General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The phones are running hot amongst the backbench of the Labour Party. Those members want to know answers to serious questions, such as why Maryan Street’s name is now appearing in the newspaper ahead of Shane Jones’ name. The latest theory is that it is because the Prime Minister’s office is pushing Maryan Street and not pushing Shane Jones.

But Steve Chadwick is pushing herself in the Rotorua Daily Post. Now she is someone who missed out on Cabinet after the last election because she had almost lost her Rotorua seat. Now she is to go into Cabinet because she is certainly going to lose the Rotorua seat at the next election. What does she have to say in the Rotorua Daily Post? “Speculation Rotorua MP Steve Chadwick will be promoted in the next Cabinet reshuffle is news to her.” That was in yesterday’s Rotorua newspaper—news to her. So she is not worrying about the media here; she is going around the back and promoting herself. Actually, she has given a detailed CV—she was clearly caught on the hop! It lists her strengths in great detail and then, of course, states that she wants the Prime Minister’s favourite portfolio of the arts. Now that was smart; that was really smart!

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about Judith Tizard?

Well, it is Judith Tizard’s job, I presume, except that Judith Tizard does not do the job, so getting it will not mean any effort is required at all.

All those things are symptoms of the Government’s new strategy, which is this: it needs to save the generals, so it will sack the corporals. That is what the Government is doing—it needs to save the generals, so it will sack the corporals. Let us take Mark Burton, for instance—

💬 Simon Power: Someone’s taken him!

Oh, someone has taken him, because he has not been here for 2 days. I will not speculate about where he has been taken, but it will be painful, and he is not coming back. I think that is the answer. But is it his fault? The Electoral Finance Bill, which has killed his ministerial career, is not the bill that Mark Burton put up. The bill we have is the one Helen Clark wanted: the one that means public money can be spent at will without limit on campaigning all election year, and no one else is allowed to spend money. The bill actually states that political opinion is banned except under particular circumstances, such as registering with the Government before one can criticise it. I do not believe that Mark Burton thought of that. Helen Clark thought of that. She is the one who told New Zealand First and the Greens they must lock in behind the bill and jam it through before Christmas, so that we can have the most restrictive campaign finance rules in the Western World, where for one-third of the whole time the Government is in office its critics will not be able to criticise it—one-third of the whole time it is in office. But Mark Burton is going to get it in the neck, and that is his fault, apparently.

Is it Rick Barker’s fault that his constituents are sick of Dr Cullen promising tax cuts and then taking them away? No, Rick Barker believed the promise that Michael Cullen made in the 2005 Budget: that Michael Cullen would lift the thresholds in order to reduce the tax burden on middle New Zealand. Then Rick Barker made another mistake. He believed that promise when Dr Cullen repeated it in the 2006 Budget. Now it is no wonder he is to be sacked. Then Rick Barker found out too late the promise was never meant to be delivered on, because in the 2007 Budget Dr Cullen said he would not do it. The effect of that is that someone on $39,000 a year in New Zealand now pays the same marginal tax rates as millionaires did back in the 1980s and 1990s. Someone on $39,000 a year pays at the rate of 33c in the dollar. That is the rate that Doug Myers and the Prime Minister of New Zealand used to pay as their top rate. Rick Barker has found out that Dr Cullen thinks that earners on $39,000 a year in Hastings are rich, and Rick Barker is going to be sacked when it should be Dr Cullen who is sacked.

I do think that that is a bit rich coming from the guy who led National to its worst ever loss in recorded history—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What was it—21 percent?

It was 21 percent, and falling, under him.

The reason I have my white camellia here this afternoon is that 114 years ago this Parliament granted New Zealand women the right to vote in general elections. This made New Zealand a world leader in terms of equal rights, and it is a very proud day, indeed, that we get to stand in this Parliament, it falling on the day of a general debate where we can talk about the advance of women in New Zealand over the last 114 years. Because, of course, that day marks the beginning of a time when gradually doors were opened, and when gradually those glass ceilings were broken by women claiming equal rights with men. It is part of our identity as a nation that we commit to equality of opportunity for all our citizens.

In a parliamentary sense, when I became an MP in 1990, around a quarter of the MPs at that time were women. Today about one-third are women. So we have significant success in that area as well. Women have succeeded in achieving the highest positions, and for a magic moment in time—

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise profusely for interrupting my colleague, but David Bennett over there on the National benches just said: “Shut up, you!”, and I take objection.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, I think this is part of a robust debate. There are a lot of interjections across the House. Just continue, thank you.

For a magic moment in history the top four constitutional positions were held by women; now, that number is three. New Zealand signed up to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1986, and as a nation we are, of course, committed to equality between men and women in the home, in the workplace, and in the community. In every reporting period since that first report in 1986 we have made advances, except for one period in that time. That was in the 1990s. That represented a time when women suffered the most, really, in terms of a premeditated assault on their advance towards employment equity that was not signalled before the election in advance of the Government that heralded in those changes. The National Opposition at the time made no secret of the fact that it was going to change the industrial relations law. But no one could have predicted the wholesale demolition of a structure that had its origins in the same era as women’s suffrage.

