General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is becoming clear, day by day, that the Labour front bench is cracking. It is cracking under the pressure of bad policy, bad judgment, and bad polls. How do we know it is cracking? Well, Steve Maharey, who is meant to be in charge of the education of all of the children in New Zealand, is busy applying for the job of vice-chancellor of Massey University. I wish him well, because if he does not get that job, his future after he leaves Parliament will be that of a discredited Minister without a job. It would be great for Steve Maharey to get that job, at a quarter of a million dollars a year, but I tell members that it would be terrible for Massey University. For the good of the students that job should not be given to him.

Steve Maharey should announce his retirement. What credibility does he now have as a man dedicated to the future of our children? He has none. He is now dedicated to his own future, not the future of our children. He should go.

We are told that Annette King wants to go, but Helen Clark will not let her because Annette King is meant to be the competent one. Until 10 days ago that might have been the case, but then she landed on the Government the sheer embarrassment of the foreign policy failure of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. That showed arrogance and mishandling—if Phil Goff had been handling it, it would have got through. Phil Goff knows that, and that is what he is telling anyone who will listen, including members of the National Party.

I am sure Annette King is worried about her involvement in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board scandal. What a scandal that is. As my colleague Tony Ryall pointed out today, she was fast-tracking the appointment of Peter Hausmann, the principal tenderer for $50 million of public money, when he was being fed the tender documents for comment by the chief executive of the district health board. And, of course, I am sure that Mrs King is worried about the role of her husband. He was second in charge of the district health board, and he is now working for Peter Hausmann, the principal tenderer for the $50 million contract whom she appointed to the board. So if Annette King does not want to go now, I am sure she will want to go soon.

Pete Hodgson cannot smell the smell, the stench, of cronyism. There is the implication—and at the moment I say the implication only—of an inside job between the previous Minister of Health, her husband, their mate who was appointed to the board, and the chief executive who made it all happen. Pete Hodgson said there is nothing wrong. That is the measure of his inability to understand the public good. He says that nothing is wrong and that nothing will be found, and, to make sure that nothing is found, on Friday he appointed his mate Syd Bradley to run the inquiry. Then today he sacked him, because he realised it would look completely stupid to have the Minister’s best friend in the health sector inquiring into the Minister, her husband, and all their mutual friends.

Then we come to Dr Cullen. For 20 years the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act has been a cornerstone of the economic management of New Zealand and a cornerstone of the credibility of this country. It means the country can borrow hundreds of millions of dollars overseas at reasonable interest rates. That is what it comes down to. Others lend us money at reasonable interest rates—rates are a bit high at the moment—because of that Act. Dr Cullen, in trying to deal with short-term pressure on his economic management, has now virtually invited Winston Peters, whom no one trusts on economic management, to change the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. And Dr Cullen thinks he is clever.

The only reason this Parliament is not debating a change to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is that National said no. So now the Opposition is the only thing that stands between this country’s creditors and a total shambles. Dr Cullen is inviting trouble, and he should go.

It has become obvious, day by day, that the front bench of the National Party is not cracking. It is not cracking, because it is already cracked. It is cracked from Nick Smith right through to the whole line-up. It is not cracking; it is cracked.

I want to tell this House a story that John Key hoped would never emerge. He has worked hard to keep this under wraps and under a modicum of control, but he has failed because there are too many loose lips in his caucus; too many people talking to too many outsiders after too many tipples at the caucus party. His secret is out. John Key cannot control his caucus. He is being led by the nose by the former Young Turks, who are now called the “Old Jerks”, in the form of Bill English, Tony Ryall, and Nick Smith. In the words of Bill English, they just leave John Key to bounce from cloud to cloud while the boys do the real politics in that party.

The failure to support the joint regulator bill—the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—has exposed John Key’s inability to control his caucus. If he cannot control a caucus, he cannot lead a country. The end gain for Tony Ryall was never to get a compromise on that bill. He set out to destroy it from day one, and John Key could not stop him, unlike the leader of the National Party before him, Don Brash.

Don Brash wrote to Helen Clark on 7 July 2004 and said: “In principle I see advantages of New Zealand and Australia being able to make progress in this area together. I agree that the proposal for a fifty-fifty participation in the governance is an important advance. I am prepared to recommend to my caucus colleagues that we work together supporting the proposals in principle, provided we can see changes that will accommodate reasonable concerns raised, including the need to have a separate process for high-risk medicines and low-risk complementary medicines.” It was not about removal, but a sensible approach.

That quote was from Don Brash in 2004. That is very different from what National says—that it never supported the legislation from day one. That was a porky then, and it is a porky now. Members should compare Don Brash’s approach to the dithering of John Key. And members should have watched the reaction of Tony Ryall when he was advised that the bill would be postponed. Did he talk about public safety? Did he talk about the quality of products? Did he talk about the relationship with Australia? Did he even talk about people? No, he did not. He went straight to the political soapbox and branded us a lame-duck Government. Well, if not being able to proceed with bills about dodgy pills and dog microchips is the benchmark of a lame-duck Government, then if National members ever do get into Government, they will be sitting ducks, because they will be there for quick removal.

