General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In the aftermath of the release of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct yesterday, a couple of positive developments need to be acknowledged. The first has been the immediate acceptance by the Government of all 60 recommendations of the report, and its promise that those will be implemented. The second has been the unreserved apology issued by the Commissioner of Police for the disgraceful behaviour that was revealed by the report, and his commitment to take all steps to ensure the culture that gave rise to that type of behaviour is not continued within the New Zealand police force.

Two immediate measures arise from the broader surroundings of the report that are still to be dealt with. They were in the broad milieu of issues raised by the report but are critical to the restoration of credibility in the New Zealand Police and they need to be dealt with as a priority. The first of those concerns the position in Auckland of former assistant commissioner of police, Mr Clint Rickards. Mr Rickards may well say, in the wake of his recent acquittals, that he is entitled to be reinstated to his old position. But any move to have Mr Rickards anywhere near being a serving officer within the New Zealand Police simply contaminates the whole process and undercuts the positive work that the Bazley report has initiated.

So the pressure now has to go on Mr Rickards, the police, and the Government to ensure that his relationship with the New Zealand Police is terminated as swiftly as possible. While that taint of suspicion remains—albeit allowing for the acquittals—and while the need to build a new culture is held back by the shadow of the past, there can be no progress. For many New Zealanders the real test of commitment to resolving the situation within the police force will rest on the fate of Mr Rickards. It is absolutely vital that there now be a concerted move to remove him as soon as possible.

The second issue that we need to address in the wake of the report arises out of the trials. There are many, many New Zealanders who scratch their heads today and ask how it can be, when a rape case occurs, that the complainant’s sexual history is laid bare before the court, the complainant’s reputation is picked over and virtually destroyed by the defence counsel, but the defendant’s prior history, where it is relevant, is shielded from the court. I think many New Zealanders will be saying that although the trials of Messrs Rickards, Schollum, and Shipton were conducted according to our rules and the juries did their best, they will be asking why it is that those juries were not made aware that two of the defendants were already serving terms in prison for similar types of offence.

The principles of trying to keep a separation may well be appropriate in some quarters, but for many New Zealanders today they go to the heart of the credibility of this issue. I welcome the fact that the Law Commission has already indicated it wants to do some work in this area. I think it is vitally important that the New Zealand public be offered some assurance on this point and that we do not have the double standard whereby a complainant risks being figuratively laid bare in a court while a defendant can sit there and have previous facts, which are utterly relevant to the case, suppressed in the interests of allowing that person a fair trial. What price fairness for the complainant in those situations?

The events of the last few months have brought that reality home very starkly to the people of New Zealand. Although it is good to see that the recommendations of the report have been adopted, and that the appropriate apologies have been made—and I believe Commissioner Broad; I believe that there is genuine remorse within New Zealand Police—it is important that these matters of outstanding business be dealt with before there can be a proper end to this matter. We should never forget that those brave women who came forward are but the tip of the iceberg. There are many other women—if we look at the number of offences—who must have been attacked in this way. There are their families, friends, and supporters who have borne those women’s scars and burdens with them, and they deserve some justice, too. That is what has to happen now.

It is the sign of a Government that is under pressure and that cannot hack the pace when the Minister of Education has to resort in question time to using a four-letter word to defend a failing position. It is the sign of a Government under huge pressure. Members of the New Zealand public will remember the way that Government members showed disdain for Ron Mark when he gave the visual equivalent of what Steve Maharey said in the House today. It is a sign of what is permeating through this Government when the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Trevor Mallard, was heard using the same kind of language when talking to Television New Zealand—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Relax, and when members are feeling relaxed, relax even more.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member knows that what he is saying is untrue. I require that he withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has taken personal exception under Standing Order 116. I ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw.

Plenty of people heard Trevor Mallard speaking to the staff of Television New Zealand. They will draw their own conclusions as to what Mr Trevor Mallard was trying to tell Television New Zealand and the way the Government is trying to influence journalists in New Zealand. Mr Mallard knows that I am correct. He knows exactly what he said to those journalists. He knows exactly that we have a rich vein in this Government that will cross anyone and anything to get to where it wants to go. Mr Maharey should have the good grace now to get up and apologise to my colleague Mr Jonathan Coleman for using the f word in question time. He should get up and apologise to the people of New Zealand, because he knows what he said.

On Monday, National made a very significant policy in relation to education. We said we wanted to do a couple of things. We care about improving educational standards in New Zealand, and we will do three things. One is that we will have a national benchmark. We will be able to manage and measure whether children in New Zealand have reached a benchmark for reading, writing, and maths. The second thing we will do is assess those children against that benchmark each year. The third thing we will do is report to the parents of New Zealand.

I was not surprised that the Minister of Education did not think that that was a great idea, because he does not like reports. On Saturday the New Zealand Herald ran a report on Cabinet, and it makes pretty grim reading. There is a lot more detail in this report than the amount of detail parents get about their children in New Zealand. So what did it say about Steve Maharey, whom it rated pretty lowly? The entire Cabinet barely got a five out of 10. It said: “His supreme self-confidence should have taken a battering over the 20-hour ‘free’ childcare fiasco and the implementation of NCEA.”

