General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Later this week the current Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, will embark on a taxpayer-funded farewell, bon voyage, haere rā trip around the world. Don Brash thinks he will be representing the National Party at the unveiling of the New Zealand memorial in London. But everybody knows that at this time of the year the National Party backstabbers move on their use-by-date leader; it is traditional, and history is there to prove it. I believe we could add to that old Christmas carol line, “Tis the season to be merry” the phrase, “Tis the season for a National Party leadership coup.”

As I said, history proves me right. Pre-Christmas 1997 Jim Bolger was rolled by Jenny Shipley; pre-Christmas 2001 Jenny Shipley was rolled by Bill English; pre-Christmas 2003 Bill English was rolled by Don Brash; pre-Christmas 2006 Don Brash is about to be rolled by John Key, or Gerry Brownlee, or Simon Power, or Bill English, or, as an outside chance, maybe Judith Collins. It always happens at this time of the year, and it always happens when National’s leader heads overseas.

Members should remember that Jim Bolger was overseas when Jenny toppled him; Jenny was overseas when Bill English toppled her; and Bill English was overseas when Don toppled him. Of course, it is far better to smile and wave goodbye to a departing back, which is a much bigger target, than it is to look a person in the eye and see his or her hurt as a result of the betrayal. Poor old Don Brash refuses to recognise that he is on the last leg of his political journey. He is about to give up on his gold elite travel card, and he is about to get a golden age card. He is about to pass over his parliamentary salary, for the old-age pension.

National Party plotters opposite cannot believe their good luck. Gerry Brownlee is laughing away. He knows he has hit the nail on the head. Don Brash refuses to heed the “beware the ides of November” call from the media and the commentators. He has already packed his little suitcase, and he is ready to leave because he knows this is a chance to get overseas, to strut on the world stage, and to hobnob it with royalty. The trouble is that the National Party plotters back home are ready to give him the “hobnail”, so to hell with hobnobbing; it is all about the “hobnailing” that he is about to receive.

Let us face it: the shadowy figure of National’s chief strategist, Murray McCully, is donkey deep in it. He has been behind every coup National has had in the last 20 years, and he follows a very well-rehearsed plan. First, he ensures that National’s leader is set up to look like a loser—incompetent and silly. Then he ensures that all the wannabe leaders fight with each other to see who will win. When he gets a feel for who will be the winner, he does the numbers for that contender. So Murray McCully becomes “Mr Indispensable”—always on the side of the new leader. I have to tell members that the McCully “change the leader” strategy is under way as we speak. He is already up to stage three of the plan.

It was inevitable that Don Brash would receive the order of the boot after he lost the last election. He was, to be fair, given time to bask in his almost victory, and he received some praise, gratitude, and loyalty from some members opposite who did not think they would ever make it into this place and cannot believe their luck that they are sitting in Parliament. But for the perennial plotters it was always a case of not if, but when. It works like this: one starts by undermining Don Brash—they started doing that about 2 months after the election. He was set up to look incompetent in the House and in the media. His time is coming; National members know it—he is down the road.

Helen Clark’s incredible speech claiming that New Zealand will be carbon neutral is just not credible. We have had 36 Cabinet papers and 71 reports, but 7 years after Labour came to office we still do not have a climate change policy. Emissions are going through the roof and are growing faster than those of any other OECD country; forest planting is going through the floorboards, with this being the first year in over 50 years in which we have cut down more trees than we have planted; and we have the gall of a Prime Minister who, somehow, wants to pretend that New Zealand under Helen Clark will be carbon neutral.

I am reminded of the goal set by Helen Clark that New Zealand would be in the top half of the OECD by 2010. We have all had to forget about that. We had the closing the gaps policy from Labour and the Prime Minister, and that too has gone by the wind. Helen Clark has become so desperate to stay on as Prime Minister that she will say anything at all.