John Key has told people privately that Tony Ryall threatened to cross the floor if the Nats supported the bill. Crossing the floor, of course, would mean crossing it to work with the Green Party. John Key said he could not afford that sort of division in his caucus. John Key is also being rather economical with the truth in saying that he never talked to Labour about a two-tier system, as proposed first by Gordon Copeland and then by Winston Peters. In fact, Gordon Copeland has just confirmed with me that that proposal was taken to John Key. On the day it was taken he was in favour of it; the next day he was opposed to it.

John Key said that we never talked to him. National refused to believe that it had been spoken to. Michael Cullen spoke to John Key about a two-tier system, but according to John Key that was not an approach. Well, hello, it took only a note from the Prime Minister and a wee meeting in the lobby before John Key was able to work on a compromise on the anti - child beating bill, but two or three calls from the Deputy Prime Minister are not considered to be a real consultation or any sort of discussion. John Key could not get any change out of the power brokers in the National Party. They were for it once; they are not now. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Where were they? Where were Minister Annette King’s mates? Why did the Labour Party front bench desert this Minister at this difficult time for her? Why did they walk away? Well, let us have a look at it. First there is the debacle over the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. None of what was presented by the Minister today is true. She is an extremely arrogant Minister who would not know consultation if she was instructed totally in what it is. Then there is the issue of the police and the lack of standards in the new recruits. We will have police officers on our streets who cannot even write, let alone bring a successful prosecution to court. And now there is the horrible spectre of potential corruption at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board hanging over the Minister’s head, as well.

Is it not interesting that only now Mr Trevor Mallard comes to sit alongside the Minister? This has nothing to do with supporting her, of course. Everyone in this House knows that we have gone past the shortest day. We are on the long road to summer, and Phil Goff has the barbecue list out to revise who should be there in the summer, because he knows that his opportunities are not too far off. He has told us—and anyone who wants to listen—that if he had been handling that Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, the House would be voting for it now. We look at him every day as various Ministers are in trouble. Mr Hodgson today had a big grin on his face, and where is he now? He is out in his caravan talking to the people—waiting, waiting for his time. Of course, he must be enormously comforted that his running mate David Cunliffe is off filling up the liquefied petroleum gas bottles ready to make sure that the barbecue fires up in the right direction.

These are people who are in severe political trouble, and this is a Government that is on its way out, not just because of the trans-Tasman therapeutic products legislation, not just because of the police issue, and not just because of the debacle at Hawke’s Bay—all the responsibility of the one Minister—but because of so many things that have gone wrong: 20 free hours’ early childhood education that are perfectly free as long as one pays for them; the vicious attack on the mortgage holders of this country in order that we might somehow stem a rising exchange rate; and, of course, health services throughout the country being in crisis everywhere. My own city has an emergency room that simply cannot cope, and people are suffering the consequences of that.

The education sector is struggling to provide for the realities of life for many young New Zealanders and is not giving them the opportunities that they need. We have a Minister of Education who now knows he has made such a hash of it that the best thing he can do is to get out. It is only a matter of days before we hear the announcement that Steve Maharey is the new vice-chancellor of Massey University. Well, good luck, Massey University—all the best. That will not be a good move for that university or for any of the students who go there.

But there are a few bright spots on the horizon. I understand that Clayton Cosgrove is now the “go-to man” inside the Labour Party. One only has to look at the Order Paper to know that that is the case. A few weeks ago the Order Paper had nothing on it. Now it has substantial legislation on it, such as the Wills Bill. It has substantial legislation on it, such as the Arbitration Amendment Bill. It has important pieces of legislation on it, such as the Succession (Homicide) Bill. Who is the Minister behind all of this? The young cut-and-thruster, Clayton Cosgrove himself.

Well, all I can say to Clayton Cosgrove is: get home on a Friday, stay there on a Saturday, stay there on a Sunday, and do not be too eager to come back on a Monday, because those boundary changes are looking pretty dodgy. Would it not be a great shame if the great future light of the Labour Party lost his seat? He will not go on the list. He has promised the people of Waimakariri that he will not go on the list. It will be a great shame if he loses his seat just by the stroke of a pen.

The point here, of course, is that this is a Government that now cannot do anything right. It now cannot achieve anything at all. That is demonstrated so clearly when the Minister of Finance has to stand up and explain why it is OK for Winston Peters, the coalition partner, to undo 20 years of bipartisan agreement on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—20 years of bipartisan agreement on that Act, which has allowed the New Zealand economy, one way or the other, to flourish more than it might have without it. Michael Cullen sits there quietly and allows Winston Peters to have a go at advancing that legislation simply so Helen Clark can stay as Prime Minister.

I have one thing to say to the former member of a band called the “Minetti Brothers”—I think he was on the double bass or the bassoon—which is that if he is so keen on Waimakariri, he should run against me and have a go. I say that this man is cracking—all right—the man who as I said before in an interjection has as much credibility as a Mississippi riverboat gambler. This is the genius from that side of the House who signed up as a director of a company, thinking the company was going to clean up the casino industry, and then found out that it wanted a casino licence. I tell Gerry Brownlee of the “Minetti Brothers” that I know that the band was not a country and western band, but I invite that member to reflect on that great Kenny Rogers song, “The Gambler”, where Kenny said:

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,

Know when to walk away and know when to run.