What is quite interesting today is the pecuniary interest register that has just come out. Out of interest I looked at the pecuniary interest register. I looked at the entry on Mr Maharey, actually. What does it say? It says lots of things, actually. It says that the Minister of Education went to Botswana to overview educational standards—that is what he did. The man who is trying to tell the National Party how to run education went to Botswana—

💬 Hon Member: Did he tell them what he thought of them?

I think he might have told them what he thought of them when he was there. On top of all that, the trip was paid for by the country of Botswana. It actually paid for him to go. So my advice to Steve is to keep his educational advice for the good people of Botswana—or maybe he should pass it on to Sean Plunket. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are not really that interested.

There are some other quite interesting comments in this New Zealand Herald report, in which some Ministers really did not get a five out of 10. Mark Burton, with his normal confidence and will, rated a two out of 10. That was no improvement on last year; he got the deuce last year, as well. The report states: “Clark must be pointing him in the direction of the exit sign …”. What it did not say is that Helen Clark—as she said in the New Zealand Herald a few weeks earlier, actually—has eight members, minimum, on her exit list, and word from inside is that there are 14. What happened the day after she said there were eight? Mr Hawkins was in the paper saying: “I’m going nowhere.” She did not have to name and shame him, like she did Dover Samuels, Jill Pettis, Paul Swain, Russell Fairbrother, or Mark Burton—there are many on the list. George Hawkins came out in the paper and said to the Prime Minister: “I’m going nowhere.” Well, that is where this Government is going—nowhere in a hurry, because it is in one awful rut.

There will be people at home who are unfamiliar with the voice of John Key, because he has been here for only 4 years. There are members on the other side of the Chamber who have been here almost all their lives—they have been here so long—but they have had to watch somebody who has been here for only 4 years rise above them and be made the leader of the once-great National Party. He is their great hope to lead them back into the ring at the next election. Since John Key has been elevated to his position, people have asked, in boxing terms, whether he has the legs. Does he have a punch? Can he go the distance? Does he have a glass jaw? These are all the kinds of things one might ask about a boxer.

Let us have a look at what has happened to John Key, the inexperienced lightweight, as he has tried to move up to the heavyweight division and entered the ring each time. Firstly, let us take the example of foreign affairs. The Prime Minister went to the US and appeared on television. Virtually every commentator in the country and around the world said: “What a fantastic leader!”. She was overseas representing the nation and saying that we needed to build the relationship with the US, and on this side of the world what did we have? We had a man described as a prat, because he broke the convention of not criticising someone who is offshore representing this country, by undermining our Prime Minister while she was away doing the best for the country. I think that is a knockout; I think that is a knockout.

Let us go to the second one. Let us say that here is a man—brand new. He knows nothing, but wants to do something about the “poo-ar” of the country—I am sure that those on the other side refer to them that way; that is how Don Brash used to refer to them—so he takes a few muesli bars and rips around to a local school he has never been to before. He asks them whether they would like the muesli bars, but they tell him they do not need them and they do not want them. He says that, well, he will run an entire food programme for schools on the basis of his failure there—and a little bit later we see in the paper that the entire programme has been withdrawn. I think that is a knockout—that is a knockout, as well.

Let us consider national testing. On the day that 1,600 principals were gathered together in Auckland praising this education system—1,400 from overseas and Sir Ken Robinson, the world-renowned educationalist, praising our system—the Leader of the Opposition was bagging our primary schools, saying that he wanted national standards, league tables, and national testing that was age-related for 5-year-olds. He was told unequivocally that no one—no one—agreed. I think that is a knockout; I think that is a knockout.

This is the same member who changes his mind on the most fundamental national issues—no State housing: “We are not going to have income-related rents; we believe that market rents are the only way to allocate housing.” And: “We believe that people should buy their own house.”, says John Key, as the spiritual leader of the National Party informed by the Exclusive Brethren to lead that way. What would they say? They would say that the market has to be allowed to rule, and now John Key says that National will try market rents.

This man changes his mind too easily. It tells us that the three knockout punches so far have made him punch-drunk, and that he will agree, now, with anything. He will agree with anything—with any policy put in front of him. If he thinks he will get elected, he will agree with it. That is why Mr Key is now seen as a total lightweight who has tried to step up to the heavyweight division. He has tried to foot it but, fundamentally, he might float like a butterfly but he has the sting of a wet bus ticket.

I welcome the attacks by Labour members on John Key, because the more they do that the higher are his ratings in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. Every time people like Steve Maharey attack John Key, or every time the obsessive Michael Cullen attacks John Key, it makes the public realise that it is time those Ministers went—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a recycled speech.

—and that one in particular. When you are Minister for State Owned Enterprises, march into the gallery, and abuse and shout at reporters from the company that you are in charge of, that is overstepping the limit. When the Minister in charge—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very important that the truth in this area is told, Mr Assistant Speaker. You do not own the company and I am not in charge of it. The member, who has been a member of Parliament for quite a long time—and, occasionally, not a very good one—should know that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, the member cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. More important than that, the member indicated that I was the Minister responsible for Television New Zealand. I am not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order; that is a debatable issue.

