those savings by making sure that people pay more to go to a doctor, then it can afford tax cuts for its rich buddies. What would happen, of course, is that the health of New Zealanders would be poorer as a result.

The evidence for the importance of the Primary Health Care Strategy is legion; it comes from all over the place—including from international sources, I might say. If people can get in to see a doctor, a practice nurse, or anyone in the primary health care sector in the early stages of their episodic or chronic illness, then a country will end up with a better health outcome. Lowering fees is a way to achieve that. That is not all that the Primary Health Care Strategy is, by any means; in fact, the strategy is far more comprehensive and multilateral than that. But low fees are where we are beginning, and low fees are what the National Party opposes—that is its stated policy.

Then the question arises of whether National, if it were ever returned to office, would simply put those fees back up. Why did National Party members want those negotiations to fail? Why did they say the Government should not be future-proofing the Primary Health Care Strategy by making sure that future increases in doctors’ fees were modest rather than excessive? Why did they try to make sure those negotiations went bad? Why are they unhappy that those negotiations succeeded? Why do they want New Zealanders to pay a whole lot more money to go to the doctor than is the case in many other countries? In Britain, the fee for going to a general practitioner is zero. In Australia, the fee for going to a general practitioner is about what it is under this Government and not what it would be had the National Party been re-elected. So it is around the world. Why is the National Party so out of date?

Here we are again—another Wednesday afternoon debate and another chapter of disasters for the House to reflect upon on the part of a Government that is, assuredly, on its way out. It is a Government that is now totally consumed by the battle between Trevor Mallard and the left, and Phil Goff and the right, for the position of deputy leader of the Labour Party. All the while, the current occupant of the deputy leadership, Dr Cullen, is vainly wandering around, imagining himself to be some latter-day Mickey Savage, when he is increasingly seen by his colleagues as a latter-day Mickey Mouse.

The disaster that I want to reflect upon today is more serious than most. This is the problem that New Zealand must confront, now that we know we have a Government and a Prime Minister that are soft on terrorism. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, this Parliament was asked to pass, with some urgency, the Terrorism Suppression Bill 2002. Other jurisdictions passed similar legislation to provide a tool kit for their authorities to deal with the new threat of international terror. The legislation asked that we gazette and designate terrorists associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban who were designated by the United Nations Security Council, and asked member States to identify further terrorists who might be a threat to the liberty, security, and well-being of their citizens or neighbours.

I had fondly imagined that New Zealand, as a good international citizen, might have a Government that took that responsibility seriously. In reviewing that legislation last year I expressed some concern that New Zealand had not, on top of the UN list, designated a single terrorist or terrorist organisation under section 22 of our Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. However, I fondly imagined that our Prime Minister and our authorities might have done informally what they had not done formally—ensured that there was in fact a list by which the authorities could protect New Zealand against undesirables entering our borders. The expulsion in recent weeks of Mr Rayed Ali raised important questions about whether terrorists could too easily enter these shores undetected, and today I want to table a list of terrorists and terrorist organisations—88 in all—that have been designated by Australia, under its similar legislation, on top of the UN list. Those 88 terrorists or terrorist organisations are not on the list of terrorist organisations or entities in New Zealand and have not been gazetted by our Prime Minister under the legislation solemnly passed by this House in 2002 in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

I want to know why these terrorists have not been so designated, and why the tool kit provided by this Parliament to superintend those terrorist entities is not being used by the authorities in this country. Our Prime Minister, unlike John Howard, is not prepared to give that tool kit to the authorities who are there to protect the security of New Zealanders. What is more frightening is that when I asked a question last week about the difference between New Zealand and Australia in this respect, I was told there was none. Assistant Police Commissioner White told us on National Radio: “Entities that are listed in Canada and Australia that I think are being quoted here also cover ones that are listed by the UN and have thereby been designated in New Zealand.” That was what the assistant police commissioner who is responsible for counter-terrorism told the country on National Radio.