Well, we know now that he did not “know when to hold em”, he did not “know when to fold em”, and he certainly did not “know when to walk away”. But, my word, when the media caught him out, he ran, he bolted—which was physically impossible, I would have thought.

This is the “Boss” Hogg of Parliament. We can imagine Gerry in a Western movie, perhaps called The Maverick, in the white suit, the white pants, the little black string bow tie, and the big Stetson, riding into town on the Clydesdale for the big game, with the pearl-handled knife and fork strapped to his belt. Members can imagine that—old Gerry—can they not?

But Mr Brownlee got up and talked about conflict of interest. I say that this is a man who, if he cannot govern his own conduct in his own life, cannot hope to be—as he is now—the spokesperson on State-owned enterprises governing some of the biggest companies in New Zealand. He wants to be Minister for State Owned Enterprises, but he cannot work out when a conflict of interest exists. He teamed up with a couple of blokes who have a bodyguard—you know, a Dirty Dog sunglasses bloke—trundling along behind the guys. I want to know whether Gerry had a bodyguard, or many bodyguards actually; there is a lot to guard, of course. So I say to him that he should not get up in the House and talk about conflicts of interest.

I also say to him that there has been an unwritten Standing Order in this House that has been broken yet again today. It used to be broken frequently by Mr Hide, but even he has sort of had a dancing road to Damascus experience. That unwritten order used to be that we did not bring kids, spouses, or people who are not elected but who are family members, inside this Chamber. Well, he broke it; be it on his own head. I say to that member that he should reflect on the Kenny Rogers lyric that goes like this:

… if you’re gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.

That member is a disgrace. That member got hauled over the coals by his own leader because he could not work out that as a member of Parliament it probably did not pay him to become a director of a company. It certainly did not pay to become a director of a company when the member did not know what the heck the company was doing. The member joined a company as a director supposedly to clean up the casino industry—I do not know how that would have happened—and then it turned out that the company was actually seeking a casino licence. Well the egg, poached, fried, or scrambled—and there is a fair bit of it—is all over him.

It is bad enough that the silly National Party put up the two-time loser first in this debate, the one who is going to pull the rug out from under old folk’s superannuation, do over KiwiSaver, and rip the entrails out of Working for Families, but then that party picked the gambler to come up—the sort of human bassoon out of the “Minetti Brothers”—and have a crack at us. Well, I say that if Gerry Brownlee is so confident in Waimakariri, have a go, mate—roll the dice. If you are so confident of your credibility, stand up and give us an explanation in this House as to why you were so silly, why you have no judgment, and why you do not have the confidence of any of your colleagues.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has been here for a year or two, I think, and he knows that the use of the term “you” is regarded as a direct address to the Speaker, so is not allowed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is absolutely right. I have called the member to order several times.

I withdraw and apologise. The member should tell the House why he does not have the confidence of his leader, why his leader raked him over the coals, and why he has no credibility in this House, because this ain’t the first time for this person. We remember the top of the stairs and the poor old fellow who was bowled down them.

💬 Hon Member: The pensioner!

We remember the pensioner; we do remember that.

This member is the big hitter of the National Party. There might be some Young Turks over here, but there are some big turkeys over there. I say to the member that he should give us an explanation. He should not talk to us about credibility, he should not talk to us about conflict of interest, and he should not bring family members and the spouses of members of Parliament into this debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise that you gave that member 10 minutes, but not once during that time did he mention anything to do with the Government or the Government’s programme. Perhaps he could have another turn.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee; that was not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Part of the Government’s programme is to hold the Opposition to account. I have just spent 5 minutes discrediting the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not a point of order. The member will be seated.

I thought Mike Moore used to write his own rambling, incoherent speeches, but it is absolutely clear that the “beagle boy from Waimak” was right behind writing his speeches. We have just heard an absolute nonsense of a diatribe from Clayton Cosgrove that made no contribution to the sum total of human knowledge.

What he could have spent time talking about in this House is the Succession (Homicide) Bill. This bill is on the Order Paper to protect the Labour backbench, because Helen Clark is cruising the backbenches looking for the unsuspecting in order to give them the chop out of this House by this time next year. Who is next? We saw Mr Swain go; we have seen Dover Samuels go. Moana Mackey will not survive the cruising of the Prime Minister through the backbenches. Martin Gallagher will not be able to survive in Hamilton West; nor will Sue Moroney stay in her position in the Labour Party. All the ineffectual, inconsequential, hopeless Labour backbenchers are part of the Succession (Homicide) Bill, because Helen Clark is completely fixated on succession, and the homicide will be that of the Labour backbench.

Let us remember that this Prime Minister is on wind-down. Two months ago the pollsters from her polling company were asking New Zealanders what Helen Clark’s legacy would be. Well, what will Helen Clark’s legacy be? Her legacy will be the missed opportunity to lift this country way beyond where we could have ever expected it to be. She simply squandered the best of times, and she is making it even harder for this country to compete with the Australians. That is her legacy. We have the highest interest rates in the world and the highest taxes. She is strangling this economy and this country from going forward with Australia, and she is ignoring the very big issues confronting this country today.

