General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I must say that a moment ago I thought Gerry was beating the gun and had already engaged in the general debate.

New Zealand disgraced itself last week in the international media in Vienna. According to reports published worldwide, we lined up with the countries that opposed a non-binding target for OECD countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer my question about whether she or her Cabinet had approved this negotiating position. Instead, she passed on that question to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, who did not answer it either. The Minister fell back on the good old United States formula that he would neither confirm nor deny the reports. He told us that New Zealand was willing to commit to binding targets, but he did not tell us the nature of those targets. Are we looking at targets that go down for emissions or targets that go up?

I want to tell the House why this proposal of 25 to 40 percent by 2020 matters. These are not just numbers. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of the world’s best scientists on climate change, these numbers give the world the best chance—not certainty, but the best chance—of keeping global warming below 2 degrees. Above 2 degrees we may be into catastrophic climate change that is unstoppable, no matter what we do. This is a tipping point, and it is very close. Above 2 degrees we could be into unstoppable droughts, floods, hurricanes, crop failures, acid oceans, and a billion or more climate refugees milling about the world, looking for a place to live. New Zealand is not immune to any of those disasters, so I was hugely disappointed to read that we had lined up with those who oppose taking this kind of action.

This week the Prime Minister leaves for APEC, and she is very proud to have got on to the APEC agenda the issue of climate change. It is helpful only if the APEC discussion takes us forward. APEC is not the place where one normally discusses climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the normal place to do so. The convention met in Vienna and it meets in Bali in December.

Last week a leaked draft of the communiqué that is to be discussed at APEC made its way into the Australian media. The draft shows that the APEC discussion will indeed take us backwards. The leaked draft undermines the principles established at Kyoto, and it provides aspirational, non-binding targets that would see emissions continue to climb from all countries because the reductions would be linked to the rate of economic growth. Developing countries are currently refusing to take targets, at all. That is entirely understandable when we take into consideration that the starting point for negotiations is that a country with 4 percent of the world’s people and 25 percent of the world’s emissions gets to negotiate from that point, whereas a country like China, with 25 percent of the world’s people and roughly similar emissions, is meant to take that as a starting point. The only framework that will get developing countries on board and lead to a robust convention that can save the climate is one of equity, where entitlements are based initially on population.

New Zealand could break the deadlock at APEC if it wanted to. The Prime Minister could turn up there in the next few days and advocate for a population-based commitment after 2012. It was encouraging that the Minister acknowledged in the House today that population must be a factor. The question is what actions our negotiators will take at APEC. Will the Prime Minister be allowed to make a bold move on behalf of a global agreement and say that it is simply not right that 4 percent of the world’s people can continue to be entitled to a quarter of the world’s emissions? We are waiting to see what happens.

Can I just say to Jeanette Fitzsimons, before I begin some comments of a broader nature today, that in the spirit of cooperation I will reflect back to the question she has raised. My understanding is that at the plenary session of the United Nations climate change talks in Vienna the negotiators made it very clear that New Zealand was willing to sign up to binding emission targets, and they made that clear. They helped draft the material, and even Greenpeace, which does not seem to have an awful lot of love for this particular Government, was very happy with the performance of Labour there.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because you’re hopeless.

The Greenpeace people, if they were given a chance to talk about Nick Smith, however, would probably be a whole lot less kind, because somebody who is at the coalface of this issue is probably not quite in the frame of reference that Greenpeace would use.

Can I say, carrying on with that mood of cooperation, that yesterday we had a very good ceremony down at the Michael Fowler Centre, where all the parties in Parliament—all the parties, every single one of them—turned up to ensure that they showed their support for the family violence initiative called It’s Not OK. I was particularly pleased to see Mrs Judith Collins there. I even went over and said: “Good to see you, Judith.” I said that in the spirit of cooperation around this kind of issue. It was great to see Mrs Collins there, because Mrs Collins is the person who took the National Party out of the multiparty talks on family violence. Mrs Collins called those talks a “Kumbaya” session, where people go along and they talk about these issues but they do not do anything.

It was good to see that Mrs Collins was prepared to come to the family violence discussion down at the Michael Fowler Centre to try to bathe in the glory of people who had done the real work about it. She tried to bathe in that glory, but at least she was saying that she was agreeing with it. The interesting thing, of course, is that it was produced by the same kind of process as the one she walked out of. It is the same kind of process; it is the Government and non-governmental organisations getting together and everybody trying to work on the ideas. The process produced that idea along with many other ideas. We never know what we will achieve if we actually do get together.

The other thing I want to point out is that Mrs Collins had that change of heart and came down to the Michael Fowler Centre, and Mr Key said the programme would not work and National did not want to fund it! So Mrs Collins was down there saying it was a good idea, and Mr Key was back here saying he did not think it would work and he did not want to fund it. He said it would not work, and what he revealed by doing that is that he did not actually understand the programme at all. He said that people who beat up their kids do not watch TV. I want to say to Mr Key that the whole point of having a programme like this is to try to get everybody else around people who beat up kids to say that they will not tolerate it any more and that they will do something about it, because one of the things we learn all the time is that people know about this violence but do not pick up the phone to ring about it. We want them to do that. “It’s not OK” is what the message is. So Mr Key might like to pay attention to the reasons for the policy, and then, like Mrs Collins, he might agree with it.

