General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I doubt there is anyone in this country who has been left unaffected by the Kāhui case, including every MP in this House. There is something about the murder of twin babies that cuts to the heart. As a mother of twins myself, I find the thought of what happened to Chris and Cru Kāhui simply devastating. However, the critical thing for us here in Parliament is to not spend our time trying to make party political capital out of a fraught situation, or to berate the police or Child, Youth and Family Services for what they are and are not doing in the aftermath of the killings. Nor is it for us, in our position of comparative power, to spend our time attacking the individual members of a very dysfunctional family, when we are far from clearly knowing the facts of the situation. Most of all, I hope all politicians will avoid falling into the kind of egregious racism that was demonstrated in Rod Emmerson’s cartoon in last week’s New Zealand Herald, and in associated follow-up letters to the editor, all of which showed, once again, how the raw underbelly of anti-Māori racism can rear its head when given the slightest excuse.

Instead, the Green Party believes that our role as members of Parliament at a time like this is to work together across traditional party lines to seek ideas and solutions about what more this Government or any Government might do to help reduce violence within families, and the dreadfully high rates of domestic homicide in this country. I hope the cross-party working-group that Parekura Horomia has talked about will go ahead once the task force on action on family violence has completed its task. I hope we will be able to use the task force’s recommendations for ways forward as a starting point, and that we will be looking for solutions rather than focusing on research, plenty of which is already being done. I also hope the Government will have the will to make any such solutions a top priority within its fiscal and policy programme.

A complexity of issues are at stake here, and there are no simple, magical answers. Government, social services agencies, and health providers need to find better ways to identify babies and children at risk. We should consider seriously the suggestions of the Children’s Commissioner around keeping track of all babies from birth, and providing more information and support for parents as children progress through each life stage.

We should be looking at how we treat mothers who have just given birth. In the old days we used to have the option of staying for up to 2 weeks in hospital after having a baby. Now we are lucky to be there for 48 hours, if at all. For some mums, hospital used to be a place of sanctuary and rest, where we could bond with our baby or babies away from the stresses of home life. It is a pity this option barely exists any more. Post-natal depression needs to be taken a lot more seriously. Mothers who suffer from it need every bit of support they can get, even when they do not realise they have a problem. Groups that work in this area deserve better and more consistent resourcing.

The Kāhui case also raises the question about the number of working-age beneficiaries in the whānau, and why only one of them appeared to be in paid employment. Instead of just blaming those who are the victims of generations of unemployment, poverty, and total alienation from regular society, at a time of low unemployment such as this the Government should be looking closely at whether it could do more in the way of introducing front-on employment creation programmes that incorporate a whole range of features for those who have a multiplicity of problems adapting to the regular workforce.

What we should not be doing is removing benefits and income-related rents, as Rodney Hide seemed to be suggesting yesterday. The consequences of that course of action are almost unimaginable in terms of a total descent into crime, violence, neglect, and children running the risk of becoming, ultimately, discardable. We see that happening in societies where infanticide is an everyday, normalised evil.

Finally, I will say a few words about the connection between child homicide and section 59 of the Crimes Act. Although repealing section 59 will never, in itself, stop the murder of a child, it will get rid of a law that legitimises the use of violence against children. As MPs, we should have the courage to change the law so that no adults should ever think they are mandated by law to assault their babies and children. How can we expect parents to change their attitudes towards violence when we still have such a law on our books?

In the end, of course, this issue goes way beyond anything a Government or we MPs can do. All of us, including those in and around the Kāhui family, need to take responsibility for what is happening to children in our families in our community, and not just turn a blind eye to the damage being done, out of fear or wilful indifference.

As winter closes in and the darkness settles across New Zealand, those few people who are followers of John Key—the rich and the restless of the nation—are not satisfied. Last year those people put their faith in Dr Don Brash, who now seems to reside in Bondi Beach. They had hoped by now to be enjoying their extraordinarily large tax cuts, and to be observing a strategic deficit being used to privatise, to cut back on social services, and to create an environment where they could once again gain from all of the public enterprise that has taken place in this country. As they choked back their champagne, they realised their dream has not come true. They spent so much money last year. They even had to go and spend time with the Exclusive Brethren, whose only virtue was that they were rich too—and all for nothing.

To make matters worse, they know that on 1 July this year they are going to have to watch being put in place a whole range of policies that the extremely rich get nothing from. On 1 July they will watch ordinary Kiwis gain a great deal, because they voted a Labour-led Government back into office. It is enough, I have heard, to make these extremely rich people like John Key shift to Australia, pay higher taxes, higher accident compensation charges, higher childcare charges, and higher charges for selling their eight or nine houses—and they would do all those things just in spite, because all their efforts have come to nothing.

We thought today that we would begin to make their pain worse by telling them exactly what will happen on 1 July. On 1 July the amount of money going to early childhood education will rise by $30 million.

💬 Darren Hughes: Are they for it or against it?