The most important issue is the huge pressure put on New Zealand families by the highest interest rates in the Western World. The wasteful spending of billions and billions of dollars by this Labour Government is driving up interest rates and really squeezing New Zealanders. In the next few months a huge proportion of New Zealanders will come off fixed mortgage interest rates. They will find themselves going from interest rates of 6.5 percent to 9.5 percent. This Government offers them no hope and no chance of getting anywhere.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: The mortgage levy!

That is the mortgage levy. Because of Michael Cullen’s incompetence and the hopelessness of the Prime Minister, ordinary New Zealanders will pay the highest interest rates in the Western World.

I can also tell members that although New Zealanders are paying huge taxes, they are not getting the quality public services they deserve. People in New Zealand emergency departments are lined up in trolley after trolley after trolley in the corridors, waiting to get into our public hospitals. People in the Waikato and in Waitakere are waiting 24 hours to get into a hospital ward. We know that the length of time it takes to get one’s care has a direct impact on the ability to survive whatever illness one might have, but this Government does not care. There is $5 billion of extra funding, but not one extra operation for New Zealanders. In fact, under this Government fewer New Zealanders are getting elective surgery than at any other time, and fewer New Zealanders are able to get a specialist appointment to enable them to even try to get into the system.

What is more, real problems are happening in district health boards throughout New Zealand. In question time today we asked the Government to explain a series of emails from the chief executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Did they explain?

They did not explain what is going on here. We asked just a simple question: is it right that 2½ months before a tender was released publicly, the chief executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was asking one of the likely tenderers to comment on the tender documents? Is it right that 2½ months before anyone else got a copy, the chief executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board asked for a copy of the documents to be sent to a contractor likely to bid—a contractor whom Annette King was fast tracking for appointment to the very same district health board? What is going on?

Today the Minister of Research, Science and Technology announced $150 million to investigate sustainability and climate change, and $311 million to boost primary sector research. The extraordinary thing is that he seems to see these two areas as distinct. Agriculture contributes around half of our greenhouse gas emissions from this country. Deforestation and the intensification and expansion of dairy farming are significant contributors to our looming Kyoto deficit. In addition, water allocation and water quality are being impacted on.

Many of our farmers are taking this challenge seriously and are looking at how to improve their practices, and they are being encouraged to do so through initiatives such as the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. But there is a fundamental contradiction between increasing intensification and expansion of dairying and farming in a way that has low environmental impact. It is a nettle that the Government, riding on the back of a national boom driven by dairy profits, is loath to grasp. How do we circle the square? Next month the National Organics Conference will be discussing just that.

The potential of organic farming to boost farmers’ incomes, to reduce environmental impact such as the nitrification of waterways, and to improve producer and consumer health has not been well appreciated by this Government. For example, research is beginning to demonstrate the importance of humus in soils in sequestering carbon. It may be that building healthy soils naturally, through improving the organic content and thereby the soil structure, soil microbiology, nutrients, water, and nutrient-holding capacity, is as important as planting trees in holding carbon. How many of the research dollars announced by the Minister today will be spent on organic farming? Not many, if any.

There is some Government support for organics—for example, the funding of Organics Aotearoa New Zealand and the Organic Advisory Programme run through that. I acknowledge our erstwhile colleague Ken Shirley and his role as executive director of Organics Aotearoa New Zealand. I know that he is extremely appreciative of the fact that the only reason there is any Government support for Organics Aotearoa New Zealand at all is that the Green Party got it for it. But even with minimal support from the Government, and a lack of commitment to organics from this Government, organics is growing. I make the point that organic farming was not even mentioned in the Government’s sustainable agriculture discussion documents. That shows the lack of commitment from this Government.

But, even so, organics is growing because it is being driven by truly innovative and creative people—people who are seeing the future and establishing the foundation for our nation to move into greater organic production. Between 1999 and 2005 the amount of New Zealand land that was either certified organic or under conversion increased by more than 400 percent. Organic exports are worth around $100 million a year, the domestic market consumes around $60 million worth, and another $40 million worth are imported into this country.

Organics Aotearoa New Zealand wants to boost New Zealand’s organic exports to $1 billion by 2013, and there is a broader vision in the New Zealand organic sector of New Zealand being 50 percent organic by 2020. Between 1996 and 1999 the premium for organic kiwifruit averaged 50 percent above the conventional price. In 1999 organic peas had a premium of 41 percent and organic sweetcorn a premium of 57 percent, and today organic-certified apples are enjoying a 100 percent premium, as is organic-certified lamb. So the profits are there to be made while reducing the environmental impacts. We do not need to intensify, in the way we are doing, to get the returns. The issue is not about increasing turnover; it is about increasing profit.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms, and then, of course, there is the price premium. In developing countries—and members should take note, because this is interesting—food production could double or triple using organic methods, according to the research by the University of Michigan. It is time the Government started getting serious about supporting organic agriculture and, as part of its commitment to sustainability, got behind the vision of New Zealand being 50 percent organic by 2020.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I have listened to a diatribe from those benches over there, but those members have not actually answered any of the key questions that I want to pose. Do members know why? Their leader has had his head on cloud nine, up there with Rangi, e tū nei. This Government has had its feet firmly planted on terra firma, committed to policy development and absolutely tangible delivery.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Hopeless!