In summary, Mr Key opposes the programme, and Mrs Collins goes to the launch,. She will not allow National to go to the talks on violence, but the National Party says that somebody should do something about this problem. Are members confused? Well, they should not be, because with National virtually every single issue is like this one. National has no policy, its members agree with Labour on anything they think is popular, and anything that is popular to do they will do. They have more positions than the Kama Sutra on virtually every policy, because they do not have any policy. They hold many positions to try to ensure—

💬 Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am really concerned at the nature of the speech, given that Judy Turner was asked to ask Judith Collins to come along and be supportive of the family violence initiative. Now we hear Judith Collins being attacked in the House today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, that is not a point of order, and the member should know that.

Frankly, I do not care how she got there. The fact is that Mrs Collins has repeatedly—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the members on my left that when they move to facilitate interjection it is out of order. The member has been warned.

I cannot hear Mrs Bennett, so it is all right. But I want to say to Mrs Turia that I do not care how Mrs Collins got there. Mrs Collins has repeatedly—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague for interrupting, but I think there was a further breach of order on the part of—I am not sure of the member’s name, but she is next to Mr Williamson there. She referred to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, as part of her interjection, and she was very abusive of you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just remind the member that she cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. The member knows that she is not actually sitting in her normal seat. If she wants to interject, I invite her to go back to her seat.

I do not really care how Mrs Collins got there. What I care about is that the position of National changes so fundamentally on an issue like family violence, all of the time—just like on every other issue. National has no policy; it holds one position after the other. National’s leader and its spokespeople never seem to talk to each other. The leader seems to have no real authority, because everybody else tells him what he should think about these kinds of issues.

Leaving alone the issue of family violence, I just ask Mrs Turia to go to all the other issues that National members disagree on and, for example, to take something like climate change. One minute National members say it is a hoax, the next time they say they have always believed there was global warming. They say student loans are a bribe, then they say they think they will keep the scheme, and then they say “maybe” they will keep it. On Working for Families, they talk about “large” cuts and then it is “some” cuts. On superannuation, they say they will raise eligibility and now they say they will not touch eligibility. When the Skyhawks were sold—and I say this as someone who comes from the Manawatū—the National Party campaigned on this emotional, heart-wringing campaign to buy back a strike wing. National members came to Palmerston North, they went to the RSA, they met with soldiers, and they have broken a promise on that, like they have on every other single issue they have talked about.

I will reply briefly to the comments made by Steve Maharey about a matter National considers to be extremely important—that is, the issue of trying to curb the excesses of violence against children in this country. The point I make is that we will not follow blindly a Labour line that says we should sit in a room, wring our hands, get a few more committees together, have a commission somewhere, and go through all of those steps a commission normally would go through on all sorts of issues but never come under any scrutiny in Parliament because everybody is brought into it. Well, our role is to be an Opposition. Our role is to hold the Government to account, and on behalf of the many children whose lives are made miserable by Government failure in this matter, we will hold the Government to account, and we will not sit in a room somewhere being told what to do by the Minister.

One of the most interesting things about question time today was the response that the Hon Mark Burton gave to the Hon Bill English when Mr English asked him some questions about the need for there to be an election period in New Zealand. In the case of next year, that period is likely to run for some 11 months—not just the standard 3 months we have always had, not the 6 weeks they have in Canada, not even the proportionate 12 months they have in the 5-year cycle in Britain, but a whole 11 months inside the 3-year parliamentary term in New Zealand. For those 11 months the Government is attempting to shutdown criticism, and to shut down any opposition to its policy programme. The Government has virtually said to New Zealanders that if it does something, it is OK, but if National does something, it is wrong. So the Government is saying that it will bring in a law to say that what it does is OK, that what National does is not OK, and that New Zealanders can lump it. The problem with that is that it is a direct attack on the freedom of speech that makes New Zealand the wonderful country it is.

We saw today the Minister stand in the House and suggest that billboards were already out there attacking the Government and, therefore, that those attacking the Government must be the friends of the National Party. Well, let me tell Mr Burton that thousands of New Zealanders who have invested in forestry in this country are not happy with the Government’s policy regarding the reuse of land and the cost of carbon credits. They have every right to say what they like about Labour’s policy in that regard, without receiving the accusation that the member might like to make about them. That there is now to be a law constructed around the idea that any criticism of the Labour Party or the Government is somehow at the hands of Opposition parties, or is hand in hand with Opposition parties and must therefore be shut down because it may influence an election, is a dreadful step for this country to be taking.

So we would ask the Minister and the Labour Government why the election period is such a long period of time. What are they afraid of? Why can they not allow any New Zealander who wants to question them to do so freely during a period of 12 months prior to an election? What is so frightening about the scrutiny that ordinary New Zealanders will put on a Government? I think the Government will need to answer those questions over the next couple of weeks, because if we go much further than that, then New Zealanders will have no say on this matter whatsoever because Helen Clark has decreed that this will be law by November. The Minister has stood up day after day and said there are matters the select committee should be dealing with. But at the same time he has said that the Government will bring in a Supplementary Order Paper—which is effectively a new law—at the time the bill comes back into the House, and that he will jackboot the Government’s proposals through this House and shut down anyone who wants to criticise the Government in any way whatsoever.

The worst of it, of course, is that this bill is before Parliament at the same time that the chief of staff from the Prime Minister’s office is trying to collude with other parties to enable members of Parliament to spend any amount they like on election activities from their member’s support budgets. We know people are aware that after the last election, when there was the dreadful rort over the pledge card, Michael Cullen came into this House and pushed through a bill that made legal everything that had been illegal for a period until 31 December 2007. So those members are now saying that when that period expires at the end of 2007 there has to be a new law in place that continues to make that legal. It is a disgrace, it is an attack on freedom of speech, and it will cost Labour big!