The National Party was against it, because it would have had to fund tax cuts and would not have been able to pay for it. On 1 July primary health organisations will roll out for 45 to 64-year-olds—it will not affect me but it will affect people like Mrs King, who has just crept into the age group. That age group will be watching their subsidies go up and the costs to the doctor go down. Therefore, their visits to the doctor will be cheaper.

On 1 July the manifesto promise to extend the paid parental leave entitlement to self-employed New Zealanders will come in. This was opposed by the National Party because it needed the money for tax cuts. On 1 July the phase-out of asset testing for people in residential homes will begin. The first $150,000 of assets will now be exempt, and that will rise by $10,000 per year. That was opposed by the National Party, because it needed the money for tax cuts. The National Government actually brought in all those changes, of course, so to be consistent National wants to leave the system as it is. On 1 July the rates rebate scheme will mean that 300,000 low-income New Zealanders will become eligible for $500 to be deducted from their rates bill. That has been opposed by the National Party, because it needed the money for tax cuts.

On top of all that, I just remind the sobbing friends of John Key that the amounts paid out under the Working for Families package went up on 1 April, interest-free loans came in on 1 April, superannuation went up on 1 April, business tax changes came in on 1 April—all opposed by the National Party, because it needed the money for tax cuts.

Next week we celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Labour Party, and we are to have one helluva party. For over 90 years the Labour movement has represented progress for ordinary, decent Kiwis, not for those limousine liberals who ride around with John Key worrying about why they cannot get more tax cuts for the rich. Labour will celebrate its 90th anniversary next week and the National Party will sob.

The one defining difference between Steve Maharey and everybody else in the Labour caucus is that Steve Maharey is the only one who does not want to be Minister of Finance when Michael Cullen goes.

Tonight I am making a great sacrifice, I must be honest. At 4.20 tonight I am getting on a plane to fly to Palmerston North to give a speech at a public meeting. I am doing so because the locals of Palmerston North have asked me to come and give them some real representation. I am giving up the National Party’s mid-winter Christmas function, an invite to which is always very sought after and which is always very well attended. I am going to Palmerston North because I know, as the people there know, that that electorate is a marginal seat. The only difference between Steve Maharey and all those who are on Labour’s despatch list is that Steve Maharey knows he is No. 3 on the list, which means that for at least 12 to 18 months after the election he will be safe.

They assembled on the night of 13 March. It was a balmy summer evening, and Cabinet had just broken up. But their business for the night was not done. Four Ministers—Michael Cullen, David Parker, Lianne Dalziel, and Damien O’Connor—were accompanied by Rob Fyfe, the chief executive officer of Air New Zealand, John Palmer, the chairman, and Ken Douglas, that well-known Labour supporter. These were Ministers whose portfolios, when it came to Air New Zealand, represented more conflicts than one would find on an average day in downtown Baghdad. They were Ministers who knew they should not be in that room together, and who over the last 2 days have found themselves in the very uncomfortable position of having to answer some very uncomfortable questions.

Michael Cullen, who remains the shareholding Minister of Air New Zealand, is responsible for looking after the value of Air New Zealand. David Parker, the Minister of Transport at the time, had oversight responsibility for the regulator of Air New Zealand. Most important, he was the person who would have determined the crucial decision of whether Air New Zealand would get the green light for its code-sharing operation. He was also, and remains, the Minister who would decide on the climate change policy that was very important to Air New Zealand. The third of the important three who had the most conflict was Lianne Dalziel, who has oversight for the Commerce Act and who on 22 May said: “If ‘New Zealand Inc’ is to be truly competitive on a global scale then we need to consider whether the strict application of competition policy is inhibiting our capacity in any way.” That led Fran O’Sullivan to write in the New Zealand Herald on 24 May that Air New Zealand had been lobbying for a review of the Commerce Act, arguing it should have rights around it.

Just 5 days prior to the meeting on 13 March, Dr Cullen received from Treasury an update that outlined the current issues on Air New Zealand’s agenda. The first issue was the code share. Dr Cullen, who has had an amazing number of conflicts, admitted to the House yesterday: “I absent myself from any discussions or decision making relating to aviation. … I absent myself from any discussions on aviation regulation. I leave the Cabinet room or the Cabinet committee room if any of those matters arise.”

He went to dinner with two or three other Ministers who had direct conflict. It is a very interesting position. This is the Minister of Finance who agreed to attend a dinner where there were wine lists, where there were menus, where there were very important matters to discuss, and where there were conflicts all over the show, but, incredibly, there were no officials and no notes. Well, how jolly convenient for the Minister of Finance. This is from a Government that is not too averse to using notes taken by junior officials, even if they are never corroborated by officials and are never backed up. This is a Minister who knows that when notes are out there and officials are present, the truth could come out, and he did not want officials at that meeting. So that was the plan. It was jolly convenient. It was Monday night—they could go and watch Desperate Housewives and not bother coming to the meeting.

It is extraordinary that John Key does not understand the irony of his accusing Dr Cullen of having a secret meeting in the Boulcott Street Bistro because no members of the public ever go there, when just about every one of those members, including Rob Fyfe, would be very well known to the public, coming and going. After all, Mr Key is the member who organised and attended meetings with the Exclusive Brethren, and then forgot about them. He organised the meetings with the Exclusive Brethren, set them up with his leader, and attended those meetings but, just like Dr Brash, he could not remember anything about them.