Last week in the House the Minister of Police, faced with allegations and assertions by me that there indeed was in Australia a list of 88 terrorist entities that had been designated by Australian authorities, said: “there are not 88 terrorists on an Australian list.” Well, today I will seek leave to table the list of 88 terrorist entities, designated by the Australian authorities but not designated by the New Zealand Prime Minister, that our Minister of Police told this House did not exist. I seek the leave of the House to table a list of 88 terrorist entities that have been designated by the Australian authorities, and not designated by the New Zealand Prime Minister under section 22 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

We are seeing not only the leadership bids but the Cabinet wannabe bids. That was Murray McCully. The problem is that the member wants to portray himself as a statesman, and believes that the status of office will attach itself to him if he could come and sit over where we sit—we could always swap sides. The member cannot behave in that way one moment when, a matter of minutes before, he put forward the notion that New Zealand should try to outbid Japan with cheque-book diplomacy. It simply will not do. It is simply incredible, and people will not have a bit of it.

We have already seen today that the gloves are off. Bill English is in an unbridled leadership bid. I have never seen the likes of it. I say to the senior Opposition whip that I felt for him. The whip’s job is a tough job. I have sat in that seat—I am a former senior Opposition whip. When the member who was trying to portray himself as a leader stood up and humiliated his own senior whip—made him sit down; waved him down—I saw the look on the senior whip’s face. He had every right to the outrage and anger he felt when that upstart, wannabe leader waved him down. The National members are all after that job—the empty seat on the front bench opposite. I do not know which is worse—the boxer boy we saw this afternoon or the man who is now apparently obsessed with either Merrill Lynch or Trevor Mallard. He wakes up and his first thought of the day is about either Merrill Lynch or Trevor Mallard. I am not sure which of the two is the more scary. It is either one of those two or what the Sunday Star-Times editorial in February 2004 described as: “the voice of ignorance, narrow political advantage, and selfishness: the voice of Don Brash.” That is the choice that confronts New Zealand.

Is that the sort of alternative to a Government that is rolling out the promises it made? My friend and colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson talked about some of the promises that will roll out on 1 July this year, following last year’s election promises. In the Budget this year were extensive health investments in our people and our future. That is what this Government is about, unlike like the wannabes opposite. This Government is about investing in our people, our country, and our future, and about honouring the commitments we made. In terms of one of my own portfolio responsibilities, I am proud to say that by the end of this week we will have seen the Local Government Law Reform Bill through Parliament. Unlike the baying around the red herrings in that bill—the minor matters that are in it—I say that there are some pretty major issues there. At the heart of it are the rates rebate changes. On 1 July the promise will be kept. There will be a significant increase in the number of people eligible for assistance with the payment of their rates. In the current year something like 4,000 people were eligible. We will see the full rebate increase in place on 1 July. The eligible income amount will go up, from $7,400 to $20,000. That will see up to 300,000 low-income and fixed-income New Zealanders now eligible for the $500 maximum, not $200 but $500—up from the 4,000 who claimed it this year—because this Government believes in investing in our older people, and looking after those who helped build this great country of ours. It is a great country.

This Government is proud of our country, and proud of our people, and it wants to invest in them, and I have to say, it is in stark contrast to those opposite who are already trying to fight over the baubles of office and fight over the positions. We have seen the mean-spirited attitudes that would be the alternative. In place of the investment in New Zealand and New Zealanders we would see the stripping away of assets. Don Brash is on record, and no one opposite has challenged him: sell off Kiwibank; sell off New Zealand Post; and sell off the Accident Compensation Corporation—do away with all those great institutions that are part of serving and looking after the interests of New Zealand—and sell away our nuclear-free status, I have no doubt, along with sending our young men and women off to Iraq.

That speech was about as exciting as a busted arm, I have to say; it was an absolute shocker. Members always know when a Government is in trouble, and when they are in trouble, when they hear their colleagues start to talk negatively about them. We on this side have been through it; we have been there and done that. Let me tell members that that is happening more and more on that side.