I remind Labour members, who have this carbon neutral fantasy, of just what their record is, not just on climate change but also on environmental sustainability. On Tuesday the nations of the world came together to discuss climate change. The figures came out for the last 5 years. Emissions in the UK have gone down by 1 percent over the last 5 years. In Japan they have gone up by 0.7 percent. In the USA—where big bad George Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies, according to the Labour Party—emissions have gone up by 1.3 percent. But here in carbon neutral New Zealand, emissions have gone up by not 1.3 percent but 5.4 percent—over four times the rate of the United States and over double the rate of Australia. But the Prime Minister says we should be carbon neutral.

She told the Labour Party conference—and this was a good one, as well—that she thought Labour needed to take leadership on afforestation. That is what she said. Well, back in the 1990s we averaged 60,000 hectares of new forest each year. Every single year that Helen Clark has been Prime Minister, the amount of forest planted in New Zealand has declined. It is so bad that in 2005—for the first time since 1953—we hacked down more trees than we planted, yet Helen Clark has the gall to say to us that she wants to show leadership in afforestation.

Then we have the issue of electricity. Today I asked Helen Clark how come the amount of electricity we as a country produce from coal has gone from 3 percent to 10 percent in just the 6 years she has been Prime Minister. That is a trebling in the amount of power produced from coal, but the Prime Minister talks about being carbon neutral. Labour said no to Project Aqua. It said no to Dobson. Yet New Zealand is producing less of its power from renewable sources today than at any time in our country’s history. But she is saying we will be carbon neutral. Right now, one of the Government’s own companies, Mighty River Power, is proposing to build a 320-megawatt—absolutely giant—coal-fired power station in Whangarei. That power station will put out nearly 70 million tonnes of carbon over its 40-year life. Ministers back it, but the Prime Minister says we are going carbon neutral. It is a farce. It is a nonsense.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. When we plot the path to nationhood the events of June 2003 are etched in our memory, for it was in June 2003 that a landmark ruling from the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Māori Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims to territory below the high-tide mark. The Court of Appeal determined that the Crown had never passed legislation to extinguish unilaterally Māori customary ownership in the foreshore and seabed. It found without a doubt that hapū and iwi could take cases to the Māori Land Court to verify the extent of their ownership. The judges ruled that Crown ownership was not completely certain and that it was possible that a claim to customary title could in some cases convert to a private title.

But it was also in June 2003 that, as quick as a flash, the Government pounced in by righteously proclaiming a need to legislate to protect the foreshore and seabed, supposedly for all New Zealanders. It went further by feigning protest that all it was doing was treating all New Zealanders in a fair and equal manner. What part of fairness can we understand for tangata whenua, a group of people of New Zealand, being denied their day in court? If the Government was looking for fair and equal treatment, why, then, did the Waitangi Tribunal warn it that the Foreshore and Seabed Act breached human rights, the Treaty of Waitangi, and English common law by denying Māori the right to take their claims to court?

The Court of Appeal ruling would have allowed Māori to pursue claims to the foreshore and seabed through the courts. Labour shut that option down. Labour’s act of confiscation shut down any possibility of tangata whenua claiming customary title through the High Court—a right that had never been tested in a New Zealand court.

So who was meant by “all New Zealanders”? It appears that “all New Zealanders” does not include those of Māori descent or other New Zealanders who attended the four national foreshore and seabed hui led by hapū and iwi and called for the right of access to the court to be preserved. “All New Zealanders” does not include the widespread community opposition, opposition that the National Council of Women returned to in its press release last month supporting the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Despite the futile hope that the events of 2003 and 2004 are but a painful memory, the fact is that many New Zealanders are still hurting and grieving over the unilateral actions of a discriminatory Government regime. Delegates of the National Council of Women last month emphasised that all New Zealanders feel a special connection with the land. So strong was their conviction, their key recommendation from their annual conference was to support the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The council recognised that the Act was a case of discrimination against the human rights of tangata whenua, and that there was an obligation to uphold human rights for all people.