“You have no policy.” That has been the mantra parroted by the National Party in recent weeks, and today I just want to point out the irony of that hollow claim. The Labour Party came into Government, and it had policy before it became the Government. We have worked with the Progressive party, New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens. We all came to the table after the election with the policy agenda we wanted to progress, because MMP requires us to do that—to have trade-offs and collaboration to ensure that the parties that want to form a Government reach an agenda that enables them to do so. In 1999, 2002, and 2005, under the leadership of Helen Clark, we achieved that, and policies have been implemented over the past 8 years.

The irony and the hypocrisy of the shallow rhetoric of the National Party is that it has no policy of its own. National members are the proverbial political cuckoos; they hop into everybody else’s policy nest. They go around stealing other people’s policies because they have none of their own.

Let us just go through the list of policies the National Party has been stealing. For over 30 years the Labour Party has supported having a nuclear-free New Zealand—through conferences, through remits, through rallies, and finally through policy implementation. Through good times and bad we have believed in a nuclear-free New Zealand. We have made New Zealand known in the world as a nuclear-free country, and from that flowed the clean, green, pure New Zealand image that we are all so proud of. For 30 years National members opposed that policy. They goaded, they denigrated, they criticised, and they fought election after election against having a nuclear-free New Zealand. And now it is their policy. After 30 years of opposing it, it is now their policy. It is part of the “me too” approach that those members are now taking to policy development.

We could take Labour’s defence policy as a further example. It has been clear for years where Labour has stood on defence in New Zealand. We believe in being a good international citizen and in building up the sort of armed forces that are fit for our purpose, and we have set out to implement that policy. We have taken the flack. We have taken the organised campaigns against our defence policy. We have taken the jibes, the letters to the editors, the speeches from the military experts, and the accusations that we were freeloading on our friends. But last week our policy became the National Party’s policy. It is now a sensible policy, according to Mr McCully. It is now part of the National Party’s “me too” approach to policy.

We could take the example of paid parental leave. It is a case of Labour policy implemented. It is part of a suite of policies intended to support families. According to the National Party it would destroy small business. National opposed it; its members even voted against it. But, hello, it is now part of the National Party’s “me too” policy approach. We could take the example of 4 weeks’ holiday for New Zealanders, which is a policy we have implemented to give families time together. It was vigorously opposed and voted against by the National Party; it is now National Party “me too” policy. We could take the example of Working for Families tax credits. The Labour Government’s policy is to put more money into the pockets of families, and that has had huge advantages for many families around New Zealand. It was opposed by the National Party. Those members voted against it. They are now in favour of it—except for middle-income New Zealanders.

We could take the example of the Superannuation Fund. It is a forward-looking policy, long overdue, that secures a pension for our children and our grandchildren. The money is not all to be spent on this current generation. The National Party voted against the Superannuation Fund, and it is now National Party policy. It is part of the “me too” approach to policy development. We could take the example of climate change. It was picked up by Labour, and it is now National Party policy. National members said climate change was a hoax—today it is not.

I am delighted to take a call after that speech. First of all, I just say to the Hon Annette King that National was in Government for 9 years and left the anti-nuclear legislation exactly where it was. So that is not some new-found school of thought for us. We left it there because we agreed with it.

But the real point of my speech today is to make the point that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I think I am the only member in the House today who was here in the late 1980s—except for yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker—and I can tell members that the stench of death that is starting to surround this Government is the same stench that surrounded the Labour Government in the late 1980s and in 1990. I will give some quotes a little later on from the Rt Hon Mike Moore, who has had some lovely things to say, and who was actually the leader of the Labour Party during that massive “calypso collapso”.

New Zealanders are now saying a couple of things on a regular basis. I know that Labour members will be hearing this comment: “I cannot believe how Helen Clark was such a good manager and had such a great Government when Labour came into power, and how Labour members have just lost it now. They have now just lost the plot.” There have been many scandals running around and many Ministers having to be fired. More Ministers have been fired than, I think, in the history of this Parliament ever.

I want to remind the House about two of the incoming Prime Minister’s quotes. Helen Clark said: “We will bring new standards to politics.” That is what she said. Well, people should ask the, I think, 11 Ministers who have had to be sacked, because of their behaviour, about that comment. Members should ask the public about those 11 Ministers. Helen Clark talked about new standards, aspirational politics, and an inclusive society. Is that what this country has now? No, it is not—not according to the public and, I can tell members, not according to Mike Moore. The other thing Helen Clark said was that her Government would take us into the top half of the OCED for GDP per capita—for income; for wealth. Actually, when Labour came to power we were 22nd in the OECD, and now we are 23rd. We have actually slipped one place under the great economic transformation miracle of the Labour Government.

But the worst thing of all can, I think, be summarised by what Mike Moore had to say the other day. I think he hit a very, very good nail right on the head. He said that we now have a Prime Minister who is involved in the nasty, dirty personality politics—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh, rubbish!

It is not the National Party saying that, I say to Mr Horomia. That was said by a former Labour Prime Minister. Mike Moore is still a member of the Labour Party, and he is still proud to say he keeps on raising money for Labour, but he says there is now a nasty technique of personally destroying opponents, intimidating the media, and using of levers of Government to create stunts and diversions in order to buy votes. That is what Mike Moore said about this current rotten Government.