So, apparently, it is OK to use four-letter words? Just because, technically, Steve Maharey—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition made an allegation; he withdrew that allegation. I ask that this member’s allegation be withdrawn; I did not use four-letter words to Mr Espiner.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has taken offence, under Standing Orders 115 and 116. I would ask the member to desist—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member never said that he took offence; he just said that he did not like the allegation.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I most certainly do take offence, when members lie in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you—and that is out of order, too, Mr Mallard. So can I have an apology from Mr English and an apology from Mr Mallard.

Then the Minister—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I asked for an apology from the member.

I apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you—and Mr Mallard?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: So do I.

We hear these rumours around the corridor that front-benchers of the Labour Party are considering retiring. Well, they should; they should consider it. Trevor Mallard wanted to be Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance told us today that he is staying.

I do not know why the New Zealand Herald is so biased in favour of Steve Maharey. It rated him six out of 10. This is the man who wrecked Television New Zealand, wrecked the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, and wrecked early childhood education. He came back and used Botswana as a pejorative term in talking about education. I wonder whether he said that to the Botswanan Government, which paid for him to go there and look at the country’s educational standards. We know what every one else knows—that he is a very slippery character.

Dr Cullen should look at retiring, too. He has done what he came to do. I agree that he has been able to put some semblance of order on this socialist rabble, but he has done it, they have got to him, he has finished his job, and it is time for him to move on so the New Zealand economy can take the next step.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Socialist rabble!

The Minister of Māori Affairs should move over for the man who has queued up for his seat; he is right ready to take over. That Minister should retire, as well.

Corrections, health, education, police—those areas show no accountability, no responsibility. This is a Government that is washed up, finished up, and, worst of all, now just does not care. These Government Ministers actually do not care whether the Department of Corrections gets sorted out, because they will not be there. They do not care whether 20 hours’ free education will wreck the early childhood sector, because they will not be there. They do not care whether kids who are not getting proper professional teaching in schools can read or write, because they will not be there to fix the problem.

The New Zealand Herald overrated this Cabinet. Usually I would rate its journalists seven out of 10, but on their Cabinet ratings I would give them five. I think that all the journalists should put up their list of retirements. Should worn-out, abusive Ministers retire?

💬 Hon Members: Yes!

Yes, of course they should. Should a bad-tempered Minister of Finance retire, after his last Budget?

💬 Hon Members: Yes!

Yes, he should. Should a failed Minister of Māori Affairs retire?

💬 Hon Members: Yes!

Yes, he should.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I thought he had!

Oh, we thought he had—that is right. No, it is the Minister of Justice who has already retired.

Why is Phil Goff rated so highly when he does nothing—except sit in his caravan, waiting—

💬 Hon Members: Waiting, waiting.

—and I think that now he is counting—

💬 Hon Members: Counting, counting.

He is a man who has not had a serious domestic policy job in 10 years. The only one he did have was in justice—and what a mess he left that in! The peak of his justice career was to try to make it legal for people to have sex with 10-year-olds. I invite the New Zealand Herald to look at what Phil Goff has actually done, apart from sitting in his caravan waiting, waiting, waiting—

💬 Simon Power: Getting his sausages ready.

—and getting sausages ready. He has taken the gas bottle down to the garage to get it filled up, ready for the barbecue. He knows that the reason Helen Clark keeps up a fantastically busy international programme is that she is waiting for her next star.

Is it not fascinating that we hear this prattle from the co-leader of that party over there in relation to our performance? We hear the leader over there wanting to microchip 5-year-olds so that National can put in standards that are a whole lot of rubbish. We can talk about our record in relation to educational performance. Is it not fascinating that the Prime Minister, the leader of Labour, made a decision to investigate the police and the rubbish in that organisation? Why did that party opposite not do it? The reason is that its members did not have the guts to do it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot refer to lack of courage. That is a personal reflection. He will withdraw that comment.

It was surprising that they had no fortitude in the sense of—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will withdraw the comment. “I withdraw” is all the member has to say.

I withdraw.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s the last member to be talking about having guts.

That is dead right—and the member can dig as deep as he likes. The thing with some of us Māoris who have been to Waitangi for 35 years, and who have been attached to political policies for a long, long time, is that we do it outside in the air and when we leave, whenever that may be.

I want to talk about leadership. Members opposite have been involved with five different leaders, and we know that Gerry and Simon Power are already putting up their team. Let us talk about who has gone, who has been, and who those members struck in the back. Who did that? Let us recount what happened that great evening when the present leader told the co-leader he would support him. Then what did he do? He went and supported Brash. Those members sing in unison; they are like a whole lot of people practising what the Brethren say. That is where they got their rhyming from. They got it by following the Brethren. The Brethren are leading the hollow people to the promised land, with no strategy, no vision, and no account of how they need to perform.