So the question still remains—and it is hopeless—“Where are National’s development policies for Māori?”.

💬 Hon Members: What policies?

Yes, what policies? What policies, and for whom? Here is a snapshot—and a snapshot only—of what Labour’s Māori MPs are delivering for Māori: Māori unemployment is down to an all-time low; over 15,000 Māori are enrolled in tertiary education; nearly 3,000 Māori are enrolled in postgraduate courses; over 22,000 Māori trainees are participating in Modern Apprenticeships and industry training schemes—a great Government—and over 500,000 Māori are enrolled in primary health organisations and are receiving cheaper, more affordable health care; and let us not forget who established Māori Television.

But the National Party does have a discernable Māori policy. Do members know what that is?

💬 Moana Mackey: Finding out what they are?

No, National members have got past there. Their policy is to abolish the Māori seats. That cloud nine leader says that the position he has on the Māori seats is that they should be abolished at some time, but that it is a timetabling issue. What does that mean? What that means, as far as I am concerned—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It means that your time is running out!

If that member does not know this, that is not my problem. National is totally removed, totally remote, and totally disconnected from Māori. Mr Brownlee talked about consultation. There is nothing here about consulting with the tangata whenua. There is absolutely no suggestion of assimilation at all.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: He is on his way away.

I am not a list MP, like that member from the West Coast.

This policy is a thinly veiled attempt at assimilation. Let us have a look at it. Historically, the contributions of Māori members holding Māori seats are indelibly etched in the social, cultural, and political fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand. Let me give an example. Do those members opposite think that the formation of the 28th Māori Battalion, and its legendary and costly contribution to the war effort, was the outcome of some politically remote, osmotic process with liberal lashings of divine intervention? If those members opposite believe that, then they have failed to understand Māoris’ contribution to our history. In my view, that formation was a result of the inspired political and tribally strategic leadership of Sir Apirana Ngata, if I may say so.

More recently, the New Zealand First Party, with its six electorate MPs in coalition—with guess whom—were able not only to initiate an inquiry into the historical inequities of the Māori reserve land regime but also to have positive outcomes that heralded unprecedented economic progress for Māori owners. I must give some acknowledgment to New Zealand First—and that was before the Hon Tau Henare’s chameleon-like behaviour.

One of the greatest adages in life has always been that if one does not learn from history, one is doomed to repeat it. For those of us who have been around this place for some time, there is absolutely no better case to look at than that of the Labour Party in 1990 to see the absolute similarities to what that party is going through in this particular term.

A lot of people will say that that was a different Labour Party back then. Actually, it was not. Helen Clark was the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen was the Associate Minister of Finance, and Phil Goff, Trevor Mallard, and Annette King were Ministers on the front bench. [Interruption] Oh yes, they were! They were Ministers. Guess what? In 1990, as the rot set in, no matter what they tried to do they had gone past the tipping point, and Labour ran headlong towards annihilation—so much so that we in the National Party had something dreadful happen to us. We won seats we did not expect to win. We won seats that I think, in hindsight, we actually wish we had not won, because we got a couple of fruit loops on the team at the time. We won seats like Roskill off Phil Goff, which we had never expected to win. To my colleague over here, Chris Auchinvole, I have to say that we won the West Coast, and I think we will win it again this time with Chris Auchinvole as our candidate.

I have just been up in Ōtaki. Let me tell members that the entire group of people that we met in Ōtaki today said, across the board, that Nathan Guy will be the next member of Parliament up there. That is what they said. So I came back to the House this afternoon and I thought, “Boy, are we into a case of retire now and avoid the rush!” That is what we are into. It was Paul Swain and Dover Samuels yesterday and now, like rats deserting a sinking ship, the list has started.

So I thought that what I would do now is to look to the luminaries. Where are the new lights—the fresh blood—that might save the ship? That is what one often does; one turns to anywhere there is any sort of hope of keeping the ship afloat. I keep looking at stuff like the columns of that incredibly impartial columnist Colin James, who says that the two stunning new lights of Labour are the two Davids: David Parker and David Cunliffe. Really? Oh, really? They are the two leading lights? They are the two luminaries? David Parker gives truth to the old adage that behind every great man stands an amazed mother-in-law, and David Cunliffe’s motto is that eagles may soar but weasels do not get sucked into jet engines. That is his motto.

I tell members that David Cunliffe’s performance as a Minister has been appalling. The first thing he had to do as Minister of Communications was to deal with the issue of getting broadband into New Zealand. I ask members to work with me on this one. The first thing he always says at every meeting is: “It’s the National Party’s fault”. That is what he says. I can accept that argument if we are talking about roading, which was an issue around the time back when National was the Government, or the electricity network—I can accept that because it was an issue around then.