I think New Zealanders are starting very strongly to believe Mike Moore. They have had enough of stuff like the Taito Phillip Field issue, where Helen Clark set up an inquiry by Noel Ingram QC, gave him no power, made a whitewash of the findings, and then defended Taito Phillip Field for month after month in this House until it was too late. Then it was all over, and Taito Phillip Field was out and gone. We saw the same with regard to the David Benson-Pope stuff, the Madeleine Setchell issue, and so on. Helen Clark said that they had done nothing wrong and that National Party members were a bunch of evils. So Labour then went for John Key’s personal wealth—that is what they attacked.

New Zealanders are sick of those sorts of politics. They would really, really like to hear us debate some issues and not start to get into that sort of stuff. What was John Key’s greatest crime? He came from a State house, from a solo family, and actually made his way in life. As Mike Moore says, why are Labour members attacking that? What is wrong with that? He said—and I think this is a great quote—that is bit rich, “coming from people, many of whom went to exclusive schools, enjoyed a comfortable upbringing, and didn’t even have to work during university holidays”. That is exactly right—it is a bit rich for people on the Government side of the House to attack John Key. I think we should all be very proud to see a New Zealander do what he did and make of himself what he did. We should all hope that lots more people are as successful in life as him. But oh no, the nasty, bitter vitriol comes out.

Mike Moore also had a few other things to say, which another of my colleagues will be able to cover.

I heard that member’s persuasive argument about members disappearing. I want to remind him that there were five leaders in the National Party in that period of time, and that its present leader is struggling to get its members back in.

Let us talk about the nuclear issue. I recall that when National was last in Government it was saying it would do away with the anti-nuclear policy. Every year those members said that.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: No. Never said it.

Yes, they did. Every year they said they would do away with it, but the only thing that happened was that the country got rid of them, and that is really, really important to understand.

In relation to the violence matter, I say that that member’s party did not show up until recently—and I do have to give due respect to Tariana Turia and company, who encouraged them to come back. The member should not use the flip-flop excuse that National members stayed away because they care about babies getting bashed and all that stuff. Those members did not show. They came to the first hui, they kicked up a ruckus, and they told a whole lot of nonsense.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What a lightweight!

I think it is very unfair for that member to call me a lightweight when he can see what my shape is. How dare he! I demand an apology from him.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I withdraw and apologise. He is no lightweight.

I thank the member. He knows full well that this Government is committed to obesity and that we do care about health problems, unlike that party over there.

What did National members do in health when there were in Government? They got rid of the dental technician training colleges. They got rid of them, and poor Māoris, poor Pacific Island people, and other poor New Zealanders—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: They’re still poor.

—that is right—they have no decent dental surgery. Those members got rid of the colleges.

What else did National members do? They put up the rates for doctors’ visits. They scrubbed a whole lot of issues. They threatened to close hospitals. They threatened places like the Wairarapa and Kaitāia, and they withdrew a whole lot of health services. This is the same great party that says it cares about our people.

I want to talk about more positive things today, like Māori Television. National hummed and ha’ed, and said that it would not get there. I will read a quote from the head of the Māori Television Service: “Māori Television has recorded its highest ratings ever thanks to the thousands of viewers”—Mr Williamson should listen to this—“who tuned into New Zealand’s national indigenous broadcaster during August.”

Māori Television has a whole lot of people who are now experts. By the way, 80 percent of people who watch it are non-Māori. It is fabulous, the stuff it has got into. In the past 6 months it has averaged 695,000 viewers every month. It heading towards being what real Kiwiana is about. It is a great effort. It is a skill that was not of this country, and people will keep Hollywood and Bollywood alive because Māoris are great actors. At the end of the day, issues like Māori Television have managed themselves very, very well.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Tell us about your commitment to obesity.

About what?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: You said this Government was committed to obesity. I want to know why.

At the end of the day, we do address the issues. That is a surly type of innuendo, I say to Maurice. I could talk about broadcasting in his period in office, too—I could talk about a whole lot of other issues. We are serious about the health issues in this country, and some people struggle to correct things more than others.

Let us talk about the employment rate for Māori. I ask members to look at this chart here. When Labour came to office, Māori were at this level here in terms of benefits. People continue to preach and leach that we are a benefit-dependent people, but that is totally wrong. This Government has helped us as much as it has helped the dairy farmers and the foresters. I make a prediction that the extra payment per kilogram will be $7, and that will be done through this Government’s effort.

Police numbers have been increased through this Government’s effort, and with a bit of help from Mr Mark. We have dealt with issues like assisting the Māori wardens. When did that member care about the Māori wardens?

The participation rate in employment is at a historic high. At the moment nearly 80 percent of all Māori who can work are working. Is that not great?

The rate of early childcare participation is at nearly 92 percent. That is how we get out of violence. That is how we get people out of all those negative things.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s not working. Violence is worse.

Violence is everywhere, I say to Dr Smith, and the interesting thing is that the narrow-minded members opposite blame it on Māori, which is humbug.

Several months ago a social policy group calling itself Breakthrough Britain made a series of recommendations to the British Conservative Party about how to end the costs of social breakdown. Chaired by the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, the group advocates for a new approach to welfare in the 21st century. Its report called on the Government to start reinforcing and strengthening not the welfare State but the welfare society, which it defined as “that which delivers welfare beyond the State”. The paper states that the heart of welfare society is the army of people who for the love of neighbour and community shoulder the massive burden of care. Underpinning the recommendations of the report is the understanding that pivotal to the principles of tackling disadvantage at the earliest stages of a child’s life is the need to support and develop the potential of the third sector—those community and voluntary organisations that work where the rubber meets the road with families in need of support of some kind. In the New Zealand context we have literally thousands of community organisations that have sprung up in response to local needs, and that give shape and meaning to what it means to be a community.

The Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust is one such organisation. It was started by a grandmother who took two highly traumatised grandchildren, at the request of Child, Youth and Family, into her care. This grandmother, being at her wit’s end due to the complex needs these children were presenting her with, and the absence of support, put an advertisement in a local paper asking whether anybody else was struggling to cope with similar circumstances. Her phone has not stopped ringing since then.

Now, a few short years since that advertisement went into the paper, she leads an organisation that has 3,000 members and branches all over the country. What tends to happen when these groups form is that they quickly discover that there are needs within their group that cannot be addressed just by a friendly listening ear at the end of the phone. They quickly develop a range of additional services, like second-hand clothing exchanges and legal advice—services that Government agencies cannot or will not make available to them. Lobbying central and local government is the natural progression for organisations that figure out over time that they are trying to make up for the shortfall in people’s lives created by systemic and policy failures.

Members of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust quickly discovered that if they were raising non - family members they would be getting a more generous benefit, with additional allowances to boot. They discovered that even when Child, Youth and Family asks people to step up to the plate, there is no legal aid funding for those who have nice homes and investment money for their retirement. Instead, those people watch their money disappear on court costs, as they must repeatedly fight their own children, who do get legal aid, in order to keep their grandchildren safe; or they watch their money disappear on new mortgages in order to upgrade their two-bedroom, low-maintenance retirement homes to something more suitable for bringing up these new, second families.

I have spoken to members of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust who have whittled away their entire retirement savings and are now borrowing from lending institutions to make ends meet. I have sat in branch meetings of the trust and seen a woman in her late 60s sobbing with exhaustion. There is no respite for caregivers who are looking after family members, but if people are fostering somebody else’s kids we will organise and fund regular breaks so they can keep going. This woman had figured out that her only option would be to drop off her grandchildren at the local Child, Youth and Family office and drive away.

It is past time that the Labour Government honoured its 2005 election manifesto and made available the same clothing allowances, school trip money, birthday present money, and counselling and support that it provides to other children in need of foster care. Community groups like the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust support those who support some of our most truly vulnerable citizens. They are not intending to resign from their responsibilities but would like to develop a better partnership with Government agencies that have the same mandate.

It is time we stopped both ignoring and patronising the community and voluntary sector. That sector saves us billions of dollars, and partnering with it is the smartest thing that any Government can do. However, we need to do it in such a way that we do not compromise who the members of the sector are and the flexible support they are able to offer people in the community.

United Future is prepared to offer an open door to these organisations to help broker a more productive line of communication for them with the Government, and a more robust working partnership, so that the safety net that we want to see in the community is sound.

In listening to Labour Minister Parekura Horomia and other Ministers in this Government, I am reminded of the question that Mike Moore asked last week: “What does … the legion of Ministers … actually do?”. Mike Moore went on to say: “Perhaps it’s good they don’t do much. They manage the remarkable feat of being self-important, expensive, trivial and irrelevant at the same time.” I say to members opposite that when a former Labour Prime Minister says that about their record, they know they are in desperate trouble.

But there is another sign. We know that Labour is really in trouble when it has to roll out the thorny knot of the nuclear issue. When things get really desperate, Labour members roll back history 20 years and try to re-win the 1987 election by rolling out the nuclear issue. As John Key said, Labour is out of step with the times.

The really important issue on the minds of APEC leaders as they gather in Sydney today is that of climate change. Let us just test this Government’s record on that important issue.

💬 Sue Moroney: Is climate change a hoax or not?

Let us ask the member opposite why it is that although Labour promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005, emissions went up 12 percent.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it a hoax or not?

The member opposite might like to answer my question, because Labour has broken its promise. Labour’s promise of reducing emissions by 20 percent by 2005 was a hoax.

Then we have the issue of electricity. Electricity is a State-owned sector. One would think that in a carbon-neutral age a Government would want to lead the world in sustainability, but what does Labour do? It increases fourfold the amount of electricity that is being produced by coal.

Members can take another comparison, and perhaps the member opposite would like to look at this. I have the numbers on a practical area. Let us get some solar water heaters—that would make good sense, would it not? Do members know that Australia is installing 30 times as many solar water heaters than New Zealand is, on a per population basis? And Helen Clark wants to go to Sydney and tell the Australians how to manage the issue of climate change!

Then there is the issue of forestry. Forestry is one of the most sensitive areas for a country like New Zealand in respect of climate change. Over the last 3 years we have, for the first time in 50 years, seen huge deforestation—the loss of 40,000 hectares. Over 6 million trees have been cut down and not replanted. Let us compare that figure with the situation across the Tasman. In the same period Australia has increased its forestry by 400,000 hectares. This is where it gets cynical: the Minister of Justice takes offence at a hoarding at the airport from the Kyoto Forestry Association criticising the Government on forestry policy. He now wants to pass a law to shut down such criticism as it will expose the fraud of this Government’s climate change policies. That is what he wants to do.