Let us talk about education. My colleague Shane Jones will—a long time before those members opposite—help to manage the finance benches in this country. He will do that. There are a whole lot of Māori who can do that. This is a man who can do a whole lot of things that those members cannot do. He and I can both do this job. After he came back from Dargaville—and I notice that none of National’s Māori members were there; they have abandoned you, because you treat them like you know what, and that is a fact—he told me that he had been driving around up there, as Māori members do, talking to the people, and an old kuia and kaumātua said to him: “You know what John Key told me? He said that when he got back he was going to go to the wānanga to learn the Māori language.” That is what he said. And it was Bill, that joker from the deep south, where my ancestor—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name. And please stop referring to the presiding officer.

It was the member from Southland—where my ancestors, the Rutherfords, come from—who said to get rid of the wānanga. Then the co-leader came along and said: “We’ll do this.”

I will talk about what this Government has done in its time. We have lifted the minimum wage seven times. It went up another dollar on 1 April. That lot on the benches opposite, in the 9 years their Government was in office, did not put it up even by a dollar. [Interruption] The member at the back who is screeching out was a great rugby player but nothing else. His father was the great businessperson. What worries us is when Mr English talks of—how dare he—“the social rabble”. That is an extension of Ōrewa. “Social rabble”, he said.

Well, families under this Government have done well. In education, over the last 15 years only six to seven Māori, on average, per year did PhDs. This year we will have 61 completed, and 500 are in progress. [Interruption] I tell Maurice that there are a lot of things going on. That member came back to the front bench only because he helped stick another person in the back. That is what happened there. Members know the saying: “Those who wield the knife will lose the knife.” This Government has done outstanding things for Māori and for families, who have put us continually into Government. Those members opposite should remember that after the election, when we will come back in, led by a capable leader, Helen Clark. At the end of the day, when I listen to those members singing in unison, I am more than of the belief that they believe in the Brethren. What a lot of rubbish!

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to indicate to the Hon Parekura Horomia that we on this side of the House so enjoyed his speech that I am sure that if he wanted to speak for another 5 minutes and sought leave to do so—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order, Mr Hide.

For those members who were not quite sure what the previous speaker, Parekura Horomia, was talking about, I tell them not to worry. I understand that that speech was delivered in Latin.

Today we saw a Government caught out. We saw a Government caught out when Steve Maharey lost his cool and decided to use a profanity to admonish a member on the opposite side of the House. We have known since this Government took office that its members have bullied the media. We have known that they have had what they call a formidable spin machine. We have known that they go on long trawls around the gallery, putting their particular view on things, and bullying journalists into writing their particular slant on stories. We know that the Prime Minister has had a speed dial; if journalists wrote what she wanted, their numbers would stay on it, and if they wrote what she did not want, they would go. Today the public of New Zealand have seen the Labour Government caught out on that particular tactic.

Tonight on Television One, and probably TV3, Mr Maharey will be there, and he may as well be telling the nation to do what he told Dr Jonathan Coleman to do, because that is the attitude of the current Government. Mr Mallard indicated that this was coming when he went around the gallery last week and took to the journalists in the Television One news studio. They had not done what he wanted, so he went around and made all sorts of threats against them. He said he never used a four-letter word in that office. Well, I do not believe him. I do not believe him, because I am confident that he accused Guyon Espiner of showing undue bias—and “bias”, in politics, is probably the worst four-letter word one can use.

This is a Government that goes out and makes claims about how wonderful it is for putting up the minimum wage, for lifting family support, and for raising superannuation. What on earth do we have a Government for if it does not make sure that people have rising incomes? The question that has to be asked is whether those incomes should rise because Helen Clark decrees they should, or whether they should rise because New Zealanders who are contributing to the productive base of this country should get the rewards directly for the work they do. That is a fundamental difference between us and them.

You know, it is amazing that for 7 years now we have had very good commodity prices. We are still a country that relies heavily on the farm gate. We are still a country that is over 70 percent dependent on the farm gate for the basis of our economy. And there have been good prices available for our farmers. If we track the history of New Zealand, we will see that every time the prices have been good, incomes have risen quite substantially. But if we track the income rise for average New Zealanders over the last 7 years, we see that it has been appalling. The only big rise in income has been for the Government—a Government that has had its hand deep in the pockets of New Zealanders and has heavily, heavily taxed those who work very hard for the money they get.

This is a Government that is going. It is a Government that is about to be booted. We can tell that it is a Government that wants to go when we look at the Order Paper. Has there ever been such a thin Order Paper put in front of Parliament? This is the Order Paper that tells the nation what the Government wants to do. Well, I cannot see a single thread of future thinking on this Order Paper—unless, of course, the Oaths Modernisation Bill will transform the economy; unless, of course, the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill will transform the economy; unless an amendment to allow justices of the peace to retire will transform the economy; and unless having immigration licences for those offering immigration services, which is a new bureaucracy, will save the economy. Perhaps if those things are right, then I am wrong. But there is not a single thing here that indicates growth in our economy, at all.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The proposal by the fishing industry to establish benthic protection areas has just been released. I recognise that the Minister is attempting to do his best to provide protection for the marine environment, and has struggled with competition and issues from the industry, but, frankly, this proposal fails to deliver any real benefit to the ecology of the bottom-trawled marine area.