💬 John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have never attended a meeting with the Exclusive Brethren with my leader.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member will be seated. That is not a point of order. If the member wants to make a personal explanation, that is another matter.

I am delighted to hear that John Key is visiting Palmerston North today. I was thinking of the differences between John Key and Steve Maharey, but the list got too long. But I am pleased that John Key is visiting someone’s electorate, even if it is someone else’s. I have heard that people in Helensville would like him to visit their electorate, which happens to be his electorate. Steve Maharey actually lives in his own electorate, unlike that member who does not choose even to reside within an hour’s drive of his.

Then Mr Key has the audacity to say in public—while representing his constituency that is not good enough for him to reside in—that he does not want State houses in his electorate. He does not want people living in State houses in his electorate: “Why don’t they live in Shannon, or somewhere? Why don’t they live further down the line?”. I say to Mr Key that someone who has a supposedly proud background of being raised in a State house should understand that security and affordability in housing are part of a good start to life, and that is why we support building State houses, not selling them off. That is why we would support State houses being built even if the poor tenants had to have that member of Parliament as their elected representative. I do not think that it would be for very long.

This week is a very proud week for members of the Labour Party and for the organisation itself. As Steve Maharey said, this week marks the commemoration of the 90th year of our establishment. When we look into the history of the Labour Party, which is the longest-established political party in New Zealand—over 20 years older than the National Party—we see that the original vision of a more just society, where every citizen is able to live in comfort and security, remains totally unchanged to this day. That vision of a fair and inclusive society remains totally unchanged. In the intervening 90 years we have not had nearly enough time in Government but we are certainly doing our best to address that. We have set, throughout that time, progressive and sometimes radical agendas to ensure that security and opportunity for New Zealanders is entrenched as part of our vision. Even when we are out of office, frankly, we have often set the agenda for political debate.

We came into being as part of a wider industrial support system for political action, and as we became a major force in the 1920s we broadened our policies and our membership to ensure that our base reflected the aspirations of all of those people who wanted to build a better New Zealand. Nowhere is the difference in policies in those early days more obvious than after the Great Depression of the 1930s, which demonstrated without doubt the failure of conservative policies, both social and economic. Michael Joseph Savage led Labour to a sweeping victory in 1935, on the promise of radical changes.

Labour then introduced a number of measures that have become an integral part of our social and economic fabric. For the first time, access to health care became affordable for all. The State assumed a major responsibility to provide low-cost housing to those in need—I am not sure whether there was an attempt to put State houses in Helensville at that stage. A comprehensive social welfare system gave security to the elderly, to the infirm, and to those without employment. Access was opened to both secondary and tertiary education. Judicious Government intervention rebuilt our economy and reduced unemployment. Workers benefited by industrial relations legislation that introduced the 40-hour working week and made it easier for unions to negotiate on workers’ behalf.

My colleagues and I are very proud to be part of the current Labour-led Government. It is a Government that is building on exactly those original traditions—in health, in housing, in education, and in jobs.

The previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, talked about the big celebration going on in the Labour Party, but I think she has missed an opportunity. She is the Minister responsible for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and she has missed a big opportunity to at least acknowledge or comment on the concerns of a lot of Kiwis at the moment about the plight of the Kāhui family. It is a real shame that she did not take the opportunity to at least make some comment—not to politicise, of course, but some comment would have been appropriate.

Trevor Mallard wants to be New Zealand’s next State planner. He has lost faith in New Zealand business and in the private sector, and he wants to fix things by having more control than Michael Cullen. That is why he is promoting the rapid expansion of State-owned enterprises, which many say will crowd out private sector investment. Not only that—he wants Michael Cullen’s job.

Members will recall seeing the Agenda interview in which Trevor Mallard confirmed that he wanted the job. He described Michael Cullen in such a way as to leave us with the impression of him as Methuselah-like character who has trouble chewing his food and is about to go off to Hawke’s Bay with a Zimmer frame at any moment. Trevor Mallard kept mentioning that Michael Cullen is in his sixties and that some Asian leaders keep going for many years, but really he was just planting the seed of the idea that Dr Cullen is aged and hinting to him that it is time to move on.

It is interesting that Trevor Mallard used exactly the same language to describe Michael Cullen that the Prime Minister used in her Listener interview some weeks ago, so one can perhaps conclude that some collusion is going on there. I do not think the use of the same language is any coincidence, at all. I actually think Dr Cullen wishes Jim Anderton were back in the role of Minister for Economic Development, because at least all Jim Anderton did was travel the country handing out cheques—

💬 John Key: Or a camera.

With a camera—and getting his photo in the local papers. He did not dive into areas that are Michael Cullen’s domain.