The other day I was at a select committee hearing. Let me tell members about the great genius Rick Barker. He came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, chaired by Shane Jones, to be questioned for an hour. Paul Swain, Mark Gosche, and George Hawkins were there supporting Labour, and Doug Woolerton was there. On National’s side were myself, Chris Tremain, and Craig Foss. Away we went; we had an hour with Rick. Well, spending an hour with Rick was even worse than watching paint dry, but never mind. There we were, and we started questioning Rick. Well, members saw what he was like yesterday when we started asking questions, and some of the stuff we got from John Armstrong’s article this morning about Dad’s Army, etc., was very funny.

But I have to tell members this. What was really funny were the looks on the faces of, and the comments from, Rick Barker’s colleagues during and after the meeting. We had a whole series of questions and then, finally, Shane Jones had had enough. He said we would have the last question, and Craig Foss asked the last question. Craig asked the question and Rick made some strangled sounds and got the answer out, whatever it was. Rick went over and over it but we could not understand it. Then Shane Jones said he was pleased to announce that, mercifully, that was the end of the questions. I thought that that was really saying something about one’s colleague.

But during the questioning George Hawkins—ex - Minister of Civil Defence—knew that Rick was in trouble. He knew that Rick was on the spot and in trouble. So George came up with the patsy of all patsy questions. He said to Rick—

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

JOHN CARTER George Hawkins said to Rick Barker: “There are 16 civil defence regions in New Zealand.”—well, that came as a surprise to Rick, but, anyway, we got through that. And George said to Rick: “They’ve all had to put in a civil defence plan.” Rick said: “Yes … ”. George Hawkins asked: “Mr Barker, how many plans have been signed off?”. Well, Doug Woolerton knew the answer, Paul Swain knew, and George Hawkins knew, of course, because he was the former Minister. Mark Gosche, Shane Jones, and we on our side knew. Only one guy did not know.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Who was that?

Rick Barker! He did not know, so he made more strangled sounds and then said: “Hang on, I will ask the officials.” An official said to him: “Look, I think that we’re probably going to get some good stuff out of these things and they’ll be very good when they arrive.” Rick Barker said: “There you are, there’s the answer.” So I said: “Well, hang on, but that hasn’t answered the question of how many have been signed off. That’s what George Hawkins wants to know.” Rick Barker made more strangled sounds and asked the officials again, and there was no answer—they could not tell him. So in the end I said: “Rick, I think there have been 16 signed off.” He said: “Oh, yes, well, there could be.” Well, poor old Mark Gosche was sitting there and he said: “You just can’t help some people sometimes, can you?”. George Hawkins—the previous Minister of Civil Defence—just wanted to slide under the table.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He should be proud because Rick makes him look good!

Well, that is the point. I am starting to hear people in civil defence ask for George Hawkins back. I mean, bless my soul! The point is that the member’s own colleagues have started making comments. Poor old Paul Swain was so stunned that he could not talk for 3 or 4 days afterwards, actually. After Rick left, the looks of disbelief and dismay between the members were just something to see. The chairman of the committee said it was merciful it was over, one member said there is no helping some people, the poor old previous Minister was just shocked, and another colleague sat there with his hand on his forehead, like he is right now, hoping that it was just a dream or a bad nightmare or something.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Did he buy the video?

Well, exactly. The point is that when members get to the stage where their colleagues are dismayed and not supportive, they are in trouble.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. Families are the heart of our nation. We all know that strong families and communities contribute to the social and economic development of a strong, independent nation. That is why the Labour-led Government is committed to supporting New Zealand families, young and old, from their early years to their golden years. We are in Government to make a difference for the better, and we are doing so, thanks to our Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, who weaves all these threads together to deliver strong social and economic development for our nation.