There are a couple of good things in the proposal. It is good to see good controls on trawling in the benthic protection areas—two observers, satellite tracking, and electronically monitored nets. That is good. The 100-metre buffer zone is very good. Nets have to be at least 100 metres above the seabed and there are severe fines and enforcement if those nets go below 50 metres. That is all good, too.

But the purpose of this proposal was to provide real conservation gains for the bottom-trawled marine environment—and it has failed to do so. Seventy-seven percent of the trawling that has occurred in these protected areas has occurred in only three of them. Hardly any trawling occurs in most of the areas that are being protected.

The Minister has agreed to cap the revenue from the industry for research until 2013, which means that research revenue will drop for marine conservation research by about $300,000 to $400,000 per year. So not only will the Government be putting in its own money, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the industry itself will save money on research. That is absolutely crucial, because we need as many research dollars as possible going into this area.

Conservationists have been extremely critical of this industry proposal. In its original form it was subject to severe criticism, including criticism from one of the Government’s own agencies, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. A report produced in about September of last year stated: “With respect of the BPAs [Benthic Protection Areas] proposed by the fishing industry, our results indicate that implementation of these would produce low returns in terms of demersal fish conservation.” It went on to state: “On the basis of our results we conclude that, despite their large geographic area, the focus of this proposal on existing areas that have both very low fishing value and low fish diversity, makes it a poor option for the long-term protection of dermersal fish diversity in New Zealand’s EEZ.” The proposal simply fails to do the job.

That report was based on the original proposal, so where does this new proposal sit? Let us have a look. First of all I should mention that the other key question here is around the management of fish stocks and what that means for fishing. Eighteen thousand tonnes of fish have been taken out of these areas—that is, the proposed protected areas—since 1989. This is less than 3 percent of the total quantity of fish taken from New Zealand waters in any one year, and ends up, over the period of time since 1989, being about less than 0.2 percent of the fish taken out of these waters. So from a fishing point of view, these protected areas do not provide high value to the industry.

What exactly, then, is the industry giving up? The answer is nothing; they are not giving up anything. I have two maps here. The first shows an area indicating both the intended protection areas and the areas where the bottom trawling actually occurs. Members can see there is very little overlap. That was the original proposal. The new proposal adds about 2 percent extra area, and none of that is within the predominant bottom trawling areas. Again, what is the industry giving up here? What are industry members proposing? They are proposing nothing that will cost them anything, because they do not trawl in these areas they are wanting to protect. This is a form of “greenwashing” by the industry; it is not a form of marine conservation.

The critique, then, of the original proposal by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd remains, because the areas that the institute was critiquing are the same areas that are now included in this proposal, which therefore has very low value in terms of fishing, and very low value in terms of biodiversity and protection. Other methods could be used that would provide a much greater level of protection of the marine environment. The net result of this proposal is that there is very limited value in closing off these areas to bottom trawling. Despite the fact that the areas sound large, they do not provide the kind of value that was expected.

This makes for great public relations for the fishing industry, and the Seafood Industry Council has put out its press release saying that it has won a victory here. But it is not a victory for conservation, or for the New Zealand public.

It is a pleasure to contribute to the general debate this afternoon. I want to compliment Gerry Brownlee, first of all, on his contribution. He said that the fact that this week family support is going up by $10 a week is a very good thing. That was well said by Mr Brownlee. He said that putting up the minimum wage—as the Labour-Progressive Government has done this week, by $1 an hour for adults—is a good thing. Mr Brownlee is right; it is a good thing, and I am pleased we have done it. We have increased minimum holidays to 4 weeks a year—and I know that Mr Brownlee thinks that is a very good thing, because he would like to treat workers fairly. On 1 April, we also put up New Zealand superannuation to 66 percent, in line with our agreement with New Zealand First. For a married couple on the average ordinary-time weekly wage that means an increase of $20 a week in superannuation.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: How much?

It is $20 a week for a married couple. For a single superannuitant it is over $10 a week—over $10 a week. Gerry Brownlee said that was good. He went on to say that it was good, but of course that is what Governments should do. I say to Mr Brownlee that he has a very short memory, because when Mr Brownlee’s party was in Government it did not do that. It cut benefits and increased the minimum wage over the whole 9 years by $1, which is exactly the same amount we have increased it by in just 1 year. And we know what the National Government did to the superannuitants of New Zealand. We know what it did to the superannuitants; it betrayed them. That Government said it was going to remove the surcharge from superannuation. I remember Jim Bolger said: “Read my lips. There will be no surtax.” What happened? The surtax stayed. The National Government deceived every single superannuitant in the country by saying one thing, promising something before the election, then doing something else.

National does not seem like it has learnt many lessons. I heard an interjection from Jackie Blue during the previous contribution.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?

She is the woman who was previously involved with the Auckland health scene, I recall, and with laboratory testing. She made a contribution during Parekura Horomia’s speech. Mr Horomia was explaining to the House how John Key had promised Bill English that in the most recent leadership coup, before the last one, he would back him. He said John Key promised he would back Bill English. Then what did he do? He deceived his current deputy by backing Don Brash.