But I tell members of the House, as they have probably forgotten—I know Paul Swain will not have—that broadband did not come to New Zealand until just at the end of 1999 as ADSL was rolled out, and that is when National left office. Any roll-out of broadband over the last 7 years has nothing to do with National because there was no broadband in New Zealand when National left office. There was no broadband anywhere. If members go to the OECD tables, they will see that the broadband tables start from 1999, because there was no broadband before that. It is a new technology; it is a brand new technology.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It’s our fault!

Yes, it is true. I admit now that National delivered no broadband, because during its 9 years in Government there was no broadband. But now David Cunliffe is the master and he is going to deliver it. I ask members to let me read from a release that came out yesterday. They will love this; it is my personal favourite: “A new OECD report shows New Zealand is still lagging well behind other developed countries in its broadband uptake.” It says that we are “fifth from bottom” of the 30 countries. We are fifth from the bottom of the 30 countries. Now, where did we start out in 1999? We were 22nd out of the 30 countries, and now we are 25th due to that man’s magnificent management of the broadband issue.

That speech was sponsored by the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. That speech was from a political dinosaur, a man whom, thank goodness, the National Party made the transport spokesperson. I say that because when he was Minister of Transport in the 1990s not a single new highway was built in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, there was.

Oh, no, no. I look around my electorate of Otaki and I see that in the time Labour has been the Government we have had a new overbridge at Mackays Crossing—and Paul Swain was very influential in that. There is a 90 percent subsidy on the Western Link Road. I see that the electrification of the railway line is coming through to Waikanae—and it needs to be pushed further up than that. And I see that just today the contracts for the final stage of the preliminary designs for Transmission Gully have been awarded. The Labour-led Government is making progress on transport issues.

I say to my constituent Mr Guy that if he has Maurice Williamson up at home today giving him political advice, I am fantastically grateful for that. Maurice Williamson and detail, Maurice Williamson and policy, and Maurice Williamson and progress are not words that go together, but there he sits on the front bench. I am glad that he is there, because there is nothing better than what is happening in politics at the moment, with the National Party sleepwalking its way to defeat. National Party members believe they have a ginormous opinion poll lead, and they are watching it ebb away through their own arrogance, through their conceit, and through dividing up the spoils of victory 18 months before a general election. Watching the National Party perform in this way is political gold for the Labour Party.

The new National Party MPs are the worst, because they cannot believe their luck. They watched old Don Brash fumble his way through Parliament. Now, all of a sudden, they think they are on an enormous wave, the election is this Saturday, and soon they will be brought into office.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Not us!

Jacqui Dean should get an economics job, because she says that National would not borrow the money, and that it would just get it from overseas. That is the sort of fantastic policy development we are seeing from people who, 18 months before a general election, have a born-to-rule arrogance that is just absolutely extraordinary.

The National Party members’ speeches so far say they believe they can win office if every member of the Labour Party front bench retires or resigns. That is their strategy, so they say: “Please, Dr Cullen, move on; please, Mr Maharey, go to Massey University.” Gerry Brownlee is very keen on that, as the only way he would get into the extramural programme at Massey University would be if his old mate Mr Maharey enrolled him at mates’ rates. They want Mrs King to go. They want Mr Mallard to go. If all the front bench of the Labour Party left, National members would be very happy. Well, I am sorry. Dreams are free, but around here we have to deal in facts.

The only dream I have heard of recently is that of Mr English saying that his leader goes from cloud to cloud, making pronouncements about policy, while he is left grinding away, doing the work. We totally agree with that. We hear from over there talk of the wasteful spending of the Government. I ask members opposite which area of wasteful spending should be cut first: health, education, law and order, or transport.

💬 Craig Foss: Cullen, Mallard, Goff.

Mr Foss says that if we sack three Cabinet Ministers, that will be enough to bring down interest rates. If we sack three Cabinet Ministers, we will save about a million dollars a year, and that will be enough to lower interest rates, lower the exchange rate of the dollar, and bring about an economic revival in New Zealand. That is the level of intelligence and integrity of those people over there.

Last night it was my privilege to host here at Parliament a pre-screening of a movie called Amazing Grace, which is based around the work William Wilberforce did to end slavery over many, many years in Great Britain. He was a man who stood up for his principles years and years before they were popular. He did not bounce from cloud to cloud; he stood firmly and said what he believed in. We were pleased to watch that movie.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the House, National Party members are not interested in firm principles that are stuck to in good times and bad. They have been busy watching the new movie Transformers, because that is about the only thing the National Party stands for now—transforming what its political policies are. I was amazed to see that the bad guys in Transformers are called the Decepticons. There is no bigger bunch of Decepticons in New Zealand politics right now than those guys over there. “Mega-John” is their leader, and if we look at the National Party, we find there is more there than meets the eye, just like the Transformers in that regard. They will do anything, they will say anything, and they stand for absolutely nothing.

When we ask National members questions such as “OK, the Government is spending too much. Where should we cut spending?”, we hear nothing. Mr Foss says we could cut the ministerial services budget by a million bucks. I do not think that will get us very far. Mrs Dean says that maybe we could get the money from overseas because that is not really borrowing. That will not go very far, either. So I ask National members to tell us what their policy will be. Are we going to can Transmission Gully to bring down interest rates? There is silence from National members of Parliament on that. Are we going to stop building hospitals like the one in Dunstan in order to bring down Government spending? Mrs Dean is screeching about that in a Decepticons kind of way, but I am not sure what she means.