That law is the most outrageous attack on free speech that this Parliament has ever seen. Mike Moore says it is dangerous. He says that Mark Burton is making a dangerous attack on the freedoms of New Zealanders. I ask members opposite why forestry owners should not be able to spend money on an ad campaign exposing the fraud of this Government’s climate change policies. Why should organisers from the Post Primary Teachers Association, who are not exactly mates of ours, not be able to run ads and say how Labour has broken its promises to teachers? Why is this Government going to stop the Littlies Lobby from being able to have ads to debate the important issue of child abuse? Why is it that Greenpeace will not be able to run ads next year expressing its view on climate change?

You see, this cynical, sick, tired Government has become so paranoid that it will even take away New Zealanders’ basic liberties in order to hang on to power. That is why it has to go. It does not understand that the interests of New Zealand are more important than the interests of the Labour Government—it should go.

It has been an extraordinary year for watching the National Party move its policy. To get a National Party position on any policy is like picking up mercury with chopsticks—one thinks one has it, and it slithers around the plate; one thinks one has it, and off it slithers again. During question time today my colleague Sue Moroney asked about paid parental leave extensions. I was able to show that three woman members of the National Party have all put on the public record completely conflicting views on paid parental leave—Anne Tolley, Judith Collins, and Kate Wilkinson Then we had Jackie Blue, National’s spokesperson on women’s affairs, who, at the Health Committee in respect of the Inquiry into Obesity and Type II Diabetes in New Zealand, opposed paid parental leave as a way of supporting new mothers’ breastfeeding as a contribution towards reducing obesity. So on the record of Parliament we have National now opposing that for the most vulnerable mothers and the most vulnerable—

💬 Sue Moroney: What’s their policy?

My colleague asks what National’s policy is. I just want to recall what John Key said in one of his most definitive statements. When he was asked whether National supported or opposed paid parental leave and whether it would scrap paid parental leave if it became the Government, he said: “Yeah, I think we support paid parental leave.” What an extraordinary comment from the leader of a party who from 2002 is consistently on the public record of this House as being opposed to paid parental leave. It is not surprising. There are so many other examples.

I heard the latest version of National’s position on the Iraq war from the strategist Murray McCully, who is out strategising on the rugby field in Paris at the moment. He said that actually National had never supported American, United Kingdom, and Australian troops going into Iraq, that that was never National’s position, and that National certainly would not support troops going to Iraq. Well, that is the opposite of what National members said in the House. Certainly, it was the opposite of what Simon Power said on the public record—“Where they go, we will go.” That is out of the Book of Ruth in the Bible; it is a very good quote. But what Murray McCully said is that National supported their right to make a decision. It is just extraordinary.

When we are talking about committing the lives of young New Zealand men to fight in a war that had not been signed off, sanctioned, or supported by any United Nation recommendation, that party has a moral responsibility to the public of New Zealand to have one clear, unequivocal position. There are very few issues more serious that a Government can consider than the issue of risking the life of another. That is literally what that decision is about, and that party is cheating the public of New Zealand by not coming clean on its views.

On housing, John Key had the audacity to go to a State house in Christchurch and say that that was where he grew up and what a fabulous upbringing he had, all credit to his mum, and then go back to his electorate—which is not where his home really is; he does not live there—where he enrols to vote and where he opposed the building of State houses. So it is all right for State houses to be in his past life but not in his backyard.

On the therapeutics negotiations with Australia, where we had worked for months to get a sensible deal to protect New Zealanders against the importation of dangerous products in natural medicines, what we got from John Key and Bill English was deceit and changed policies every second day, regardless of what commitments they had made to the Minister for Food Safety or, indeed, to other Cabinet colleagues.

Climate change—which the member who has just resumed his seat had the audacity to raise in this House—was a hoax to those members not very long ago. Now we have the little monkey singing: “I’m a believer.” It is just extraordinary. On student loans, on Working for Families, on superannuation, on every policy they are gone by lunchtime.

The issue that I would like to challenge the National Party on relates to a discussion document it has released today—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is a two-way debate going on between members who do not have the floor, and it is totally out of order.

The challenge I would like to put to the National Party is to come clean with senior citizens in relation to its aged-care discussion document, which says not one word about National’s commitment on asset testing. Asset testing, which National in its 9 years in Government did absolutely nothing about, is now under threat in its own discussion document. There is not one word, not one commitment, on asset testing in its document. It is under threat and those members need to come clean on it.

Mike Moore’s mumblings on Muldoonism have been heralded as a blast from the past in some parts of the media and in some political commentary. The effect on Labour’s ranks has been, I think, that of an earthquake, with seismic rumblings ricocheting in ever-expanding concentric rings round the person and personality of the present Prime Minister. The much-quoted “whiff of Muldoonism” comment hangs like a pall over the prime ministerial head, and it has the persistence of a cloud that no amount of huffing and puffing by an angry Mr Anderton can dissipate.

I have noticed during a long period of parliamentary watching and listening over the years that every now and again a remark is made that has such a ring of truth to it that no argument can effectively refute it. I think this is one of those occasions. It could be interpreted as a light remark. I think Mike Moore suggested that it should be seen, and perhaps taken, as a bit of a chuckle, a bit of a laugh. But not everybody can respond in that way, and the veracity of a remark often lies in the way it is received. I recall listening to a debate in which the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley was being harangued when she spoke. She was oblivious to the constant jibes and interjections being hurled at her by an ineffective Labour Opposition. An interjector called out to Jenny Shipley: “You’re weak-kneed.” Mrs Shipley responded: “Weak-kneed? Me? I don’t think so.” From the silence that followed while she concluded her speech, it was clear that everyone else agreed with her. It was a moment of truth.