Jackie Blue said: “So what?”. I tell Miss Blue that on this side of the House we think members should say one thing before the election, then deliver it afterwards. One should certainly not deceive the public of New Zealand or deceive one’s colleagues, which is exactly what Bill English and John Key did. It is no wonder that Bill English always says, with that little grin on his face, that he will be backing John Key to the hilt. I am not surprised at all that he said that.

Over the weekend one other thing happened that I would just like to make comment on. As well as the increase to superannuation, the $10 a week increase to family support, the increase in minimum holidays to 4 weeks a year, and of course the increase to the minimum wage, I was very privileged to represent our country at the signing in New York, at the United Nations, of the first-ever United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was a very proud moment for me, representing our country. I am sure that it may be an issue on which we can have bipartisan support and pride in our country for the way we have led the development of the convention—led with the make-up of our delegation during the negotiations in the ad hoc committee, and led by having a New Zealander as the chair of the ad hoc committee.

Every other country that went to sign—82 countries signed the convention on signing day, which is the largest-ever number to have signed a human rights convention on its opening day—got the proper appropriate applause. But when New Zealand was called to the signing stand we got a huge cheer from those gathered, in recognition of the leadership role we have played.

I know that John Key has found it very difficult to back the Prime Minister when she is representing New Zealand on very important negotiations. That is petty politics, and demonstrates his lack of understanding on occasions when the whole country should back our elected leader in order to ensure the best for New Zealand. But I hope National members may have learnt from his big gaffe and back our stand on the convention on disability issues.

I am grateful that I was placed three spots after the Hon Parekura Horomia, because it has taken me that long to work out exactly what he was saying in his contribution to the general debate. I say to Ruth Berry that she should go back to the New Zealand Herald; I hope she did not draft that speech that the Hon Parekura Horomia presented to this Parliament this afternoon.

There are some people on the Labour side of the House who are smiling, though. It is worth acknowledging one or two of those. Paul Swain is grinning from ear to ear. He knows he has made the right decision and will not be coming back to be trapped in Opposition after the next election. He is thoroughly enjoying his coast to freedom. I am sure he is looking forward to getting out while the going is good.

We know David Cunliffe is smiling. He has bought a new suit and he has done that clearly on the basis that he will be standing at the barbecue and turning the sausages and chops for Phil Goff over the next week or two, and looking for a bit of recognition—finally. Clayton Cosgrove—the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—could not resist, at a time when the Government desperately needed good news, sneaking out the real estate announcement 8 weeks before anything was ready to go, in order to get his photo in the paper, and in order to make it look as if he is a go-ahead guy who is going to be part of the new broom coming through. He is home at the moment making container loads of coleslaw for Phil Goff’s next barbecue, because we all know what side of the fence he sits on when it comes to the big vote.

Maryan Street has a new hairstyle. She is getting ready for the big move up—and many of the front-benchers currently sitting on the Labour side know their time is up. We can see Trevor Mallard sitting there, wondering how he will get out of this without going back into Opposition, because Audrey Young wrote on the weekend in the New Zealand Herald about the landslide victory of the National Party in 2008.

She made what are actually pretty insightful comments about many of the Ministers of the Crown. My personal favourites are these. She gives my friend and Opposition member Damien O’Connor a score of two out of 10. Her paragraph about him simply starts with “Dear oh dear.” “Dear oh dear.” is how Damien O’Connor’s paragraph starts. The leader has dealt with Mark Burton’s plight by saying he has really nowhere to go. Rick Barker’s paragraph starts with: “Not a difficult job to get right but has still made errors.” Poor old Rick Barker! The three Ministers in the justice sector averaged three out of 10 between them. I never thought I would say this but Mark Burton and Damien O’Connor must be thanking Rick Barker for dragging the average up, because it was looking pretty sad until then.

I have to say that I cannot, to this day, work out how it is that David Benson-Pope’s score went up from three to four. His paragraph starts with “Wrong man for the job … At least [Steve Maharey] was passionate about it.” We do not hear a lot from the Minister for Social Development and Employment these days; he has just disappeared off the face of the earth.

We know that this Government is in big trouble on several fronts: corrections, health, education—and courts in relation to backlogs. I think Colin Espiner summed it up best in the Christchurch Press this week when he said the Government could no longer enjoy the credibility of being able to say it was somebody else’s fault. The crime stats, the debacles in corrections, the problems with the Auckland District Health Board, the problems with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, and the falling over of the 20 hours free’ policy all land firmly on the laps of the Labour Party and its lacklustre front bench. No more can Labour Ministers blame others who went before them; they have to take responsibility for what is turning into an absolute shambles.

Dave Hereora is starting—just starting—to look promising. And we know something is up when Paul Swain is loitering in the Beehive car park at 10 to 6 on a Thursday night, waiting for the bells to ring so he can get out of here. He has had enough. He is smiling, because that former Minister knows three things. Firstly—and creditably—he is putting his family first. Secondly, he got out of the corrections portfolio in the nick of time—and he knows it. He smiles every time question time comes around. Thirdly, he knows he has made the decision that all his colleagues wish they had made. He knows he is not going to be trapped in Opposition come November 2008.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a contribution. I would like to begin by thanking that member, Simon Power, for his contribution to the annals of fantasy. I promise him I will try to deliver this speech with, at least, some passion.