It does not matter where people look; they will see that on 1 July we brought in new policies that represent good spending for people: KiwiSaver, lower fees for doctors’ visits, and 20 hours free for our children in early childhood education. The National Party members are complaining about all those policies, but are they going to keep them or jettison them? How can there be so many windbags and no noise? Vote Labour!

The Conservative Party in Britain last week announced a policy initiative to support marriage education and marriage enrichment courses in that country. As that is also the policy of the new Future New Zealand political party, which I am honoured to co-lead, that announcement has prompted me to make that theme the subject of my contribution to today’s general debate.

However, before I do so, I will share some distilled wisdom on the steps that lead, for the great majority of people, to a successful and fulfilling life. They are really pretty simple: to get the best education one can, to look after one’s health, to not get pregnant before one is married, to prepare well for marriage, to put effort into the ongoing enrichment of one’s marriage, to prepare carefully for parenthood, and to keep educating oneself in parenting as one’s children grow up. All of that will also be part and parcel of the policy of the Future New Zealand party.

The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that, on average, children raised by a married couple have the best life outcomes in terms of health, education, and income level, and they have by far the lowest involvement in the criminal justice system. An evidence-based policy, therefore, would inevitably lead to the conclusion that the Government should do all it can to foster and strengthen marriages.

The family unit is the living cell of society. Indeed, society itself is no more than the sum total of its families. The health of one affects dramatically the health of the other. They are always directly interconnected, and that is an inescapable truth.

First-rate courses for both marriage preparation and marriage enrichment are already available in New Zealand, and they are normally offered by churches and charities. However, they tend, still, to cater to a motivated minority. That is why Future New Zealand will have a policy to make marriage preparation and marriage enrichment courses available to as many New Zealand couples as we possibly can. We will do that by a combination of course fee subsidies and TV advertising. It is a top-of-the-cliff policy, and it is vitally important to the whole of our society.

Let me give just one example. Each year 7,000 young people are involved, in one way or another, with the youth justice system. A representative sample of those 7,000 young people has been taken through a research project, and it shows that just 12 percent of those 7,000 young people come from a home where they are living with both parents. A further 28 percent come from a home with just one parent. The remaining 60 percent—an amazing figure—come from a home where they are living with neither their mother nor their father.

Clearly, there is a stunning and an obvious link between marriage breakdown, separation, and fatherlessness, and our growing crime statistics. It is obvious, therefore, that an investment in marriage preparation, which is aimed at reducing the rate of separation and divorce, has the potential to reduce dramatically the number of young offenders in this country.

I hear much lip-service about getting tough on the causes of crime, but I have never heard the relationship I have just spoken about even mentioned in this House. It is almost as if members have somehow or other decided that the so-called “m” word—that is, marriage—is against Parliament’s Standing Orders, because we seldom hear it mentioned in this place. Yet it is so obviously fundamental to the progress of our society and to its health. Of course, some will be quick to point out that marriage is not perfect. I agree, but it is like democracy: it is not perfect, but clearly it is the best that there is.

I am staggered at times when I hear Ministers of the Labour Government make ridiculous statements about wanting fence-at-the-top types of policies, and at the same time they say family structure is not important. Steve Maharey, a few years ago, was quoted as saying: “It is simple, really: every man should be able to do everything that every woman can do, and every woman should be able to do everything that every man can do.” Those are failed policies and we need to change.

One of the funniest cartoons I have seen recently is this cartoon in a Hawke’s Bay newspaper today, which shows the National Party leader, John Key, bouncing from cloud to cloud—except this time he has wings and a wand—saying: “A wave of my magic wand and the underclass will become the upper class, the gangs will become the social workers, and all Kiwis will come together to hold hands and rejoice together on Waitangi Day.”

Hon members: Ah!

That is what it is about: having a bob each way. I have been keeping an eye on the rest of his caucus, and I see Bill English grinding away; that is what he does. He contradicts his leader, and that reminds the public that National has not moved from its agenda—its boring, hard-line, right-wing agenda of the past.

Judith Collins continues to pick on sickness and welfare beneficiaries. That is nothing new; it is pretty boring really. Paula Bennett and Katherine Rich are so jealous and bitter about Labour’s 20 free hours early childhood education policy, because they really wish that National had thought of it. Parents are telling them that that is a great policy. Indeed, it is good for parents and it is good for children. So National has really messed that up, as many of their caucus members are doing.

Then there are the very confused messages about KiwiSaver that the National Party is putting about. This bold move from the Labour-led Government has left National bereft. It just did not see it coming. KiwiSaver is receiving wide support from business and from the community, and that has left National in another pickle. Mr Key says National will keep KiwiSaver. Mr English says that maybe it will not. I say to “Mr and Mr In-between” they should make up their minds. New Zealanders of all ages think the enhanced KiwiSaver is great, and they are signing up in droves. For thousands of workers it is the first time they have ever been able to consider workplace superannuation, and they are delighted.