But to introduce the Employment Contracts Act, National first had to repeal the Employment Equity Act, because there was soon to be no mechanism for delivering pay equity. The first case due to be heard under the employment equity legislation was that of public hospital nurses and police. What happened? Public hospital nurses ended up on 23 separate employment contracts, scattered from one end of the country to the other, with all the Crown health enterprises. Police, whose pay the nurses were going to have their pay compared with, of course stayed on a national award. Why were police still on a national award? Because they are not allowed to take industrial action. Were people allowed to take industrial action to have a multi-employer collective agreement? No, they were not. So there was one rule for a male-dominated occupation and another rule for women-dominated occupations. National did not want to know the answer to the question about the pay differential between police and nurses, because the Employment Contracts Act was going to abolish national awards.

When we couple that with a virtual freeze on the statutory minimum wage over the 1990s, it meant that our lowest-paid workers—overwhelmingly women—suffered as well. So nurses, who were set back over 15 years in terms of their capacity, are now, at long last, on track to pay equity. It has taken this Government’s election in 1999, the passage of the Employment Relations Act in 2000, the strengthening of the arrangements around multi-employer collective agreements—which were all opposed by National, every single one of them—and a massive funding injection into the district health boards, to deliver a pay jolt that has enabled nurses to be back on track for the employment equity journey they started before the election of a National Government in 1990.

What is the common point in both of those times? It is a Labour Government—Helen Clark as the Minister of Labour in 1990, and Helen Clark as Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1999. That is what the women of New Zealand can rely on if they have a Labour Government. What they could rely on if they were ever to have a National Government would be going backwards to where the pay gap between men and women would again widen as it did in the 1990s.

What does a Government do when the tide starts to run out as badly as it is on this current Government? Well, if we listen to what Lianne Dalziel tells us today, we discover that it simply goes back and starts fighting the battles of the past.

We know that the Prime Minister is out there telling New Zealanders that Labour is on the come-back and that it will all happen because there is going to be a Cabinet reshuffle. There will be some magical stuff around climate change, and, apparently—in an age when it has never been harder for young New Zealanders to buy a house—housing affordability will be one of the Government’s things as well. Have we heard about any of that today? No. Government members have gone back over the old battlegrounds of the past, the nice, safe, comfortable stuff that makes them feel comfortable and makes them feel good but, frankly, leaves New Zealanders sad and disappointed.

This is a Government going nowhere. One has only to look at the Order Paper currently before the House. The Order Paper is the agenda that Parliament has to deal with, and this agenda, the Order Paper, is set by the Government. It outlines the Government’s programme—the so-called cutting edge of Government policy. Well, what is on the Order Paper today? There are only 18 bills on the Order Paper. Some of them have been there since 1998. Six of them cannot advance because the Government cannot get the numbers through the coalition. That leaves 12 bills on the Order Paper, and do members know what? Only one of those bills has any heavy politics in it and is causing any reasonable debate in the House. The rest of it is just sort of common-sense stuff that Governments do as a matter of routine. No programme is evident in that Order Paper. Why is that? Well, it is because every Minister over on the other side of the House has hunkered down in his or her office, wondering whether he or she is about to get the chop.

In this environment it is fascinating, is it not, that we are hearing the names that were mentioned by my colleague Bill English, our deputy leader. Steve Chadwick, apparently, is one of the great hopes for the future. Maryan Street, apparently, is one of the great hopes for the future. Shane Jones, apparently, is one of the great hopes for the future. The problem with that, of course, is that two of those are on the list and the other is going to lose her seat. So there is no future for the Labour Party in those hopes.

It must give Helen Clark an enormous amount of difficulty when she looks at the list and says: “I’ve got to make sure that when we come back after the election we are pretty tidy and we have a few people who can shore us up, that we can be a pretty effective Opposition, and that we have some guys who are well road-tested and well run.” She might look at people like Mark Gosche. We know that he has been a good Minister in the past, but he does not have the interest to do that at the moment. She might look at George Hawkins, but, then, of course, others have looked at him and decided that he is on his way anyway. So she might look at Tim Barnett, but we know that Tim Barnett is another man under siege in his seat, so that choice is not possible. Then there is “Swainy”—good old Paul Swain, the only smart one—but he has decided to get off the bus before it actually does have the road crash.

So who does that leave Helen Clark with? Well, in a safe seat for the Labour Party we have Martin Gallagher. Now, there would be a great opportunity for a man. Why is he not being promoted as being part of the great future of the Labour Party? One certain thing is that he will be back. Another person who might get a bit of a look-in is Lynne Pillay, who is sitting out there in a seat that means she will be back. [Interruption] Oh, no—sorry. Steve Chadwick just said no. Lynne Pillay is dog-tucker; National has that one in the bag. I am happy to be wrong about that.