I would like to begin by talking about some facts; facts that are pretty widely disseminated in the community right now. They are facts about the changes and advantages that New Zealanders have seen over the last few days. Everyone knows about the substantial increase in the Working for Families package. Everyone knows by now—and many people are absolutely delighted—about the increase in annual leave. People are only too aware of the increase in the minimum wage. Nearly a million superannuitants, I understand, are only too delighted at the very substantial increase they have had in their national superannuation. That is an entitlement we have reinstated, re-indexed, and guaranteed, thanks to the so-called Cullen fund, which is part-funded into the future.

I do not want to talk today about just those changes made on 1 April. I also want to spend a little bit of time reminding the community and the Opposition members of the reality of change since they were last in power in 1999. We often hear a bit of disputation about some of these figures in terms of who is receiving unemployment support or whatever sort of benefit support. I would like to put the current facts into the public domain yet again. In December 1999, at the end of the last reign—probably the last reign ever—of the National Party, there were 401,400-odd people receiving benefits of some kind. That figure of over 401,000 is for all benefits. The figure in February this year, after 7 years of Labour on the Treasury benches, is around 268,000. That is a complete turn-round; it is a reduction of over 33 percent in the total benefit roll.

The high point of that has, of course, been the reduction in those receiving the unemployment benefit. In December 1999, when National was last in Government, there were 161,128 people on the unemployment benefit. There is more good news coming. At the end of February this year, that figure was down to 32,380. That is a most extraordinary reduction of over 80 percent—80 percent—in the number of unemployed in this country. What better can we provide as a Government than the sort of support that has assisted so many tens of thousands of New Zealanders into work. Numbers on the domestic purposes benefit are trending down, and the numbers on sickness and invalids benefits, while they are increasing at a very small level, are under control and plateauing. I hope to have some good news for Parliament in the next few weeks about that.

What does this mean for New Zealanders? Let us not just talk about the core, raw numbers. What do this actually mean for the 360,000 families—three out of every four families in this country—who are accessing this sort of support? Members will have heard me talk in the Chamber the other day about Josephine and William from Kaitāia and about Aveael. Those members who read the Sunday News will have seen a delightful photo of Aveael Webb and her daughter. I know everyone in this Chamber—and certainly every member on the benches opposite—reads the Sunday News.

But I have not talked to members about Raewyn and Bruce Haycock yet. Raewyn and Bruce have three children aged 9, 6, and 3. Raewyn works as an early childhood teacher and Bruce is a youth pastor in the Papatoetoe Baptist church. Altogether that family is receiving $156 as a result of the various components of the Working for Families package. It is just a tad more than the $10—let us be generous and say it was $15—that the National Party promised in its flat tax cut.

I have not talked about Natasha Fuller from the Waikato. Natasha has two children aged 8 and 6. She started her own business called Versatile Home Services in November 2006. She is cleaning homes as a business and she started that business with an enterprise allowance. She is currently receiving an accommodation supplement of $91 and a family tax credit of $69.50, and, with her two children, she is now getting another $20 a week from the Working for Families package. She now gets, thanks to the Working for Families components, $180.50 a week. That is just a tad more than the $10 or $15 she would have received as part of the National Party’s across the board tax cut. Then, of course, there is Baylea Hanscombe in Taranaki, or Thomas and Lorraine on the East Coast, and so it goes on.

That member stands in the House and gloats about three out of every four families getting something out of Working for Families. He says that three out of four families now have to have a relationship with Work and Income in order to be able to survive, and he thinks that that is a good thing. On the Opposition side of the House we think that more families should be independent. We do not want families to have an ongoing relationship with Work and Income. We do not think it is a good thing to inflict a case manager upon the nation’s people. He is talking about dependants.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: She doesn’t want families to have tax credits. Oh dear, that’s shocking.

“Stadium Boy” over there makes his comments, but I would like to turn to a serious issue—the utterance of the Minister of Education, Steve Maharey, in this House.

It is clear that the Minister Steve Maharey is under immense pressure when he resorts to using four-letter profanities in this House. That is deeply concerning, and I know that some family members have phoned Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to complain already. One guy was sitting there today, watching question time with his children. He was utterly disturbed to hear those kinds of things uttered on television.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s not on TVNZ. What a foolish member.

I should have said Sky, but who cares these days? Steve Maharey has absolutely whittled down TVNZ to almost a mere shadow of its former self. Most people are watching question time off their Sky remote, in any case.

When the Minister of Education uses that kind of language, what kind of standard does it represent from that side of the House? We do not tolerate that kind of language in our schools. Some students have been stood down or given detentions for using that kind of language, and in some cases they have been kicked out of their schools. Here we have the Minister of Education using that kind of language in this House. It is the kind of language that makes some parents worry about their kids watching Parliament. What does it say about Parliament when some people worry about the kind of language they will hear? It is deeply concerning when someone who is usually so suave and articulate—and smarmy, as John Tamihere would say—is caught out like that.