I have been keeping a deft eye on National’s employment relations area, and that will not surprise anyone. National is trying to pretend it has gone all soft and that it quite likes workers and thinks unions are OK, but it is not doing a very good job. I have to say that Murray McCully’s opportunistic attack on Ross Wilson’s appointment to the board of the Accident Compensation Corporation is a disgrace. Ross Wilson has served the working people of this country for decades, and his credentials in and knowledge of accident compensation are impeccable. He is the right person for the job, but it just goes to show that anybody with “union” attached to his or her name has to be opposed by the National Party. It has not changed.

I have been listening carefully to Kate Wilkinson’s pronouncements about employment relations, and they have been very interesting. I know she is a rookie, but to be honest I cannot see any difference between the things she says and National’s 2005 policy—on which it lost the election. The workers did not support it. National says it will refine the Employment Relations Act to create the right balance between the rights of employees and the rights of employers. It says it will ensure equal bargaining powers for employers and employees. That is the same old National Party line. What would “the right balance” mean to the workers who are locked out by Spotless Services right now? Would National give that employer even more power that it has now? What would it mean to the thousands of workers who rely on the minimum wage increases that this Government has provided? Those workers have no power, at all.

Kate Wilkinson says that unions have a role in representing the views of employees, should they choose to be represented. That is nice of her—if somewhat patronising, given that freedom of association and the rights to collective bargaining are fundamental human rights. The National Party needs to learn that. Wayne Mapp’s probation periods are still alive in terms of National’s approach to employment relations. Ms Wilkinson says that is a useful thing for hiring older workers, young people, or immigrants. In other words, let us have fewer rights for people whom the National Party consider are completely hopeless. That is the same old National Party line.

National is sticking to its dogmatic determination to change our world-leading, easy-to-access, and affordable accident compensation system. It wants to put the money into the hands of big business, have workplace accidents dominated by profit incentives, and make ordinary New Zealanders pay for that. That is the same old National Party line. Kate Wilkinson has repeated National’s opposition to anything interfering in commercial relationships. I remember the National Party’s rhetoric in the 1990s—that an employment relationship is no different from a commercial relationship, and, as such, workers should not have any special rights. So we are hearing the same thing over again from the same old National Party. Workers who fought hard for the 2006 amendments for vulnerable workers will have heard National say that it is not persuaded that those amendments should stay in place. Working people will not be fooled by Mr Key floating on soft, fluffy clouds, or by his caucus. Those people know that the only way to keep making gains for themselves and their families is through a Labour-led Government.

Yesterday, just after question time, New Zealand First attempted to introduce a bill that would have changed the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, or at least widened the targets the Reserve Bank governor is asked to adhere to. But we hope that after a little chit-chat with the National Party and a few others, we may indeed succeed in getting that bill into the House, rather than taking a pot-shot by using the ballot system. I hope that we do.

New Zealand First has long said that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, with its focus on just inflation, is a pretty blunt instrument for us to use to run monetary policy in this country. We think that if the Reserve Bank governor was asked to consider—and I am sure he would be glad to—other things, such as employment, the effect the Act may have on exporters, and things of that nature, then he would have a broader base on which to decide whether to put up interest rates, intervene in the market and sell dollars, or buy dollars, if the situation changes at some time in the future. After all, they are things we have to grapple with in this Parliament. They are very real things, and they are the sometimes conflicting issues that people have to consider and that the Minister of Finance has to consider when it comes to monetary policy in this country. I say this with some certainty, because it has been mentioned many times in this House that the Finance and Expenditure Committee, of which I am a member, has been asked to look at these very situations.

All of the reasons that people give us for retaining the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act as it is are, in fact, in respect of things that are happening now. I have been told as late as this morning, during a select committee meeting, by Mr Foss of the National Party, that any alteration to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act would put fear into the financial markets, put up interest rates, and put up the exchange rate of the dollar.

💬 Shane Jones: What an exaggeration from Mr Foss!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I hear my worthy chairman, Mr Shane Jones, interjecting. He is right. Those very things are happening now. I believe that if something is not working, it is no use sticking just to the ideology. We have to look in some depth at ways to fix the problem.

Sadly, up until this point we have seen both the bigger parties in Parliament take a hands-off attitude to this problem. I have to say, though, that we are now hearing the Labour Government say that something must be done. It is not promising anything, but it is saying that it is happy for these issues to be looked at. New Zealand First is hopeful, if not confident, that the National Party will see sense and at least send the bill that we are proposing to a select committee, so that we can look at it in a proper bipartisan manner.

I think that the people of New Zealand are not too worried about ideology at this point. If there is an answer out there somewhere to their problems, they want to know that it is being investigated by this Parliament and that something may come of it. It is no longer tenable for us to have a situation where house prices go up and the demand for consumer products goes up, so in attempting to dampen that demand the Reserve Bank governor puts up the interest rate. Putting up interests rates attracts more money from the Japanese—the interest rate currently in Japan, I am told, is 1.5 percent—then the dollar goes up accordingly. That is no longer tenable. We must do something.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.