Then there is, indisputably, a gentleman who is coming back to this House—Mr Ross Valentine Robertson. So why is he not up for Cabinet promotion? After the election, he will be back. Then, of course, there is that much, much maligned current Minister outside Cabinet, whose talents have not been properly recognised but who sits in a seat that Labour hopes to hold. That, of course, is the Hon Judith Tizard. I predict that she will be on her way into Cabinet, because she will be back here after the election. I would mention Harry Duynhoven, but we think there is a wee problem there. We do not want to say too much, but we think there is a wee problem there. Then, of course, there is the Hon Winnie Laban, who holds the Mana seat. Much as we might get close to taking that seat, I suspect she may be back, as well. So there it is—Labour’s future.

The question that is consistently raised in relation to that member is: why was he sacked as the National Party’s deputy leader? Why is he not the deputy leader? Time after time I have heard that question. Gerry Brownlee used to be the deputy leader of the National Party, then it sacked him. I think we have just had the answer. I do not think we need to puzzle over that any more. I think we know the answer to that question.

I am very proud to speak in this debate this afternoon, because I am proud of New Zealand as a nation. I am proud of the fact that New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote, because of their tenacity in representing their right to be given the vote. I am proud to live in a nation that supports and values women in the many roles we play in our society. I am proud of one of my predecessors, Elizabeth McCombs, the first woman member of Parliament, who represented my electorate in this House. I am also proud of the fact that my electorate has had more women members of Parliament than any other electorate. I challenge all the men to think about their successors and supporting them. Bob Clarkson, I know, has already announced that he is not standing for Tauranga again. He has appointed his successor—a young lawyer. I urge him to think again over the next 15 months about his successor, because we could have a woman standing for National in Tauranga.

I am proud of Labour and of the achievements and progress we have been able to make in order to give better opportunities, better support, and better value for women in our society. I am appalled that not once has National said it is good for women, good for families, and good for New Zealand, and that it will support such policies—not once. Consistently, policy after policy, vote after vote, National comes into this House and puts on the public record its opposition to progress for women in our country.

One of the most recent examples of that is the employment relations legislation. Our Government decided to get rid of the Employment Contracts Act—so well described by Lianne Dalziel in her contribution earlier—and introduce an industrial relations regime that was fair, that provided a proper balance for employees and employers, that recognised that workers have a contribution to make to New Zealand society through their paid work and should be supported to do so, and that recognised that women are often amongst the most vulnerable people in our workplaces. National came into the House and voted against that legislation.

We amended that legislation so that women who were particularly vulnerable—the women who clean and work in catering jobs in our public hospitals, and who often have their employment situation changed because their employer changes—would be better protected against losing their hours or conditions every time their employer, a contractor, lost a contract. When we introduced that amending legislation, National came into this House and voted against protecting those vulnerable workers.

When we introduced parental leave in 2002—the Labour-led Government introduced taxpayer funding so that new parents would, for the first 12 weeks of having a new baby in their family, receive some financial support—National came into this House and voted against it. When we extended that financial support from 12 weeks to—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s a mess.

Nick Smith says it is a mess, but that is because his colleagues who have children while being members of Parliament do not lose pay when they take time off. When they take time off, they still receive their money. Mr Smith should remember what it is like for people other than members of Parliament—people who, when they leave their paid job to have a baby, lose their money as well. Our party and our Government say that we should give them financial support to help with the costs and the stress that occur as a result of leaving their paid job and having a new baby in their households.

We amended that legislation so that the financial support for new parents went from 12 weeks to 14 weeks. We had reviewed the scheme, and everyone was happy with it. Employers were happy with it, and employees were happy with it. Families were saying: “Thank you. This makes such a difference. It really eases the burden on families.” And how did National vote when we extended that time? It voted against extending it, yet again.

I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is discussing and taking submissions on the Electoral Finance Bill. After hours, and back home in Hamilton, people whom I knew in the National Party—farmers, businessmen, and people like that—are saying to me: “Why is the National Party opposed to this bill? It seems to be fair. It seems to square up the playing field. Why is the modern-day National Party voting against it?”. I say to them: “Look, you will not know this, but I want to tell you something that’s just between you and me.” Such is the number of people who have asked me about this—I feel I should share what I tell them with this House.

At the present time the New Zealand National Party has about $5 million lying around that it hopes to use on the election. We know that National members will start a billboard campaign within the next month or two. But why are they moaning about this bill? They are moaning about it because it puts a regulatory period in the year of the election that can extend out to 11 months. We think that is fair. We in New Zealand First have nothing to hide. We are happy that our money is counted. We are happy that everybody knows about it. But one may ask how the National Party got all that dough.

We know from emails that under Don Brash National intended to run two election campaigns. It was going to run the election campaign that we saw, then it was going to run an election campaign after it had destabilised the Government. We in New Zealand First know from email evidence that if National had gained enough votes for New Zealand First to support it at the last election—and this is the bit—it would have made that support fail. That was the plan, and we have that information. That was the plan. It is not known by all the National Party MPs, but the hierarchy of the National Party had a plan—and we have it—to collapse that agreement and fight another election. That is what it was going to do. [Interruption] I ask Harry Duynhoven whether he knew that. That is what National was going to do, and we have the evidence.