Ever since Trevor Mallard expressed his interest in becoming the Minister of Finance he has made a wide range of dopey comments and statements. The first, members will recall, is that it is OK if Government businesses fall over because at least the Government owns the assets. Well, we on this side of the House hate to tell Trevor Mallard this, but if Air New Zealand fell over, the people with the first call on the planes would be that airline’s creditors, not the Government as the owner. The same goes for his arguments about the dams and windmills that he thinks are so special.

He went on to say that one of the reasons for reorganising State-owned enterprises is to make them less boring and predictable. I imagine that a lot of Kiwis up and down the country would say they quite like their postal services to be reliable and they quite like the idea of having a reliable electricity system, so that at least when they flick a switch they know they will get some power. He went on to say that no cronyism exists on State-owned enterprise boards. It was a shame for him that Victoria University research confirmed that State-owned enterprise directors themselves felt that a problem existed with a lot of his appointments and had concerns about some of the political processes that put people around those board tables who were not in a position to make good commercial decisions. They might have been good at delivering Labour Party pamphlets, but that did not mean they had the commercial nous to make decisions about multimillion-dollar deals.

He went on to say—and this is one of my favourite musings—“We cannot expect private individuals … to commit long term to this country’s prosperity if they are at risk of having their assets stranded or devalued by Government intervention.” Hello? A lot of Telecom shareholders and other business investors are shaking their heads at the moment and wondering how the Minister can sleep at night given the obvious concerns in that area. At the last election Trevor Mallard campaigned on not selling State assets, but he was the one to muse openly about partially floating subsidiary companies of State-owned enterprises. So it seems that although he is keen on not selling off the family silver, he thinks it is OK to put the silver in another drawer and sell it off from there.

He then talked about tax deductions instead of grants, which is something that I do not think he has discussed with Michael Cullen, who oversees the Inland Revenue Department. Quite clearly, Trevor Mallard is not fit to be the next Minister of Finance.

I rise with huge pleasure in the general debate this afternoon to acknowledge and celebrate the announcement of the wonderful things that will happen on 1 July. Before I do so, I want briefly to acknowledge the tragic recent events in Auckland. I take this opportunity not to go anywhere near politicising such tragedy but to acknowledge the wonderful work in my own community of groups that are working around issues of family violence, and to pay a heartfelt tribute to organisations such as Parentline, the Institute for Child Protection Studies, our Family Start teams, the New Zealand Police, our Family Violence Intervention Programme—all of these wonderful people in our community who are doing their best. I also want to honour the wonderful work of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in my own city.

Hamilton in the Waikato is on a fabulous roll as a result of the work of this Government. It was very nice to hear the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Trevor Mallard, in response to a question in the House from my good colleague Sue Moroney the other day, talk about the wonderful impact of partnership between central and local government and the community in terms of some of the big events that will be attracted to the Waikato. I congratulate all of those who have been responsible for bringing the rowing world cup to Karapiro. I particularly congratulate Mayor Michael Redman and his team on bringing the wonderful V8 Supercar race to the area. Along with the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Government, I honour the wonderful people in the Waikato who have brought these events here. I went to the National Agricultural Fieldays—another wonderful event. We are on a roll. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who is sunning himself on Bondi Beach—who has taken off his pinstriped suit, for a bit of midwinter tan—we are on a roll. We are here, working for this country; we are not selling this country out.

I am so proud to be part of the Labour Party, to be part of the 90th anniversary celebrations, when we look back on the achievements of New Zealand’s oldest political party. When we gather in Parliament next week it will not be a black shirt and tie do of the elites of this country, of the people who want to sell this country out and buzz off and sun themselves on Bondi Beach, as the Leader of the Opposition does; it will be to celebrate our achievement and our commitment to this nation. I am so proud to be a member of this Government.

We will be celebrating the announcement of the Labour-led Government’s policies, to come into effect on 1 July, that will further improve the quality of life of Kiwi families—the Kiwi battlers, the people we represent, not the black shirt and tie, penguin-suited crowd on the other side of the House. We have built things that will bolster our economy and build our national identity. Early education subsidies will be increased—achievement; tick the box. Primary health organisation funding—cheaper doctors’ visits will be rolled out to the 45 to 64-year-old age group. Paid parental leave will be extended to the self-employed—tick the box. Rates rebates schemes for our elderly and lower-income people will come in—tick the box. Just the other day I visited schools in my electorate to hand out books as part of Government Book Week. This Government actually cares.

I was amazed when I heard Mr Key say that he would make a rare visit to Palmerston North. Mr Key should go back to his own electorate—the one he does not live in. He should visit that electorate, because the Government members of Parliament are in their electorates working, rolling up their sleeves and getting on with it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Who wrote this speech?

I wrote this speech, because I am so proud to be a Waikato member and Waikato is on a roll. Let me tell the House about the $200 million that the Government has allocated to Waikato transport, in addition to the record transport spending in the Waikato. The Government is awake and alive, unlike the previous National Government, which was in a coma. It was in a deep-induced coma when it came to the transport needs of the Waikato. Let me tell the House about that particular roll-out—about that particular achievement.