1 July this year will see the rolling out of a number of initiatives that are aimed at supporting New Zealand families, to make their lives healthier and happier. Supporting older New Zealanders is a big part of the 1 July roll-out, along with the rates rebate scheme that will benefit up to 300,000 low-income New Zealanders.

The Labour-led Government has also made a commitment to progressively remove asset testing, and that is exactly what it is doing. In my electorate of Mana we have a large proportion of senior citizens who will applaud that action. Our elders and our senior citizens have also worked hard and contributed to building this nation. It is only right that in their golden years we can reciprocate their significant contributions, and we are doing so by continuing the phase-out of income and asset testing for people in aged residential care from 1 July—a key election promise from 1999. From 1 July single people, and couples with both partners in care, will be able to keep up to $160,000—up from $150,000 currently—in assets before those assets are used to contribute to the cost of their care. The Labour-led Government is investing $14.3 million to enable this year’s threshold increase, on top of the $93 million invested, to continue the phase-out started last year.

This policy is about fairness. Older New Zealanders who have built up assets throughout their lives should not be penalised when they go into residential care. Our policy contrasts starkly with National’s heartless position. Members should remember that National introduced asset testing for older New Zealanders last time it was in office, forcing many older New Zealanders to sell their family homes in order to receive care—lest we forget!

The Labour-led Government is committed to improving the quality of life for all Kiwi families. From I July 2006 we will also deliver on our key election commitment regarding the extension of eligibility for the higher single rate of superannuation to married superannuitants with a partner in long-term residential care. The New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill are designed to ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. The main aim of these bills is to extend eligibility for the higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. That change will mean up to about $60 extra per week for approximately 2,000 qualifying older New Zealanders.

The bills also remove the sharing expenses rule, which is arbitrary and too strict in places, and extend to 156 weeks the time for which a person can be paid New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension while he or she is overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency like Volunteer Service Abroad. This year is the Year of the Veteran, and these bills offer further evidence that the Labour-led Government is committed to ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and security.

We promised to deliver to New Zealand families, young and old—and we are. The roll-out of the 1 July initiatives is proof of our commitment to keeping our promises but, more important, these initiatives are making a difference in the lives of many older New Zealanders throughout the country, and that is what really matters. Our elders and our families are the heart of our nation. They are the most important priorities in New Zealanders’ lives. That is why this Labour-led Government will always put their well-being, their security, and their happiness high on the agenda.

I am delighted to follow the member, Winnie Laban, because I know she is a member of her word, and I was absolutely delighted by what she had to say for the older people in this country. I am going to offer her another challenge, and I have no doubt that she will take it up because it is written in the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government. I will read the bullet point that refers to it: “Investigate ways to improve options for senior citizens who may be eligible for foreign pensions as well as New Zealand Superannuation.” New Zealand First has had that concern for quite some time, along with other concerns that affect the elderly—like increasing superannuation, which was done at our behest recently, and like the introduction of a golden age card, which will be in place by about this time next year. Asset testing is an issue that New Zealand First took up when it was in coalition with National. Now we will play hardball on this issue. Now we are prepared to step up our campaign to address it.

Let me explain to the House what happens. Under section 70 of the legislation the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development has discretionary powers to determine what overseas pensions are able to be deducted from New Zealand superannuation before it is received. We believe that in many cases the chief executive officer is getting it wrong and, as a result, it has become punitive and unfair. We are talking about 50,000 people in this country. Those 50,000 people have paid their taxes and made a positive contribution to New Zealand society and, indeed, to societies somewhere else in the world. It is so ridiculous and unfair, and I will alert the House to one situation.

We know of a lady who married an American. She lived in America for some time, but for most of her life she has lived here and paid taxes here. The American—her husband—worked in America and he paid into a private scheme that was administered by the Government. As a result, he receives a pension. As a result, she gets zilch—absolutely nothing; not a cent; not a brass razoo. She worked in this country for something like 19 years.

💬 Jill Pettis: But she gets New Zealand superannuation.