That did not happen, so the National Party has all that money, which it wants to spend at the next election. It wants to outspend everybody in town. As I said last week, instead of the Brethren giving the money to the National Party, National may well have to, at the next election, give some of its money to the Brethren so that the Brethren can run an alternative campaign and thus get around the spending caps that apply to the rest of us. National is very good at that, as I outlined last week. But in New Zealand First, and, I think, in other parts of the House, we believe in the one person, one vote principle. That is what this democracy is built on, and that is what, unfortunately—with clever deals, with side deals, and with all sorts of other mechanisms—people in this Parliament have spent a lot of money on getting around.

We do not believe that money should be buying influence. We do not believe that money should be buying votes. We believe, as old-fashioned as we are—and I will hand it to everybody; we may be altruistic and we may be old-fashioned—that the vote from the poorest person in the country is just as important as the vote from the richest person. That is what the Electoral Finance Bill is about. That is why New Zealand First is proud to support it, and that is exactly why the National Party is opposed to it. National is opposing it every inch of the way, and, sadly, it is opposing it on the basis of free speech, which is not what it is about.

It is an indictment on democracy that New Zealand First and Labour are backing a bill that the Human Rights Commission and Mike Moore—and Mike Moore—have described as a dangerous attack on the principles of free speech. Surrounding this Chamber are memorials to men who died in wars defending the rights of free speech and democracy. It is a shame that members on Labour’s side of the House, backed by New Zealand First, are prepared, for their own political expediency, to break the right of free speech that New Zealanders should have.

This afternoon I want to talk about the attempts Labour is making to save its bacon in the area of climate change. My simple message is that after 8 years of failure, the public of New Zealand cannot trust Labour on climate change and on the environment. First, let us look at Labour’s record on emissions. It is not just that emissions have gone up under Labour but that they have gone up at record rates. When Labour came into Government, it promised it would reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005. The record shows that emissions have gone up by 12 percent. Worse is that the rise in the preceding 5 years was just 8 percent. So emissions are going up by even more. During the same period in which emissions have gone up by 12 percent in New Zealand, they have gone up by 8 percent in Australia, 5 percent in the US, and 2 percent in Japan, and countries like Britain, Germany, and France have been able to cut their emissions by 2 percent. In fact, the record of this Government is the 18th worst in the OECD.

Also an important test of the Government’s record on climate change is the area of more sustainable energy. The proportion of renewable electricity in New Zealand has dropped every single year that Labour has been in office. In fact, the big change that has occurred under this carbon-neutral Government is that we have increased the amount of power produced from coal by threefold. To put the growth of coal-generated power in context, it is seven times the increase in power from wind farms.

A further worrying statistic was developed yesterday by the Minister, and that is in respect of forests. Every single year between 1951 and 2003 New Zealand planted more trees—in fact, an average of 7 million more trees every year. In 2004 we lost 1.5 million trees, in 2005 we lost another 3 million, and last year we lost another 3 million. The Minister admitted yesterday that 4 million trees are expected to be lost this year, which will make it the worst year ever in New Zealand history in terms of the loss of forests.

It is not just in outcomes that Labour’s climate change policies have been an absolute shambles. We have had one announcement after another on which the Government has had to pull the plug. There have been 23 announcements by this Government on climate change, and 19 of those the Government has had to withdraw or has had to collapse. I ask this House why there should be great expectations of the Government doing anything tomorrow on climate change that is useful, when we have had one disaster after another over its past 8 years. We have seen, for instance, negotiated greenhouse agreements announced and scrapped. We have seen the carbon tax announced, then scrapped. We have seen the animal emissions levy announced, then scrapped. We had $100 million spent on the energy efficiency strategy, and then the Government said: “Oops! Energy efficiency has actually got worse.”

I say to members opposite that the Government has had 8 years of climate change failure and New Zealanders have lost faith. New Zealanders simply do not believe anything Labour says any more in the area of climate change. I have here on my desk a heap of all of the discussion papers that Labour has put out on climate change. There has been all this paper, all the forests that have been chopped down, yet we have not seen progress. That is why none are holding their breath for tomorrow.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. It is a bit rich for that member Nick Smith to talk about climate change and to be a strong advocate, when his leader only recently called climate change a hoax. How do we wear that contradiction?

However, I am humbled to rise this afternoon and speak in this debate today, 114 years after our women fought and won the right to vote. Suffrage Day is a significant part of not only the history of New Zealand but also the history of the modern age. I pay tribute to Kate Sheppard and the other early suffragettes for their participation and for gaining the vote for women. They achieved what was right and what was just: political equality for women.

Politics is about participation and representation. That is the Labour-led Government’s way. As the first Pacific Island woman elected to Parliament, and as a proud Labour member, I—along with all our women parliamentarians—can trace my very presence in this institution back to these wonderful, brave, progressive women leaders.