It is a similar case with Mike Moore. He has given voice to a moment of truth, and it was no good for Labour members to try to attack his perceptiveness—albeit it was piercingly painful for them—when he came out with his “whiff of Muldoonism” comment. If the electorate considers that his remarks fit like a jelly in a tin, no amount of organising, letter writing, and tailored talkback calls will alter the expression of truth. But what is it that made the current Labour-lifers—and it is those from Mike’s era whom I refer to—in Parliament so enraged? Why did they respond with such anger? I think the Rt Hon Mike Moore’s comments have cut deep into the Labour psyche. What is that old quote—“that which we least like about ourselves”? Why have Mr Moore’s remarks caused such digestive heaving in Labour’s body politic? It is probably because its members think he is right.

But there is more. He has taken not just the mind of the Labour body politic but also the mind of Labour’s caucus into a pattern of thoughts to which it is not usually allowed to stray. He has force-focused the mind of Labour’s caucus and the public mind on the leadership issue, which is increasingly a question of vexation for them. Did he mean to do it? Did he mean to establish an expectation of an era ending? We may never know. Mr Moore may merely have followed an instinct, in a responsive way, in a lugubrious way, mournful about Labour’s petty, off-target perambulations against John Key, which were destined to fail before they even started. We expected better, but no, it was almost a repeat of the Grey Valley schools situation.

One thing is for sure: Mike Moore was smack on target, and I can imagine him being highly hosed off with such transparent hopelessness in a party of which he was once proud to be a member, along with a number of colleagues who are still serving in that party and who probably still feel the same. Fortunately, he has a protégée in the House in the person of Clayton Cosgrove, plus a number of others who probably share the same memories and opinions of Mike Moore’s tenure.

I remember Mike Moore well. I remember him when he came to stand in Papanui against Bert Walker. He was supported by David Lange prior to the 1975 election. He was from Kawakawa. My wife and I knew David Lange quite well from his days in Kaikohe. So there was an element of us all coming from the same territory when we went to his meeting in Papanui. I asked both gentlemen why they adhered to the Labour philosophy, and I remember Mike’s enthusiasm—an enthusiasm that has since been crushed.

“… those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” So said Maurice Williamson, only 15 minutes ago. I remind National members about some of National’s most recent history—history not so far back that even they could pretend to forget it. I quote from The Hollow Men, which is a very instructive document. This is very relevant, and members will notice some of the key players; they are still all on National’s front bench. I have a quote from page 124: “The National Party team’s next priority was to neutralise issues that would lose them votes.” Does that not sound familiar? I think that is what they are doing at the moment, as well. It continues: “Murray McCully expressed this in his 8 November paper when he advised that they needed to ‘fairly urgently make the decisions about those issues on which we intend to pick our fights and those we intend to inoculate’.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I say to members on my left that the practice of members engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling, and it is entirely intolerable in a debating chamber.

The key words in that quote—I use “key” advisedly—are “inoculate” and “neutralise”.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member does not have a small voice. I am trying very hard to listen to the speech. You made a ruling and immediately two members—one who has been here for sometime, from up the Coromandel somewhere, and the other, “Mr Auchin-something”—started heckling again, but before the member had even started speaking. Are they allowed to defy your ruling like that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, they are not allowed to defy my ruling, but—

💬 Ron Mark: Can I please add to that? I know that Mr Mallard is a member of the same party as the member on her feet, but from New Zealand First’s position—and it may well be that my soldier’s ears do not help me, and I accept that—I am sitting with my head leaning towards my speaker, trying desperately to hear the member, who is only about six or seven seats from me. I know you have given a ruling but, seriously, I cannot hear when Mr Auchinvole, who knows better than he is currently showing, and Ms Goudie who often does not, continue their barrage. I ask you to consider allowing the speech to be heard in silence, because I simply cannot hear it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Mark.

💬 Sandra Goudie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question of the member, and from my understanding of the Standing Orders one can ask a question from one’s seat when one is involved in a debate.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It is not possible to ask a question relating to the member’s speech when the member had not said anything following a point of order. It is absolutely impossible to ask a question in response, when the speaker had not said a word before that member interjected.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say that politics, as we all know it, is the art of the possible, and the possible we will explore today is good order. Members are asked to desist.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the fact that I have not heard half of what the member has said, I ask that her speech be started from the beginning and the time reset.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is something the Speaker decides.

National members do not like to hear from their most recent history, because this sort of thing is still going on. That is why I am quoting from The Hollow Men. It talks about Dr Nick Smith and Murray McCully, and their view that the National Party should work to neutralise and inoculate its policies.

We saw a very good example of that today in the House during question time. National members flip-flopped over what National might or might not have to say on the issue of paid parental leave, which shows that exactly the same strategy is still in place. National thinks the New Zealand public is dumb enough to believe that if National just makes gentle, quiet noises about, perhaps, enjoying paid parental leave, then that is National’s policy.

What is National’s policy on paid parental leave? It is impossible to work out. Last week when the Families Commission released a report into paid parental leave and recommended an extension, the National Party spokesperson welcomed that report, and made it sound as though the National Party might perhaps consider extending paid parental leave. That was despite National having voted consistently in this House against any extension to paid parental leave, and despite the fact that just 2 weeks ago in the Health Committee, National had declared its hand by saying that it would oppose any move to extend paid parental leave.