She does not get superannuation, because she is married to an American who gets superannuation. He invested his own money, but because it was a Government scheme his wife does not qualify. If they divorced she would get New Zealand superannuation in her own right. I ask members whether that makes sense. Is that fair? The answer has to be that it is not only unfair but also it is downright crazy.

New Zealand First is determined to address this issue. There are other people in similar circumstances, but that is the most ludicrous one that we have heard of for quite some time. We know that there must be a clear distinction between State pensions contributed to overseas and here, but it does not make sense for us to allow people to save through Kiwibank, which is a State entity, and receive superannuation, but if people do the same thing in the UK or the USA, or if their spouses do the same thing, their superannuation entitlements here will be reduced. We know that the Minister is undertaking a review of this, we are hopeful that the results of that review will be forthcoming in the not too distant future, and we hope they will be positive.

My colleague asked the Minister of Finance a number of questions this very afternoon, and I have to say that whilst the Minister’s answers were encouraging, they were not categoric. They did not actually address the issue as we believe it should be addressed. New Zealand First is going to play hardball on this. We believe that the 50,000 people I have referred to are entitled to a fair go. We are not advocating double-dipping; we are not advocating that people should get something they are not entitled to or that they have not contributed to; but we are claiming that if people have paid into a scheme overseas with private money they are entitled to some return on that.

We have a Government that thinks inserting a microchip into the neck of a dog will stop the dog from attacking. Obviously, Government members are hopeful that if they insert microchips into the necks of some of their Ministers and caucus members, it may re-inspire them, reinvigorate them—or even just retire them. We have so-called rising stars mutating before our eyes into falling meteors. We have Ministers—and this is amazing—who do not know their left from their right, their assets from their liabilities. A Minister who is aspiring to be the Minister of Finance says—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Who’s that?

I cannot remember his name! He is a Minister with such financial acumen that he says: “you’ve gotta remember with the SOEs that going bust doesn’t quite mean what it might mean for some other companies, you know for example if Meridian went bust you’d still have a lot of windmills and a lot of dams, so it’s a financial rather than putting all the assets at risk”. And he aspires to be the Minister of Finance! Yet he admits: “I take responsibility for the incorrect advice, and the Prime Minister has made her displeasure clear to me.” I have to say that I do not much rate his chances of being the Minister of Finance.

Sadly and tragically, we have a Prime Minister who thinks that the disaster in South Canterbury is great. She said: “I am pleased to see the snow. I love skiing so it is good to see that they are getting off to a great start with the ski season.” But some people in South Canterbury still do not have power. To this day, 800 connections in Ashburton have yet to be reinstated, and there are 700 such connections in South Canterbury. A total of 1,500 hard-working, self-reliant, courageous contributors to our economy still do not have power, and the Prime Minister just wants to go skiing.

Furthermore, we have a Minister of Civil Defence who does not even know that water pumps need power—no power, no water. Those people in South Canterbury who are suffering enough by being ignored by the current Government do not even have the power to draw water. They also need cellphones. They use cellphones. They are reliant on cellphones—if they can get coverage. But our Minister of Civil Defence does not realise that those phones use batteries, and that those batteries need charging. In order to charge those batteries, power is needed, and we still have 1,500 suffering souls in South Canterbury and Ashburton who still do not have power. That is a civil defence disaster. It does not require a telephone call to the BBC to confirm that it is a civil defence disaster; we know it is a disaster and we know something should be done about it.

Curiously, we also have a Minister who thinks that the laws we make here in this very House are there for guidance—that they are not compulsory, they are not binding. They are just a guideline for some of us, in order to decide whether to obey. I find it amazing that we have a Minister in this House who believes that the laws of our land are for guidance only.

We have a Minister of Finance who is most intent on looking backwards. We can understand that, because he is watching his own back. But he has forgotten to look forward to what is best for New Zealand and what it is that New Zealanders actually want. They want to know that after 7 long years of this Government it is time for the Government to stop blaming others for its own inactivity. Seven long years is enough time in which to have made some improvement to our electricity system, so that the breakdown of one cable does not plunge all of Auckland into darkness. New Zealanders do not want excuses; they want results.