We all know that week by week, day by day, and without fanfare, our women are largely doing the majority of the work involved in the raising of children, the running of households, and helping out in the community. This Government’s recognition of this very important contribution and unpaid work is acknowledged and appreciated. I am proud to be in a Labour-led Government that is serious and genuine about women’s issues, such as more jobs, affordable housing, affordable health, increased investment in education, childcare, and out-of-school services, and that is committed to the policies of Working for Families.

I also pay a special tribute today to all our Pacific and Māori women. Importantly, the Pacific name for the ocean that surrounds our country, New Zealand, is Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, and that ocean is woman. She reminds us that we are all of the Pacific and that New Zealand is a Pacific nation. She connects us, she sustains us, she protects us, and she feeds us. She is a constant, ever-present force of life, much like our Pacific women.

Our Pacific women are the backbone of our Pacific families and communities. Pacific families and communities are built on the courage, determination, and wisdom of Pacific women. These feminine values are not made up; they have been passed down by our ancestors through our families and our communities. My world view as a Pacific woman was shaped by my heritage, my family, and my politics. These Pacific values—like those of Kate Sheppard and the early suffragettes—are closely aligned to the values of the Labour Party. These are the values of social justice, responsibility, collectivity, reciprocity, community, and a respect for all members of our society.

I have many role models to draw on for inspiration, role models who act on these values and commit to leadership and working to make a difference. My role models are our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark; Labour’s Iriaka Rātana, who became the first Māori woman MP in New Zealand in 1949; my mentor and friend the late Sonja Davies; my mother, Emi Tunupopo Zimmerman Laban; and my history teacher, Mother Pabst.

There has also been a long history of women’s participation and leadership in the Pacific. One of my other role models from the Pacific is a woman called Salamasina. She was the first person, 400 years ago, to hold the four paramount titles and to be called O le Tafa’aifa. This was a colossal achievement at the time and it still is today.

Our Pacific women have a legacy of leadership, but at some point we stopped believing we had the right to lead and, indeed, that we could lead. I am concerned at the lack of Pacific women leaders in New Zealand today. To help overcome this our Labour-led Government recently launched the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan. The plan focuses on four key areas of development for our women: leadership, education, workforce development, and business development. The overall aim is to increase the economic participation and the power of our Pacific women.

Overseeing this plan is the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Board. The board is made up of highly talented, New Zealand - born Pacific women who display leadership and intellect. Thank you very much.

I am particularly proud to represent the National Party, which is the party that gave us New Zealand’s first woman Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley. The fact that Jenny Shipley was and is such a strong and dynamic force in politics is something that really upsets the Labour Party and its women. They cannot even acknowledge today, without bitterness and shrill shouting, that Jenny Shipley came into this Parliament, stood there, took control, and said: “I am the first woman Prime Minister of New Zealand.” She gave us legislation like the Domestic Violence Act, which that party over there did not.

That party over there has said today that it is 114 years since women were first allowed to vote in this country for this Parliament. They have not, however, acknowledged the fact that not only were there trailblazing strong women but there were trailblazing strong men in this Parliament, who voted for women to have the vote. That is one of the differences between the women in the National Party and the women in the Labour Party—who have to scream. The big difference is that we do not see men as the enemy. Men are not the enemy. Women in the Labour Party should understand that. People are better when we work together, because that is how it is. We do not have to stand up and consistently congratulate ourselves on being women and attack men because they are not women.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: When have I attacked any man? I’m married to a perfectly good one.

I understand from Lianne Dalziel that she is married to a man, so she does not hate them. That is wonderful. I am thrilled. I have actually heard that argument from a lot of people for a lot of different reasons. I am sorry but I tell Ms Dalziel that it just does not wash.

What we do know, however, is how in disarray the Labour Party is. All we have to do is look at the fact that it put Lianne Dalziel in charge of cleaning up the finance industry. This is the same woman who as a Minister of the Crown said on national TV—Television One, in fact—that she did not know how that envelope got down there and that she did not know what had happened. A week later she had to turn up—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Liar!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows she cannot use that word. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I withdraw and apologise.

That member had to resign on the Friday when the evidence was there. She is now in charge of the finance industry. She is in charge of cleaning up an industry in which thousands of people have lost millions of dollars. Frankly, that is as good as the Labour Party has got.

When we look at the Labour Party we know how much in disarray it is, because the Labour members are bagging each other. There is not a select committee that National members are on where we do not hear Labour members saying something. Clayton Cosgrove apparently has a terrible ego. That is what his colleagues are saying.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No. That’s not true.

The members are saying today that that is not true. That is not what they are saying at the select committees. They are bagging each other. All we have to do is look at what is in the newspapers. We know all about what is in the newspapers. We hear that it is a “Dangerous time for Govt”. That is from Tracy Watkins. We have John Armstrong writing “Changing the beds in Labour’s retirement village”. We have Bill Ralston writing—this is the best one, I think—“Half-witted ministers a curse”. That is what they are saying about the Labour Party.