How ironic it is that just yesterday MPs stood on the steps of Parliament to receive a petition calling on the Government to reinstate PlunketLine so that parents of young children can be a phone call away from help and advice. This event was separated by only days from the news that had the nation reeling; the news of the death of two more children raised within—and I think I am quoting the co-leader of the Māori Party here—“a dysfunctional family environment”.

As the country reaffirmed, through a petition of 53,000 people, the urgent need to ensure that every support is provided to families with small children, we have to recognise that a number of good community agencies, which specialise in the work of early intervention with such families, were a walking distance away from the home where these twins lived and these twins died. Did agencies that were geographically so close to the problem fail? Did Government departments fail? Did neighbours fail? It was pretty obvious that in this case the family failed. But when families fail, how do we ensure that somebody knows, because our safety net has holes. These holes are created when agencies are disconnected from each other and from appropriate Government agencies, and the agencies are disconnected because they scramble and compete with each other for the scarce funding that is handed out.

If we are going to engage in some cross-party problem-solving—and United Future welcomes that idea—I imagine that we will find areas in which we can agree so that we can provide clear, decisive, and unified leadership from central government to communities looking for solutions to our appalling record on family violence. We will—of course—have to wait, I imagine, until the report on family violence is put out. But then we need to decide together what we agree on. We certainly agree the problem is there; what we need to find also is where we can agree on the solution.

I suggest there is one area that we could rally around, and that is the area of supporting the work of the third sector. The previous speaker, Martin Gallagher, complimented the many non-governmental organisations in his community that do a great job in reducing family violence. I also mention one in Christchurch—the Family Help Trust—that has been doing an amazing job with some of the most at-risk families in that community for years and years. It failed to get the needed Government assistance to expand its capacity to continue to make a difference. The voluntary, the charitable, and the not-for-profit organisations make a huge difference. If we could all agree to support—not undermine—the third sector, I think we could see some real reduction in the figures that appal us all so much. This sector, which links New Zealand families and the State, is like the glue that holds this country together. Government agencies focus on high-risk cases, but non-governmental organisations need to be empowered and resourced to continue their competent work with those identified as medium to low risk cases.

So what do these agencies spend all their time doing? They spend a lot of time raising money and filling in application forms and compliance reports; they are up to their elbows in administrative work. If we are going to seriously work to depoliticise this issue and work together on issues we could agree on, I think supporting the third sector is an area where we could all rally around and make a huge difference. I spend a lot of time in my electorate during adjournments meeting some of these agencies and hearing their concerns. They say it is sometimes difficult for them to take up the offer of Government money because of the strings attached. The very ethos of who they are is threatened because of the price that comes if they accept Government money to do the work they are doing.

I met with an agency in Christchurch the other day that is doing amazing work with offenders. When the offenders come out of prison, they are found accommodation and paid work. Why does this organisation not take Government money? It does not take Government money because, if it does, it has to take every prisoner who is put in its direction.

On 13 March, at the Boulcott Street Bistro, an event occurred that will go down in the political history of this country as “bistro-gate”. What happened that night at “bistro-gate” is a complete breach of Cabinet rules, and a complete breach of avoiding a conflict of interest. I have some lovely quotes from Ministers, but first I will paint the picture.

Air New Zealand makes no bones about the fact that it is in big trouble financially on the trans-Tasman service. Its solution is to get involved with a code-share—let us get the word code-share—with Qantas, so that an Air New Zealand flight can have a Qantas tail on it and a Qantas flight can have an Air New Zealand tail, etc. But there are some real issues there, especially issues involving the shareholding Minister, Dr Cullen, being involved in discussing that, given that Ministers will need to decide whether it can go ahead. So there is a straight conflict of interest. And what happened? On the night of 13 March, the chairman of Air New Zealand, the chief executive of Air New Zealand, and that well-known Labour Party supporter Ken Douglas, who is on the board of Air New Zealand, trundled off to the Boulcott Street Bistro for a dinner with Dr Michael Cullen, the shareholding Minister who has to make some of the decisions; Damien O’Connor, the Minister of Tourism; David Parker, who was then, before he resigned, the Minister of Transport; and Lianne Dalziel, who is in charge of the Commerce Commission.

I ask members to put up their hands if they think that code-share was not discussed. There is one hand in the entire House. Of all the members in the House, David Parker put his hand up; that is what I want the listeners to this debate to know. The rest did not put their hands up because they remember that back in 1999, National was subject to a similar smear campaign from Labour about our Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, and a dinner she had had with the boss of Saatchi and Saatchi, Kevin Roberts. I sat in my chair—just in front of where Nanaia Mahuta is sitting today—and I remember the day well when Labour asked whether the then Prime Minister had had dinner with Kevin Roberts. I could not understand what was wrong with that anyway; Prime Ministers have dinner with all sorts of people. But I think Jenny Shipley made a mistake. She said she had had dinner with Kevin Roberts, and then she went on to say something that may perfectly well have been true—we do not know. She said politics was not discussed at that dinner. This whole Chamber sucked big air in and Don McKinnon, who was sitting next to me, said her reply was really foolish, because no one would believe her.