New Zealanders also want to know that good laws will be made here in this Parliament—not stupid, dopey laws like the one that presumes microchipping a dog will stop a dog attack. Microchipping a dangerous dog will not turn it into a harmless dog, and neither will microchipping irresponsible owners turn them into responsible owners. When Treasury thinks that a law is stupid, when local authorities think it is stupid, when most New Zealanders think it is stupid, then chances are it really is stupid. If it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, then it must be a dog, and I have to say that this microchipping law, to excuse the pun, is certainly a dog of a law. We need only one vote to put a stop to that law—one vote whether from New Zealand First, United Future, or the Minister.

I am very pleased to join the debate this afternoon, because I am proud to talk about what a Labour Government has delivered to the people of New Zealand. We are interested in the concerns of all New Zealanders and we have delivered on that in a multitude of ways. On 1 July this year we are extending subsidies to those aged 45 to 64 when they visit their primary health organisations. That is a wonderful policy, and I am very proud that we are delivering on the policies we went to the electorate with at the last election and the election before that.

We are providing greater subsidies for early childhood education, which is critical to the future education of our young New Zealanders. Paid parental leave is being extended to the self-employed, and it was tragic that “dancing Rodney” and “firing blanks Heather Roy” were absent when we voted on those very key policy issues. Paid parental leave is good for women and it is good for families, but both of those ACT MPs were absent from the House.

The rates rebate scheme is excellent for older New Zealanders, and delivers directly a policy that Labour has campaigned on for years. The National Land Transport Programme is building more roads and improving road safety in our constituencies, and is helping to keep New Zealanders alive as we improve the condition of our roads.

I have to say that the “speaking out of both sides of their mouth” attitude of the National Party members with regard to the microchipping of dogs will be remembered by many New Zealanders for a very, very long time. National voted for the third reading of the 2003 bill that included microchipping. The third reading is the last chance a party has to object to a Government bill, and the National members lined up and voted for it. But now that the heat has gone on, they are getting lily-livered, turning to jelly at the knees, and being populist. They forget that they voted for the current bill at its first reading in 2006. Well, some of us have not forgotten that.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Jellimeat parliamentarians.

Jellimeat parliamentarians, absolutely! I mention that because it is an indication of the extreme measures that National members will go to—anything for a vote.

But, fortunately, the majority of New Zealanders are astute, and they are awake to National. The reality of the matter is that National is not revealing its real, extreme agenda, because it knows that fair-minded New Zealanders would bolt in horror if they learnt what National reallystands for. National stands for extreme policies that would be bad for the majority of New Zealanders. Brash knows that if he revealed the truth, the National Party would be totally unelectable. Brash has said some very extreme things. He has admitted, and I quote: “I’d work with the Devil to get rid of this Government.” He said that on One News on 29 October. I suggest that he already is in cahoots with the Devil, and it is called the Exclusive Brethren. Those people donated $1.2 million to National, but Mr Brash could not remember it. On 5 September he said that oh, no, no, he did not know who was responsible for the pamphlets, but then only 3 days later he said he knew some pamphlets were going to be delivered. The partnership between that sect, that cult, and National members will haunt them at the next election campaign, I can assure them.

The other part of National’s policy that is horrifying to fair-minded New Zealanders is employers being able to sack workers within 90 days of employing them. That comes at a time when we have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, and Brash says: “The main benefit of this bill is that it will give people who now find it hellishly hard to get a job, a better chance of doing so.” That is a quote from Brash. The “Sacked in 90 Days” bill that National supports is about giving employers the right to sack any worker, without any justification being given at all. It is absolutely outrageous. It shows that National has no sense of justice, and no sense of what is fair. And it is not just the low-paid workers, the low-skilled workers, who would be affected. The “sacked in 90 days” bill would affect teachers, public servants, and academics; it would affect all New Zealanders.