If we ever needed utter and total proof, all we have to see is “The prime of Helen Clark”, which is the political obituary of Helen Clark. This is a woman who has been a disgrace to this country—first, by the way she trawled through somebody’s emails. The next thing she did was let some driver take the blame for her when she was speeding through the Canterbury Plains. This is a woman who got Peter Doone out of his job and who told stories to the Sunday Star-Times to try to destroy somebody, to destroy his credibility, because she did not want him in the job. That is what she did. She destroyed good people like Kit Richards. She tried to destroy a good woman like Roseanne Meo. She went after people because they were not her sort. We have seen that time and time again with Helen Clark. All we have to do is look at what Mike Moore wrote about Helen Clark. I have to say, he was pretty right really in most of it. There was a bit of a tongue in cheek, but at the end of the day he was pretty right in what he said about Helen Clark. The fact that she would not let him go to the 90th anniversary of the Labour Party says it all.

I seek leave to table an article called “The Ministry of Wimmin’s Affairs—Time to Go?”, which was written by one Judith Collins. It describes the Ministry of Women’s Affairs as a bunch of—

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table “Dangerous time for Govt” from the Nelson Mail.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave to table John Armstrong’s article “Changing the beds in Labour’s retirement village”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave to table Bill Ralston’s article “Half-witted ministers a curse”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave to table the political obituary “The prime of Helen Clark”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

That speech was appalling. I do not want to be too critical about members on the other side of the House; I want to say something positive. I was really concerned that we were not going to hear one woman speaker from the National Party, but we did. I acknowledge that Judith Collins, despite some of her views, is a woman. I say one teensy thing, though, while she is throwing around criticisms about emails or comments made. I refer to the comment made by Bill English in an email, which stated that Judith Collins was promoted far beyond her capability and that she believes her own publicity.

I am really proud that on Suffrage Day the Labour Party has such a great line-up of women speakers. I am proud to be part of a Government that has the first elected woman Prime Minister. You know, I remember when I was a unionist—which is something that is always slagged off by the people opposite—campaigning for things like paid parental leave, 4 weeks’ holiday, fair employment laws, early childhood education, interest-free loans, affordable doctors visits, the return of apprenticeships, health and safety laws, equal employment opportunities, pay equity, and increased income for families.

I remember working really hard under a National Government to get those things on the agenda. Did we get those things on the agenda? No, we did not. The first act of the National Government coming in was to scrap the pay equity legislation that had been introduced by the Labour Government. It also scrapped the Apprenticeship Act. It then introduced the dreaded and horrible Employment Contracts Act. We remember those dark years under the Employment Contracts Act.

What has Labour done for women in New Zealand? Labour has introduced the following: paid parental leave, which was opposed by the National Party; 4 weeks’ holiday, which was opposed by the National Party; fairer employment laws, seeing wage growth, particularly for women workers, which were opposed by the National Party; improved health and safety, which was opposed by the National Party; interest-free loans, which were opposed by the National Party; the return of apprenticeships, which was opposed by the National Party; cheaper health-care under primary health organisations, which was opposed by the National Party; equal employment opportunities for women, which was opposed by the National Party; Working for Families, bringing money into families’ pockets, which was opposed by the National Party; and KiwiSaver, providing money for Kiwis, homeownership, and retirement, which was opposed by the National Party.

Then we see a report on the performance of this Labour-led Government that commends us for our women’s action plan, for Working for Families, and for 20 free hours’ early childhood education, which—I did not mention before—was also opposed by the National Party. Why? Because National has no interest in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women or its reports, which National belittles and degrades. Wayne Mapp stood in this Chamber and made derogatory comments about the convention. We know that Judith Collins does not even see a need for a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. It is appalling.

Later today I want to commend Sue Kedgley for her Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. We are having a debate about flexible work hours. What a great thing to have on Suffrage Day. Who are the prime benefactors of flexible work hours? Women. That is what is so great about the bill. Guess what? The bill is opposed by the National Party. That is appalling. It is appalling that we stand in this Chamber, look opposite, and see a group of mostly tired, tired men—and some women. They all support policies that do not promote or support women in this country. Members should compare that with the forward-thinking, supportive policies of this Labour-led Government. I am proud on Suffrage Day to be a woman, to be part of a union movement that has fought for the rights of women, and to be part of a Government that supports their points of view.

In all the fighting, backroom deals, and quiet talks to the media about the Labour Party reshuffle, I have not seen Lynne Pillay’s name come up. I want to know whether the Prime Minister—Helen Clark—is going to roll out Lynne Pillay as a secret weapon during the reshuffle of the Labour Government’s Cabinet Ministers. It is the last gasp of the Labour Government. I also have not heard Darien Fenton’s name come up. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister will roll out Lynne Pillay and Darien Fenton as an item for the reshuffle of Labour Government Ministers, as a last desperate gasp. I know that Steve Chadwick has rolled out her own name—

💬 Judith Collins: That’s been opposed by the Labour Party.