I raise that as an example, because everybody in this House believes that on the night of 13 March, representatives of an airline that was in real trouble—desperately looking for a solution to get itself out of trouble—met with the Ministers involved and did not discuss the code-share. I know how to do those things. What they would have done was to say they would talk about the financial problems, they would talk about the capacity issues, and they would talk about the frequency of service, but they would not use the “c” word. They would then be like Bill Clinton, who was able to say: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” That is true, but we all know what actually happened. The same thing happened at the Boulcott Street Bistro. They were all careful—whoops, I nearly used the “c” word. Let us go back to the situation. They asked themselves how they were going to get around the capacity issue, how they were going to get around the fare structures, and how they were going to get around sharing the passengers in the seats—how they were going to get around all the issues—but without using the “c” word.

Then Dr Cullen came into this House and said they discussed the Tasman service—he openly admitted that—they discussed Air New Zealand’s financial problems and how the airline was haemorrhaging red ink because of Emirates Airline, and so on, but they did not discuss code-share. If there has ever been a chance for a Tui’s billboard, this has to be it. Four senior Cabinet Ministers met with an airline that is haemorrhaging and had only one solution on the billboard, which was code-share—I am sorry to use the “c” word; I know it is actually within the Standing Orders to use the “c” word here—and then they said they did not discuss that at the dinner. Who believes that? Only one person put a hand up. It is the best Tui’s billboard I have ever seen: “ ‘We did not discuss the code-share’, says Dr Cullen. Yeah, right!”. Nobody believes that.

The only thing anyone listening to this debate will remember about the previous speaker, Maurice Williamson, is that he used the “c” word so many times that people were beginning to wonder what he was talking about.

Now, more than ever before, it is great to be Labour. It is great to be Labour because there are a lot of things this Government has done to improve the lives of people. We know that is what really matters. While groups on the other side of the House like to spend a lot of time talking about animals, this party likes to talk about people. We are making a contribution to the lives of families and communities, where it really matters.

On 1 July people will hear a number of announcements that will build their confidence in what this Government achieves and delivers—we say what we will do, and we deliver. On 1 July there will be announcements made around the roll-out of primary health organisation funding for the 45-64 year age group, ensuring that affordable, accessible primary health care is available to that group of people. It really builds on previous gains made by this Government in the primary health care area. First, we signalled the roll-out of funding for the under-fives. We said we would do it and we did it. Then we said we would focus on over-65s and provide affordable, accessible health-care to that category of people. We said we would do it and we did it. The next focus was on the under-18-year-olds. We said we wanted to ensure that that category of people would be included in affordable, accessible health-care through primary health care organisations. We said we would do it and we did it.

Now, on 1 July, the next group of people to be included is the 45 to 64-year-olds. So we now have a broader net of people being included in affordable, accessible primary health care. All that is left is the 25 to 44-year-old age group, and that group will be included next year. When we say we will do something, we do it. What that really means for a lot of people is that when they go to their health services they are now paying $10 for a doctor’s visit. That is a far cry from when National was last in Government, when people were paying anything up to about $25, $35, or $45 per visit. It makes a difference where it really matters. Also, on some prescriptions, people are paying $3 rather than $15 or $20. That is making a difference where it really matters.

The announcements of 1 July will be really important because, again, they signal the intent of this Government. We have already introduced paid parental leave and, on 1 July, that measure will be extended to self-employed people. This will be particularly significant for women—Māori women in particular—because we have a lot more women going into self-employment. I know it will make a difference for a number of them.

In terms of the rates rebate scheme, on 1 July there will be an announcement about the extra 300,000 people who will be eligible for a rates rebate—up to $500 will be deducted from their annual rates. Again, that will make a real difference where it matters most for people.

The previous Labour speaker touched lightly on the issue of Books in Homes, and we know that a real issue for all our families is to improve literacy. This Government has contributed about $32 million per year to lift literacy standards in schools, but Books in Homes is a big part of that, because kids remember a good story. They enjoy taking home a book that they have been given.

This Government has consistently contributed $1.2 million per year to the Books in Homes initiative. In the Budget this year the Government announced that a further $750,000 will be added to that particular campaign. All week through the adjournment Labour members will be visiting schools, because they know that literacy in the home is actually where it matters—and that is what Books in Homes achieves. When young people get a book, they are able to take it home, their parents are able to sit down and read it with them, and that reinforces the learning. We know that all children really enjoy being able to read at home.

The other thing about this Government is it recognises that early childhood education is really important for all our children. The early years, and the good start children recive there, make a fundamental difference to their growing up. So the fact that we have invested an extra $30 million to lift early childhood education teaching, making sure that we have good-quality early childhood teachers in our schools and in front of our kids, again makes a difference where it really matters.

The fact of the matter is that in order to ensure that all children have a good opportunity in life, they must have a good education. Part of that is to ensure they have good literacy. Part of that is also to ensure they have choices—and that is what this Government is contributing to.