Things have a real final-term look about them, and it is obvious in the arrogance of the Labour Government. A week or so ago a single wire flicked over, on to another one, and put 700,000 consumers into darkness. Two nights later, of course, another little substation got blown up in Remuera. But none of this is the Government’s responsibility; none of it at all! Labour has been 7 years in Government, but none of this is its fault. Labour has been in Government for 12 of the last 22 years, but none of this is its fault, at all.

Labour has the look of a final-term Government when its deputy leader loses it on the Government’s own TV channel, tosses his toys, and blames the media for identifying his meanness at Budget time. He is losing it. It is harder for Government members to laugh at his jokes. He is getting more tetchy every day. He is falling further and further from grace as it becomes more obvious to all the members on the other side of the House that there is an imperative for tax cuts. So he has been given the nudge that he should not bank on being back to deliver the Budget next year.

We know that Labour is really on the way out when its members are scrapping over who is going to get the finance job. It is looking more and more like a third-term bun fight or fist fight, when we are not too sure who the replacement is going to be. One choice is the guy who cannot tell an asset from a liability, and another choice is a bloke who, with a single slip of the tongue, knocked $200 million off Telecom. The third choice is the guy who, year on year, writes false information that he files as a company return, including time when he was an MP and including time when he was the Attorney-General.

It is looking more and more like a third-term bun fight or fist fight when at question time a well-put inquiry to the Minister of Māori Affairs was met with an: “Oh, look buddy, this isn’t really the time or place for these sorts of questions.” A little pat on the head, and “Run along sonny, can’t you see I’m trying to sleep. Don’t ask questions like that, come and see me later on. Just roll along.” It is absolute arrogance.

We know that time is running out when the Prime Minister is so far from reality that when the most devastating snowstorm occurs, with stock dying and people trapped in their homes without power and water for days and days, her response is that she is very pleased with the snow. Things have a real final-term look to them. We are seeing the cracks. We are seeing the splits in the Teflon. We are seeing the exterior smudges on the airbrushing.

The Government is in the cart. It is wondering where to look next for its next mate. On the other side of it, we have its coalition partners who are trying very hard to balance the tension between keeping themselves relevant to the constituency they hold—where voters ticked their box last time—and maintaining a foot in the door of Government, and having to flex their muscles from time to time to be able to distinguish between the two. It is really unusual to see the odd snipe coming from the nearly empty seats on the other side of the House as members throw rocks at the blokes they used to get along well with and throw bouquets to the blokes they used to throw the rocks at.

💬 John Carter: And that’s just on their own side.

Exactly. So they have to wake up and look at the roses or lie back and think of England; who knows what they will do in their own spare time. I say it is looking more and more like a final term Government.

The Opposition does not—and never will—assume the result of the next election. But the Government has a very smelly look around credibility and integrity issues, and people know it. People are asking questions of this Government more and more and are getting fewer and fewer answers. They are told to go away and not to bother the Government with their questions; the Government is in control and they are told to go along and get on with their own little jobs. I ask members to look at the microchipping debate. The Government knows it will not work. No one can give a single reason why microchipping will work. No one can even give a single answer as to why it will work. Nevertheless Government members are going to vote for it. More and more, they are on their own. More and more guys are leaving the Government side and saying this is not going to fly, it is not going to work. Mr Anderton himself stood up and said: “Hang on, no. 3 beats no. 18 every time, don’t you know?”. Well, no. 18 beat no. 3.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that during—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! While there is a point of order, there is to be absolute silence, and the member knows that.

—my discourse to the House, you very correctly ensured that when I addressed members and talked about members, I said their full name—Rick Barker or Minister—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Most times.