That sends a message to New Zealanders that they cannot ask the National Party about its policy, because it will not tell them. National knows that it would be absolutely unelectable if New Zealanders understood what policy platform it wanted to bring in, in this country. National’s plan is: “Whatever you do, don’t mention policy, don’t tell anyone what we stand for.” But I say to people to check National’s voting record, because that is all that is left for people to look at. If National will not front up and say what its policy is on an important issue to New Zealand women like paid parental leave, then the only thing we can go on is, firstly, National’s voting record, and, secondly, what it does and says in select committee reports. Those are the things that are on the record; those are the only things that we are able to trust.

When National members are talking about the issue of paid parental leave, they are all over the place. These are recent quotes. Judith Collins said: “I would much rather have had a tax cut than paid parental leave.”, but then just last week she said: “As a working woman myself, I could seriously have done with paid parental leave when I had a little child.” I ask the member why she has changed her stance; I would like to know. Is that an inoculation or a neutralising of National’s policy platform? I believe it is. All I can say to the New Zealand public is that they should check the voting record, because that is the only thing that will be able to tell them.

National members know that the policy platform they fundamentally believe in would render them absolutely unelectable, so they are busy stealing others’ policies. They want to take over Labour policy—policy they have vehemently argued against year after year. The real problem is that even if the New Zealand public did believe, did take National at its word, and thought perhaps that a National Government would keep Labour’s policies in place—even if they did believe that—the problem is that National does not believe in those policies. It fundamentally does not believe in those policies. It would not know how to extend them, and it would not know how to improve on them, so it would be in charge of a policy programme that it fundamentally did not believe in. What sort of country would we become if such a party were allowed to become the Government and tried to put forward policies and programmes that it fundamentally did not believe in?

💬 Jill Pettis: Like defence.

Yes, the defence policy is another one. How could National vehemently oppose it, and then say: “Gosh, we like it.”?

At the beginning of my colleague’s contribution she quoted from a book, which was described by Mr Williamson as a work of fiction, so I seek leave to table a copy of a page from that book, The Hollow Men, which reproduces a letter to Messrs Don Brash and John Key from the Exclusive Brethren.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Leave is sought to table that document, Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

I seek leave to table Nicky Hager’s Seeds of Distrust, a piece of work whose author was described by the Prime Minister, and the member who has been quoting, as a writer of fiction.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

What a tired, desperate, bereft-of- ideas-and-vision Government this current one is. It is so desperate that it is demanding National’s policy. Labour will use that to its own advantage. It will take advantage of our policy because it has none of its own. It has no ideas, no vision, and nowhere to go. It has nothing to offer the New Zealand public. The Electoral Finance Bill says much about the desperate state of mind of this tired, incompetent Government. It is more interested in personal attacks on its opponents and bringing forward Draconian legislation to stop freedom of expression than focusing on the business of good government—a job that it has never been particularly good at.

Labour members are desperate, so they are reduced to destructive attacks on those who would say anything to oppose their agenda. Not only do they not like to hear from those who oppose their point of view but also the proposed legislation seeks effectively to criminalise the ability of those in New Zealand who might have views contrary to the narrow agenda of Labour and its cronies.

The strength of New Zealand’s democratic culture is found in the participation of our civil society. The political element of civil society organisations facilitates better awareness and a more informed citizenry who make better voting choices, participate in politics, and hold Government more accountable as a result—and we need those dissenting voices. They are organisations as diverse as the Sensible Sentencing Trust—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: They are out there.

—oh yes, they are waiting and they are out there; they are keeping an eye on this and waiting to see which way the Government jumps—Greenpeace, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and Plunket, every one of those groups, and all of the people who took an interest in the trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. It is the interplay between those opposing views that is a vital part of a functioning democracy, but this Government wants to shut that down. It wants to silence New Zealanders so it can try to keep those seats where it is not even doing anything. So the freedoms that New Zealanders take strongly for granted are under attack with that entirely flawed piece of legislation, and it is one bill that cannot be salvaged. It represents an absolute lack of respect on the part of this increasingly authoritarian Government for the essential freedoms of democracy, and the freedom of being able to criticise the Government without fear.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Who wrote this nonsense?

Ruth Dyson knows it, and everybody else in the Government knows it. They cannot get away from it. New Zealanders of all political persuasions are right to oppose this bill. In the words of Harry Truman—and maybe Sue Moroney might like to listen up, seeing she is so fond of history—“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

The reality is that the Electoral Finance Bill is a flawed bill, and one that Zimbabwe’s Mugabe might be proud of. It represents an attack on the freedom of speech that is unprecedented in this country. Journalist Graeme Hunt has suggested that this crooked Labour-led Government is responsible, amongst other things, for “the two most self-serving bills in history to enter the house—one to validate the government’s deliberate overspending at the last election and the other to give it an unfair spending advantage in future polls.” That is exactly what the Government is doing, and that is exactly what the Electoral Finance Bill is all about, and Government members are trying to get away with it. They think they can pull a fast one on the public of New Zealand. Well, we have news for them.

The Coalition for Open Government, which was set up to advocate for a form of our electoral finance law, and which has as its patron the former chief executive of the Electoral Commission, has said that it is “very disappointed with the new Electoral Finance Bill,” and has “noted that the government is happy to impose a very tight regime on third parties involved in election activities but doesn’t want to apply that regime to political parties.”, In other words, Labour wants to be able to say whatever it wants, but, effectively, wants everybody else to shut up. The hypocrisy of the bill is that this Government, while restricting the rights of others to criticise Government policy, will spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to promote Labour policies. Funnily enough, the bill actually exempts trade unions from communicating with their members, and gives them a free run.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.