I begin by making a comment on the previous speaker’s words. Nanaia Mahuta said that although we on this side of the House like to speak about animals, they like to talk about people. I just make the comment that maybe that is why one law for all dogs failed.

I will tell members a story from the cold, snowy south—the electorate of Aoraki. I can tell members that last week we were very pleased to welcome the Minister of Civil Defence, Rick Barker, and to be able to tell him tall, but true, tales about the effects of the snow on our community. But two of Mr Barker’s comments have stuck in the minds of the people, and they have retold them to me. First of all, Mr Barker was offered a cup of tea. He declined the cup of tea because he said he had to get back to Christchurch before it got dark. Then the enormity of what he had said struck him. “Whoops!”, he said, “I guess you guys are in the dark a lot of the time at the moment, without any power.”

The other suggestion from Mr Barker was as follows. There they were with a water tanker outside the church hall, where the community had bandied together to cook for those without power, and he pointed over to the school and asked whether they would not be warmer in there. “Ah, no, Mr Barker,” they said, “your colleague Mr Mallard closed the school.”

That brings me to the message I would like to share here today. If Trevor Mallard is going to be the next Minister of Finance, and on the programme Agenda—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: No, no!

Yes, yes—he confirmed he would like the job, the people of Aoraki will be very worried. Why? Because in 2004 Mr Mallard closed 13 schools. If it was not for the outcry of the community of Aoraki, it would have been 19 schools, because that is how many were originally proposed. When Mr Mallard arrived with his team of officials they showed the gathered community the figures about why some schools should close or merge. They then discovered that those figures were from another region. They had got the wrong numbers.

At one stage a member of the Pleasant Point community asked why Mr Mallard was closing its schools when it would mean they would have to put their children on buses, and they would not get the activity and exercise that Mr Mallard wants them to get. I am told the response from Mr Mallard was that parents should get the kids to jump out and run behind the bus. Here we have a Minister who is nothing short of offhand about what should happen to the people of Aoraki.

Why should they be really nervous about this man as a potential Minister of Finance? It is because it seems he cannot count—which is a bit of a problem for a Minister of Finance. Merged schools such as Timaru Main School and Timaru West School, which have become Bluestone School, now have too many students because of the enrolment policy—zoning, by another name. It is too full, I say to Mr Mallard—as is Beaconsfield School. So, really, when they added up the number of students, they got something wrong. Such is this man’s notoriety in Aoraki that at the Christmas parade they had mallard ducks hanging by their necks, swinging merrily along on the back of trucks.

Pleasant Point High School, Seadown School, Ōrari School, Clandeboye School, Milford School, Washdyke School—those are just some of the schools that have closed. Clandeboye School was my primary school, and it was a sad day indeed when we celebrated the last students being at Clandeboye school. Even sadder is the fact that the building programmes these schools were promised are not finished now, in 2006. The Waitaki Valley School is not finished either—and that review was begun years before.

My colleague Katherine Rich reminded us of something that Mr Mallard implied—that it was OK if Government businesses fell over because at least they owned the assets. He said that he wanted State-owned enterprises to be less boring and predictable. I can tell members that the people of Aoraki would sure like their power to be predictably on right now—and to stay on.

My colleague John Key told a woeful tale of “bistro-gate”—of conflicts of interest, of muddled stories, of no-notes meetings. Maurice Williamson also told us a tale of the words they did not mention—that “c” word, code-share. Of course, a lot of people on this side of the House are saying: “Yeah, right!”. I know that the people of Aoraki are incredibly worried about Mallard as finance Minister.

The previous speaker used the term “Yeah, right!” but let us consider the history of the behaviour of the National Party before the last election. Given that an agnostic had prayer meetings with the Exclusive Brethren, yet National claimed that no political activity was going on, one can say “Yeah, right!”. Let us remind that member, who is grizzling about buildings, that under this Government’s 5-year building programme in schools, schools are actually building new buildings and renovating others, and they are in a really pristine condition, compared with how they were when the Labour Government came into power.

Opposition members bang on and on about tax cuts, and we all know what tax cuts mean. Tax cuts mean health cuts. Tax cuts mean education cuts. Tax cuts mean police cuts, Working for Families cuts, and superannuation cuts. Tax cuts mean rates rebate cuts, because we know National did not support the rates rebate for superannuitants and lower-paid workers. Tax cuts also mean apprenticeship cuts, industry training cuts, transport cuts, employments rights cuts—we are seeing that happen with the Wayne Mapp bill—and wage cuts. When Opposition members talk about tax cuts, they should be more honest about just what they would do if they were in Government.

But we are not in Government to wallow in despair, as National does; we are here to celebrate. In July, in less than a couple of weeks’ time, the Labour Party will be having a big party to celebrate its 90th birthday. We will be celebrating 90 years of being in Parliament, representing good, hard-working Kiwis, and delivering for them—in the words of Michael Joseph Savage—from the “cradle to the grave”. It is really heartening to know that that philosophy or goal has not changed with the Labour Party of today. We now see paid parental leave being extended to self-employed people. That is a wonderful thing. I remember, when I was part of the union movement, working really hard with women to lobby for paid parental leave, which we considered was very important. The introduction of that legislation was again opposed, of course, by the National Party and by its friends in ACT. But now it is a given that every mother or father is entitled to paid parental leave. Initially the period was 12 weeks’ leave. That was extended to 14 weeks, and eligibility has now been extended to self-employed people. We think that is a wonderful thing.