You kept pulling me into line. I wonder why, then, the same did not happen to Jill Pettis when she kept referring to the leader of the National Party as “Brash”. He is Don Brash or he is Mr Brash, or he is the leader of the National Party. We need to have consistency. If we have rulings for one side, then they need to be common right across Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for that. I heard the honourable member once or twice—

Three times.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Was it three times? I am sorry, I missed that. The member is quite right. In fact it is covered by Speaker’s rulings 26/6 and 26/7. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.

I thought Jill Pettis was using the term “brash” as an adjective. When I realised who she was speaking about, I had to reconsider and realised she had offended the Standing Orders. The last speaker, John Carter, spoke about consistency in his point of order. This takes me to Dr Brash and what he said about 30 percent of the electorate of Napier: “Could we perhaps gradually raise the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand superannuation?”. Tell that to 16,500 Napier people—that we could perhaps gradually raise the age at which people become eligible for superannuation. Tell that to Grey Power, whose members yesterday held their AGM and elected a new president, Don Patterson, and I welcome him to the chair that I once occupied.

Grey Power is an organisation in Napier that speaks on behalf of the 30 percent of people there who are aged 50 or over. The organisation knows that the mantra peddled in Napier—that people should get ahead under their own steam—has no application to it. Its members are people who have worked hard and honestly and diligently, raising families, but without having the choice of flexible incomes and choices of lifestyles. They have put their noses to the grindstone and have earned the superannuation of which the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brash, asks whether the age at which people become eligible for it could be gradually raised. I ask him to come to Napier and say that to Don Patterson of Grey Power. I ask him to come to a meeting of Grey Power members in Napier and tell them that. He will find that that policy will not be very well received.

I listened to the last speaker, Chester Borrows, and I had to look up the index of electorates represented by people in this House. He spoke in this debate without once referring to the electorate he represents. That is probably because he forgot which one it was. Jill Pettis addressed the issues arising from her electorate very well, and I look forward to the day that she is returned as the electorate member.

That speaker who does not know which electorate he comes from put his finger on what is happening in the Labour ranks. It is the rejuvenation of the ranks as the young, capable men and women come through. We have seen that in the recent appointments of David Parker, as Minister of Energy, Nanaia Mahuta, as Minister of Youth Affairs, and of Clayton Cosgrove and David Cunliffe. These are people whom members on the other side of the House can only look at with envy and wish they had them on their party’s front bench or even anywhere near it.

Let us go back to see what the National Party would do for the Napier electorate. It is not surprising that the member for Napier is not in the House today, because he knows—as he must—that 30 percent of the Napier electorate are over 50, that 14 percent—9,000 of them—

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member should open his eyes and notice that the member for Napier is in the House today, and he has a majority of 3,600 I might add.

That is not a point of order, and I hope, Mr Speaker, that that will not come off my time.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, but you must not refer to someone’s absence or otherwise.

I meant absence from the debate, of course. He is a member who does not know the rules, so I suppose that point of order underscores that entirely.

Fourteen percent of the Napier electorate are over 65, and they are the people who will be affected by the Dr Brash mantra asking whether the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand superannuation could be raised. Instead, from 1 July that 14 percent of the electorate will receive cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper prescriptions from the pharmacy. Those who have a long-term partner in a rest home will receive asset testing of $160,000 and rising. Those with a partner in long-term care will now be eligible for the single rate of superannuation. That cry has been made for some time in Napier, and people there will welcome that change. The significant thing is that on 1 July, 16 percent of households in the Napier electorate will benefit from the rates rebate. It means that up to $500 will be deductible from the rates bill. Nearly 2,700 families in Napier are eligible for this rates rebate. This applies not just to our older citizens—those affected by Grey Power—but to the many low-income people, the people who generally live in the two deprivation 10 index numbers in the Napier electorate. So 1 July is a red-letter day from a red-coloured Government. It is a Government that progresses matters for those issues that it really cares about. This contrasts with the parsimonious, self-satisfied, beat the Devil, beat the poorer class, motto of “Get ahead under your own steam.”, which really is all about beating one’s neighbour and profiting for oneself.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.