—but it was opposed by the Labour Party. I know that Steve Chadwick has rolled out her own name for the reshuffle of the Labour caucus as a last gasp before the election, but I have not heard Lynne Pillay’s or Darien Fenton’s names come up. That is a huge disappointment to me, because I believe that they may be an improvement on the very old and very tired top-twenty Labour MPs. For the sake of the House—I know most of the members in the debating chamber do not know who half of the top-twenty Labour members of Parliament are—I tell members that Lynne Pillay and Darien Fenton should be up there, because if Steve Chadwick is up there, then absolutely they should be up there.

Apart from the Labour members having a reshuffle as the last desperate gasp for them before the next election, they are also rolling out their policy on climate change, because they think that will save them, as well. They are to roll out their policy on affordable housing, because they believe that doing that will save them, as well. But, as members have heard from Nick Smith, of the 21 proposals that the Labour Government has put forward on climate change, it has back-pedalled on 19—19! Those proposals were opposed by the Labour Government. It proposed 21 climate change initiatives and back-pedalled on 19. That is an incredible statistic.

What I found fascinating was the issue of housing affordability, and where the Labour Government stands on that. Chris Carter was in the House yesterday waxing lyrical about affordable housing in New Zealand, and how much the Labour Government had done for affordable housing in New Zealand. I asked him just one simple question. If he has done so well in the 8 years that he has been Minister of Housing in this Labour Government, then why has he overseen the worst housing affordability crisis in history? I asked the Minister why housing affordability is worse today, after 8 years of a Labour Government, than it ever has been before in New Zealand, and he had no answer. In fact, do members know what he said? He said: “Phil Heatley, please explain it to me.” He wanted me to explain to the House why he had done such a bad job in regard to housing affordability. I can tell members why. Firstly, the Labour Government has overseen interest rates at record levels because of Government spending. Interest rates are out of control. I can tell members that interest rates are very important to those people who are picking up a mortgage, or who are trying to meet mortgage payments every week.

Secondly, take-home pay is the worst it has been for a long, long time. Why? Because this Labour Government taxes people to death and will not give people any tax relief.

Members might be forgiven for thinking that I will comment today on some of the more hilarious comedic events that have been occurring around this building in the last 24 hours, but I will not do that, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this degenerating comedy is ongoing, and I think there are better instalments to come. Secondly, it is almost impossible to capture the sense of pathos and hilarity in the retelling of an event; it is much better seen in its original colour. So I will leave it at that, and will talk instead about an issue that is far more serious and affects many more New Zealanders than the events of the last 24 hours.

A couple of weeks ago three young girls were killed in Christchurch in a very senseless and sad road accident—three 15-year-olds. It brought into the public domain again the issue about the age at which young New Zealanders take to driving motor vehicles, and whether there needs to be a change. I raised the matter by way of a supplementary question in the House last Thursday, and the Minister of Transport, in response, said that maybe it was time the will of Parliament was tested. When we look at the situation in New Zealand and compare it with other countries, we are out of line. In New Zealand one can obtain a learner licence at the age of 15, and the minimum age at which one can obtain a full licence is 16½. That compares with comparable ages of 16 and 18 in France, 16½ and 19 in Germany, 17 flat in Britain, 16 to 18 in most states of the United States, 16 to 21 in Victoria, 16 to 19 in South Australia, and so on.

People are simply too young to be driving a motor vehicle, particularly the powerful vehicles we have today, at the age of 15. The more we delay addressing the issue, the more we ensure we will have more tragedies of the type that occurred in Christchurch a week ago last Saturday. More parents suffer, more families suffer, and more communities suffer.

We have within our power as a Parliament the ability to address this. I am not suggesting that the carnage on the roads will be resolved simply by changing the age at which people start driving, in the same way that the carnage will not be resolved by zero tolerance for alcohol intake. Both measures have their part to play. Neither is a silver bullet, but that does not mean—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why don’t you ban the use of cellphones?

The member says “cellphones”. He could raise some other issues as well, but that does not mean we do not say—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Where do you stop?

Oh, this is a fascinating insight from the National Party. The member asks: “Where do you stop?”, as if road safety is something we can trade away. I tell Dr Lockwood Smith that it does not mean that we do not start and we do not make an attempt to do something better.

I say to the House today that I will have a go at doing something better. I will seek leave tomorrow to table a Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill that would see the minimum age at which a learner licence could be obtained raised to 16. The consequent flow-on effect of that, with a change to the period in which one can hold a probationary licence, would mean that a full licence would not be obtainable until the age of 18.

I say to the House, and to all those members who over the last week or so as this issue has been around have said to me that we need to do something, that I will give the House the opportunity tomorrow to test its resolve. It will be very interesting to see whether those who wax eloquent about the need for action deny me the leave I will seek tomorrow, because that would be a signal to the people of New Zealand that those members do not really care.