Primary health organisation funding has been extended to include 45 to 64-year-olds. Next year the whole of New Zealand will be included in healthier, more affordable primary health care. We know that makes for healthier New Zealanders, and that is really good for our economy.

I heard the speech made by my colleague Nanaia Mahuta, and I say she is a great Minister of Youth Affairs. She is doing a fantastic job. She talked about the Books in Homes programme, which is something else the Government is very proud of. We are extending that programme, because we know that if children’s learning is extended at an early age and they can take books home, then that very much starts them off with learning at school and later on in life.

Although I was talking about starting off learning at school, we know that one of the best investments we have ever made is that in early childhood education. My children are a little too old for early childhood education—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Surely not!

Yes, they are. I remember, when my children were young, the challenges of being a working mum and finding quality, affordable early childhood education. When we implement the 20 hours per week of funded early childhood education in all early childhood centres with registered teachers, that will be a wonderful thing for parents and children in this country. I know that everyone in the Labour-led Government, including all our friends who supported the programme, believe it will be very much a great benchmark for our people.

I am a former nurse, and I think our Primary Health Care Strategy is great.

The only true way to measure the value of Government policies is on a comparative basis.

💬 Hon David Parker: In an election.

Exactly! I thought about this when I read of the 300 West Coasters being culled from the hospital waiting lists, and 500 in Nelson at the Tasman end of the electorate. I made a quick comparison of the National caucus health team with the present Government’s health team. National has Tony Ryall, who is experienced, thorough, and insightful. It has Dr Jackie Blue, Dr Jonathan Coleman, Dr Paul Hutchison, and Jo Goodhew, who is a registered nurse tutor. We have four health practitioners and an astute political leader. That is the National caucus health team. What has Labour got? A vet. It is no wonder that Labour culls patients like cattle.

Let us look at the National caucus foreign affairs team. We have veteran Murray McCully, career negotiator Tim Groser, and career diplomat John Hayes. The present Labour-led Government’s foreign affairs team includes a list MP from New Zealand First, who is not in Cabinet but who is a careering politician best described as a political chameleon of ever-changing hues.

In agriculture, the National caucus team has experienced farmers David Carter and Nathan Guy, plus other members with a heap of primary production experience. Labour has Jim Anderton. Wow! When did he last milk a moo-cow, if ever?

One could go on and look at all the portfolios such as energy, education, law, and commerce. In each and every portfolio, National’s caucus is a Government in readiness. Labour knows that. The key to the country’s future—the key that can unlock doors that are locked with stifling over-regulation and compliance—is the finance portfolio. That is the key to success, and National has its very own key—John Key. He has a solid record of success in each of his endeavours. He leads National’s finance team of Bill English, Lockwood Smith, and Craig Foss. The present Government line-up in finance is uncertain. But no matter who is put up, the comparison is all in National’s favour.

I note the reduced influence of Dr Cullen. Let us remember that I have been a member only since last September, but I have come to realise that the erstwhile Dr Cullen is to Ms Clark what Hugh Watt was to Norman Kirk. Hugh Watt did the work, but sadly received little recognition or more than cosmetic credit. It is not fair, but what is fair on that side of the House? It looks as if someone else has designs on Dr Cullen’s position, and that someone is purported to be Mr Mallard. Mr Mallard is the maestro Minister of Education who did for the Grey Valley schools.

Like many of the present Government’s financial would-bes, wannabes, and never-weres, Mr Mallard seems to believe that we can suddenly activate State-owned enterprises into becoming entrepreneurial enterprises in order to get more globally competitive firms. He says we need organisations of scale that can afford to have a few losses on the way. It is news to me that any successful business venture sets forth on the comfortable basis that it is OK to make a few losses on the way. That is a recipe for structural and leadership disaster. That is Eastern bloc economics without the laughs. The whole point of business development, regardless of scale, is not to take away risk but to take away uncertainty. That is what stimulates entrepreneurs to take away uncertainty, and let them measure the risk and take it.

Uncertainty is the currency this present Government deals in. It puts regulation as its paramount principle, and uncertainty follows as surely as night follows day—the uncertainty of resource consent, regulation change, and cost compliance. Labour policies are like a giant pillow shoved over the face of aspiring businesses, and Mr Mallard does not have the pinch, punch, or clarity to be even a mediocre pillow fighter within the suffocating Labour-led caucus.

I ask to be allowed to make an impassioned plea to the present Prime Minister’s chief of staff to consider the reality that such a change will be an economic, social, commercial, and financial disaster, with overwhelming ramifications for the future of New Zealand. Labour should choose a replacement for Dr Cullen who can act with responsibility, integrity, and good commercial sense—someone like, well, I guess there lies the problem.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.