The Minister is under huge pressure, and we saw that today. But let us look at his track record, as he has slithered from portfolio to portfolio. He still has the broadcasting portfolio. TVNZ used to be a company worth about a billion dollars. Who knows what it is worth now, as it goes through its selection of redundancies? He used to be the Minister for Tertiary Education, and under his watch the wānanga went out of control. We saw a huge proliferation of courses like twilight golf, homeopathy for pets, and there was the “Singalong with Steve” radio show. That was also extremely popular. We saw a tidal wave of community courses that were of no value, or little value, to Kiwis. That took place under his watch.

He is currently overseeing the fraudulent 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy. Before the last election the Ministers involved said that all 3 and 4-year-old children would get this service. Then the language kind of slithered again, and they said that up to 92,000, or they hoped up to 92,000, or around 92,000 kids would receive this service. However, the figure will be in the tens of thousands, and certainly not up to 92,000, as only a small percentage of services have opted in. A tiny percentage of services in Auckland have opted in. It is just a disgrace.

Then we have the continuing saga of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. Steve Maharey has continued to say there are no problems with that, but then, after pressure from this side of the House, he is suddenly looking at options for change. He is looking at recording failure on a Record of Learning. The Prime Minister told the country that she thought this had been done 2 years ago. What we saw in the House was the Minister failing to answer basic questions. If the Prime Minister thought this had happened, why had he not done it? If it had been agreed to by Cabinet and by the Government, why had he not put it in place? He had no answer to that.

For all the weasel words that the Minister continues to use—and some of the super - weasel words we heard in the House today—it is very clear that Steve Maharey’s portfolio is in disarray. His answers to John Key’s ideas for policy were wet. He came out and argued for national testing and league tables, when quite clearly we said they were not on the agenda. The Minister is in crisis. He is under pressure.

That was an appalling speech made by the previous speaker, who has just resumed her seat. She used any old smokescreen to get over the embarrassment of the dead duck of John Key’s major education policy announcement. Did members notice that there was no question today from the National Party to expose National’s very exciting education policy announcement, and that very little was said about it in the general debate? Even John Key, in his speech in the general debate, did not really want to talk too much about his education policy.

However, the Labour Government is delivering real progress for New Zealand families. They are things that really matter, and practical things that make a big difference to real families in New Zealand. The evidence has been with us as from 1 April, as many of the Labour Government’s initiatives came into place on that day. On 1 April, Sunday of this week, a family tax credit of $10 for every child came in for New Zealand families, and also a fourth week of paid annual leave for people so that they can spend more time with their families and have more rest and recreation. These are policies of substance. These are things that make a real difference to real New Zealanders. Also on 1 April, the minimum wage was increased to $11.25 an hour. That is a very large increase, from $10.25 as it was previously, and it is the eighth rise in 8 years, under a Labour Government.

At the last election there was a lot of heat—and not too much light, I must say—around the issue of low wages in this country. But who is it who has the track record of doing something quite pragmatic and very practical about it? [Interruption] It is the Labour Government, I say to Mr Power. It is the Labour Government that increases the minimum wage, and does something real and positive about low pay. There are no slogans, just real substance. On top of that, if that was not enough, on 1 April single superannuitants received an increase of $13.42 a week and $20 a week for married couples. I thank New Zealand First for the support it put behind that particular policy. But, again, it has been delivered by a Labour-led Government. So this is when we go for substance, over style. This is the type of thing we can deliver to real New Zealanders.

I was out at the Frankton market in Hamilton during the weekend, talking to real people about the family-friendly policies of this Labour Government and what was about to be enacted on 1 April. They were very pleased indeed to see some good practical steps and not just hear platitudes—the platitudes of muesli bars and the odd trip to Waitangi for one lucky person. These policies go right across the board to make a good practical difference every day to people’s working lives and their family life. Of course, it is very obvious to those people that it is the Labour Government that is family friendly. We are not just about slogans, we are not just about style; we actually deliver on our promises.

On top of this, and at the same time, business confidence is also up. Even though a lot of these policies are directed towards making lives more comfortable for families and for superannuitants—for people in that field—at the same time business confidence is up. In fact, just today a business confidence survey was released in the Waikato that shows that business confidence has increased, and 39 percent of Waikato businesses expect the general situation to improve in the next 6 months. That is up from 34 percent in December.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: You wouldn’t hear that from the National Party.

That is right. We would not hear that from the National Party. The same Waikato survey also found that 67 percent of businesses expect that their individual situation will improve over the next 6 months. Why would they not expect that, because that is what they have come to expect under a Labour Government?

This Government is clearly good for families and good for business, and it does all of those things in conjunction. That is what happens when one has real policies that are well-thought-out and canvassed among the community—not policy on the hoof, like John Key’s education policy. It seems that John Key had a chat with someone and thought that he had a good idea. But did he put that idea to his caucus? What about his party? Has it had a vote on this policy? Well, it seems that there is no need to, because he has just revived a tired old piece of National policy, anyway. He has repackaged it and resold it, just like any second-hand car dealer would do. Jane Clifton actually had a better description of John Key when she talked about him being “the cheerful barrow boy”. He has proven himself to be exactly that this week, with his poor performance on his major announcement in education.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.