The sad fact is that the divisive actions of the Labour Government campaign, and the conflict caused by the ongoing attempts at misinformation and misrepresentation, are still creating friction today. I read recently a paper by Dr Maria Bargh in Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, which must inform this House. Dr Bargh, a politics lecturer, made the following remarks about events since June 2003: “The foreshore and seabed legislation is not the only statute aimed specifically at removing Maori culture, rights, and property. This episode is part of a sad and sorry history and it is essential now that we change the game plan so that legislation is not used in such a manner in the future. … It is not too late to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act and to conduct ourselves in a manner which is respectful of human rights and which fosters positive race relations.”

We must have the courage to listen to this young Māori academic, to listen to the judiciary, to listen to the National Council of Women, to listen to the Waitangi Tribunal, and to listen to hapū and iwi—to listen and to learn. Polarised and political position-taking will not lead to nationhood.

Let us honour the responsibility of this Parliament to bring the nation forward and to create the legal position that existed as a result of a Court of Appeal judgment in 2003. Let us repeal Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 in its entirety, thus enabling hapū and iwi to approach the courts if they so choose, and let us be strong in our resolve to take on a long-term vision for Aotearoa.

Leading off the National Party’s contribution today was one Nick Smith. How long was he deputy leader of the National Party? Can anyone remember how long that was?

💬 Jill Pettis: A month?

I do not think it was that long. Was it a month? I am not sure. [Interruption] Five minutes—I think he was there for 5 minutes. Members might recall that he turned up to that caucus meeting as the numbers man for Bill English. He had all the numbers in the bag. He left that meeting without Bill English as his leader; Don Brash was the leader and he, Nick Smith, was the deputy leader. He went in as the numbers man for Bill English and came out the deputy leader. It was very strange behaviour, indeed. I saw signs of very strange behaviour again when he led off the general debate today. In fact, I do not know why Don Brash did not participate in this debate. I do not know why he bothered to turn up to Parliament this week. It is a very good question as to why he was not asking questions in the House today. I suppose that valedictory questions are in order. I suppose if one is not giving a valedictory speech then valedictory questions might be in order, due to the propensity of the National Party to order spring rolls at this time of the year.

As Annette King highlighted in her contribution to the debate, Mr Bolger was rolled in November, Mrs Shipley was rolled in October, and Bill English was rolled in October. It is time for another spring roll, and I am sure a November roll is being ordered from the menu again. When we think about it, all the ingredients are there: a disgruntled former leader, a hapless current leader, a disappointed back bench, and, of course, the key ingredient—with the emphasis on the word “Key”—a pretender to the throne. I have to say that the back-bench members, though, are pretty confused. We hear them talking about it, and some of them feel they owe their parliamentary seats to Don Brash. Certainly, he has a cosy relationship with the Exclusive Brethren, who delivered pamphlets filled with lies about this Government and lies about the Green Party, which is a tactic they have used in other countries. Even the National Party candidates who were a bit embarrassed and did not want to be associated with the Exclusive Brethren could feel one step removed, as Don Brash had embraced them on their behalf.

So, on the one hand, these back-benchers feel like they owe their seats to Don Brash, but, on the other hand, he embarrasses them every time he opens his mouth. Yesterday we saw another example of that. Don Brash had been briefed about the stadium issues by Murray McCully. Everyone remembers him saying when he was here in the House how well briefed he had been by Murray McCully. Yet, on the way into the House, he told Television One he had not been briefed at all. Which statement was correct? [Interruption] Oh, that was before he saw Mr McCully, I hear the member interject. This was in the House after question No. 1. When did Mr Brash get this extensive briefing from Mr McCully? I do not think that a tap on the shoulder from Mr McCully in the House is something that I would particularly want to have happen. It is just hopeless behaviour, and no wonder the back bench is embarrassed.