I am tired of hearing people say that we need to have a discussion and a debate about these issues. We need to do something, but then we run for cover whenever the opportunity to put the issue on the agenda and to take some action is provided.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why penalise all the good 15-year-olds who are responsible?

I say to the parents who have lost their young people in these accidents that these bleating comments about why we are penalising this group or that group, or why we are not doing something about cellphones or something else, are an insult to the memory of the children whom they have lost.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, rubbish!

“Oh, rubbish!”, says the member for Nelson. In other words, this callous indifference to the tragedy that is occurring means that nothing is being done. The member’s benchmate actually agrees with me. The member’s benchmate Mr Williamson is on record as saying that he wanted to lift the driving age when he was the Minister of Transport, but could not get the support of his colleagues. I suspect that those same negative forces will be at play tomorrow. As a consequence we will see more tragedy, more suffering, and, sadly, more calls for action. When that comes home to roost, then I want this House to remember who is responsible for the inaction and the tragedies and to take them to account.

First of all I must say I am very disappointed at National’s contribution today. It is a very important day today, and I noticed that some National members turned up to the Suffrage Day breakfast this morning to show that Suffrage Day is something that is important. But who do we have in the House today? We have mostly male speakers. There was one woman speaker, who probably does not count, because she is opposed to anything to do with women and with women making advances. This is a day when we pay homage to those who fought in our country and around the world for women to have the right to vote—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about your Government stopping creches in schools and gyms. Tell us about Herceptin.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This barracking that is going on is making it very difficult for me to hear myself. I ask that you—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, this is a place for robust debate. The member is entitled to make comments across the House but not a commentary, under Speakers’ ruling 57/3.

This is a day when women take stock of the progress of women in our own country, and I am delighted to say that under this Labour-led Government, with the assistance of other like-minded parties, women have made real progress.

Paid parental leave, which other speakers have mentioned, was only a dream for women until Labour became the Government, and I want to acknowledge those women who campaigned for more than 10 years to make today’s 14-weeks’ paid parental leave a reality. It is very interesting that National has discovered paid parental leave quite recently. It has discovered that New Zealanders actually like it, so—guess what—it has flip-flopped on that, and now it is trying to pretend it has never voted against it but has really supported it all along.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Well, we’re telling women what they voted.

That is right—we are telling women how National voted, and that is what we are doing today.

I acknowledge that women still have some catching up to do, particularly in relation to the gender pay gap. But I can only imagine what the differential would be like today if we had not had the increases to the minimum wage that this Labour Government has brought in over the last few years. Members can just imagine if women were still being paid $7 an hour or, if they were under 20, just $4.20 an hour. In the debate last week on the youth minimum wage, it was interesting that David Bennett called that bill communist, and he called all of us communists. I wonder whether he still thinks that the minimum wage is communism.

Other members have mentioned the nurses’ pay jolt and the difference that that has made to nurses’ pay, but I want to talk particularly today about caregivers. I have noticed National’s rather bizarre aged-care discussion document. If the document is to be summed up, it says first of all that it will help for-profit, privately owned—and, in many cases, multinational—residential care facilities to make more money, by giving them more Government-funded increases. National says that it will contribute Government-owned land—public land—for private companies to develop residential care facilities. I wonder what taxpayers will say about that. But National’s plans for workers are very clear. It is so keen to give its mates large profits that it is prepared to let for-profit organisations pocket Government-funded increases at the expense of decent wages in the sector.

In the last month, New Zealand’s aged-care residential employers, including some of the largest like Guardian Healthcare, Metlifecare, Qualcare Northern, and Presbyterian Support Central, have concluded collective agreements with aged-care unions covering approximately 4,000 nursing care and support workers. These collective employment agreements have all established a minimum rate of pay of $12.55 an hour, and have given all caregivers and service workers a pay increase of a dollar an hour. Caregivers employed by these organisations are now paid between $12.55 and $16 an hour. This is the biggest single one-off increase these workers have received in 20 years, and the unions directly attribute it to the increased Government funding targeted to these low-paid workers.

Around $400 million in this year’s Budget was to be spent over the next 4 years on residential and home-based care, and that sum was targeted to the workers. National voted against it; it took a Labour Government to make it happen. Of course, National is saying that this is compulsory unionism by stealth, and its discussion document says that it will get rid of it. We have been determined to make sure that increased funding in the sector goes directly into the pockets of caregivers but, you know, the union-averse National Party just cannot help itself, even though history proves that aged-care employers have not been good at passing on additional funding through wages.

Last year, when aged-care workers came to Parliament to petition us about problem wages, National MPs lined up outside, all sympathy, but failed to understand the basic problem—that is, the market will not deliver. If National members want to improve standards in the industry, they have to improve pay in the industry, and there has to be intervention to make sure that happens. Under National’s watch, rest home workers went on hunger strikes to convince their employers not to cut their pay, and workers were locked out to force them to sign individual contracts that stripped all their rights away except for the most basic of pay rates. That is what will happen again if National has its way.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.