Don Brash is even reported in the Listener this week as saying there was a bit of headcounting about 6 weeks ago. Why would he do that? Why would he confirm that the count was on and that the numbers were being done? He might think that it is in his interests because, he says, he does not sense any mood for change, but I do not think that he senses much of anything. It is a little bit like Mr Magoo without his glasses on; he cannot really see what is happening and he has no sense of what is going on. How is that a confident statement from a confident leader? I do not believe it is. Even National Party supporters, when they are polled, have John Key as their preferred leader. I think the bottom line is that Don Brash is yesterday’s man. I think we can assign him to political dog-tucker.

The only contender now, though, is John Key. There ain’t no one else in this race. All the rest have been written off, and Mr Key knows this. He was on Canterbury TV recently. I was flicking through the channels and I found this interview, so I decided to watch it. Every time it was put to him that he was expected to be leader of the National Party—indeed, Prime Minister of New Zealand, which I thought was an oxymoron—he deflected the question. Every single time there was no flat denial of this ambition at all. He did not once disavow the interviewer of his desire to take on the top job, and that is because that is the job he wants. It is because he does not want to be on the record, because he is doing the numbers now.

I can recall a question time in this House a few years back when I watched Helen Clark go through the contortions of pulling her Government back from an economic target that she had set, and that was to put New Zealand into the top half of the OECD for economic growth. It was one of those long, complicated processes where she started by saying: “Well, I put it in my speech but it wasn’t formal. The officials put it in all the documents, but it wasn’t me who signed them. It was aspirational. It wasn’t something that we ever took seriously.” In the end, of course, she had to abandon it, because, even under reasonable economic conditions, she had absolutely no hope, under her policies, of getting New Zealand into the top half of the economic ladder of the OECD.

I sat here during question time yesterday and today and I felt it all happening again. Again we have heard an aspirational target. Helen Clark got up at the Labour Party conference and said that New Zealand would become carbon neutral. That is a very, very tough target. In fact, it is so tough that she will certainly not be able to achieve it. Helen Clark has been asked just what she means by carbon neutrality, and she will not say. Does she mean stabilising emissions where they are? Does she mean no growth in emissions? Does she mean that New Zealand will eliminate all emissions? The Stern report states that emissions will have to be cut by 60 to 80 percent. Does she mean that New Zealand will eliminate carbon emissions? That is what most people who use the term “carbon neutral” think it means.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Offset.

Offset, or whatever it is, Helen Clark has not been able to tell this House what she means by her target.

National members, of course, are deeply sceptical and I will tell members why. Every single policy that Labour has brought in, except for the bill that is currently before the House, has been a failure. The levy for research into methane emissions, otherwise known as the “fart tax”, was announced and abandoned. The carbon tax was announced and abandoned. The tendering of renewable energy projects was stopped. The negotiated greenhouse agreements were announced then abandoned. [Interruption] Now we are hearing the other Helen Clark gambit—that it is all National’s fault. The Government takes the ministerial salaries, and the limos, and all the credit for everything, but if something does not work, it is because the National Party did not support it. So now it is National’s fault.

Well, it is not National’s fault; it is Labour’s fault. It is Labour’s fault because although those members know how to articulate their objectives, how to publish the pamphlets, how to get the civil service pushing the Government’s political message, at the cost of tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayer, all over the country every day, they simply lack the competence to deal with this major issue. How do we know that they lack the competence? Because every single major policy initiative has turned into a debacle.

Even the things that are not initiatives have ended up a mess. The Government was meant to be producing more energy in New Zealand from renewable sources, and we have less. The Government decided to build an oil-fired power station at Whirinaki, and to stop a hydro project down on the West Coast, because even though that project was going to be in a gorse-filled gully, the gully was owned by the Department of Conservation. Those are the decisions the Government made. It could not have made any worse decisions in terms of pushing up carbon emissions. If the Government had set out to raise carbon emissions, those policies would have been a success. Imagine if Government members had got up and said that! They would have been ridiculed.

Now, National members are going to expose, step by step, Labour’s record on environmental policy, and climate change in particular, to show that the most reckless leader of any Government in the developed world in respect of the global climate is not George Bush, and is not John Howard; it is Helen Clark.

Debate interrupted.