General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In 10 days’ time the Labour Party conference will be celebrating the achievements of this Labour-led Government. People will be celebrating the fact that this is the fifth Labour Government, and that the social and economic progress that has been made through the history of this country has been made when Labour has been in Government. They will be celebrating the leadership of Helen Clark, whose leadership has endured, whereas the National Party—that hopeless group across the Chamber—has been through five different leaders. We remember when Jenny Shipley stabbed Jim Bolger in the back, Bill English stabbed Jenny Shipley, Don Brash stabbed Bill English, and John Key moved in when Don Brash saw what was coming and got out of the way.

The Labour Party conference will reflect on the fact that while the National Party has been involved in internecine conflict between factions, this Labour Government has been united and collaborative in taking this country forward. And how we have taken this country forward! Since 1999 the New Zealand economy has grown by over 28 percent. That is a higher per annum average growth rate than that of either the OECD or our partners in Australia and the United States. The conference will be celebrating the fact that this Labour-led Government has created a third of a million more jobs for New Zealanders; we have halved the unemployment rate in this country.

The conference will be celebrating the fact that this is a Government that achieves for families, and a Government that recognises the cost of raising children. Let us take a person on $35,000 a year, with a family. That person’s tax credits under Working for Families are worth $199 a week to that family. What orthodox tax cut policy would deliver to a family in need in the way that Michael Cullen’s Working for Families package has delivered for those low-income New Zealanders? Let us take even middle-income New Zealanders—a couple on $62,000 a year. They would be getting back $92 a week under Working for Families. Those are real cuts, making real differences in the living standards of ordinary New Zealanders. Put that together with cheaper doctors’ visits, cheaper prescriptions, the 20 hours of free early childhood education, and we can see what a real difference this Labour-led Government has made for ordinary New Zealand families.

One of the things that I am most proud of is that the cut in unemployment, more people being in work, and Working for Families will have lifted 130,000 New Zealand children out of poverty. That is a track record for New Zealanders, as a whole, to be truly proud of. Businesses had their rate of tax cut; that was the first tax cut for businesses in decades, by a Labour Government, but that policy was opposed by the National Party. The sound economic management of Michael Cullen will mean that personal tax cuts will be available, but not funded by overseas borrowing, like John Key and Bill English propose; they will not be funded by cuts in investment in social services, but funded because this is a country that has real and enduring growth.

Let us look at the social investment that we have made. We now have 4,000 more nurses in this country, who were written off by the National Party as simply bureaucrats. We have 28 new public hospitals from Kaitāia to Bluff. We have 10,000 additional elective surgery procedures each year. They are part of the achievements of this Labour-led Government. We have nearly 5,000 new teachers, over and above what the roll growth would normally justify. We have a 180 percent increase in the funding of early childhood education.

We can compare those sorts of achievements with the National Party’s proposals—like the secret agenda of privatisation, let out of the bag by Bill English a couple of weeks ago; the proposal by Tony Ryall to lift the cap on doctors’ fees; and the proposal to lift the cap on tertiary student fees. That party cannot remember backing the war in Iraq, and cannot remember the way that the previous National Government cut education, cut health, and cut superannuation in the 1990s. The National Party is a party embarrassed about its own ideology, and therefore it will not reveal its policies publicly.

Organic producers and consumers would have been surprised at the hostile comments of the Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton, about organic farming yesterday. When speaking to organic farmers and taking the credit for the Green Party - initiated funding for Organics Aotearoa New Zealand and the organics advisory service, he praises the contribution that organics make to improving sustainability and economic diversity. But yesterday the mask came down and revealed the Government’s actual sneering indifference to organic farming, with the Minister of Agriculture supporting Michael Cullen’s view that “Organic farming uses a range of unnatural inputs that happen to be 19th century in their technology and that are not necessarily sustainable”.

Well, Government indifference means that despite our clean, green and 100 percent pure marketing image, only a quarter of one percent of our agricultural land is in organic production. In Sweden the figure is 19 percent. That the sector is worth $330 million and expanding rapidly is in spite of that indifference. Many of our key agricultural markets, such as kiwifruit and apples, are demanding organic or near-organic standards, especially in relation to spray residues on fruit, and those industries see the marketing and environmental benefits of moves towards organic systems, even if our Government does not.

Mr Anderton points out that sediment and nutrient runoff can occur from all hill-country sheep and beef farms, organic or conventional, but he totally misses the point. The most significant impacts on water quality are from intensive dairy-farming. That is where the environmental advantages of certified organic production methods, which are less intensive and which increase humus and therefore the water and nutrient holding capacity of soils, will be most clearly seen with regard to water quality.

Where organic sheep and beef have the greatest advantage, in comparison, is probably in terms of economics. Returns for conventional sheep and beef farmers have been depressed for some time, yet organic lamb has had a 100 percent premium. Demand is outstripping supply for wool as well as for meat, and for many other organic products, but particularly in the meat markets. If sheep and beef farmers can make a decent living by converting to organic production, then that reduces the pressure to convert to dairying, and that is why the Green Party is pushing for Landcorp to trial organic conversion of some of its sheep and beef units, instead of simply attempting to boost its profitability by increasing its dairy operations.

💬 David Bennett: They’ve tried it.

It has not tried it. It does not have a single unit in organic production.

Finally, in reply to Mr Anderton’s comments on the use of copper in organic apple production to control black spot, well, unlike its use in conventional production systems, the use of copper is tightly controlled under organic certification standards, and the industry is moving to phase it out. What is not part of organic production is the use of endosulphin, a highly toxic insecticide banned elsewhere; growth hormones and antibiotics in cows, pigs, and poultry; the legacy of now banned DDT and other tools of chemical warfare; genetically modified animal feed; and tonnes and tonnes of artificial fertiliser that is dependent on fossil fuels. All of these things are widespread in conventional farming systems.

Well, talk about the Minister straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! Luckily, farmers and consumers in this country are not all so gullible.

Does anyone remember the headlines that were around on 21 March 2005? They were fascinating. One stated: “Talented Kiwis dominate the Labour list.” Who were those talented Kiwis? It cannot have been Taito Phillip Field. It cannot have been Dianne Yates or Jim Sutton. It cannot have been Ann Hartley, Dover Samuels, Paul Swain, Georgina Beyer, Marian Hobbs, or Steve Maharey. Neither, with an announcement imminent, can it have been Judith Tizard. The reason is that those members are all going. They are the people who have said they are off.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Where’s Judith Tizard going?

I understand Judith Tizard has been offered the chair of Watercare Services in Auckland and is looking to do some great things in that regard.

The Labour caucus is now 25 percent down on the numbers it had in 2005, and, apparently, according to Phil Goff—the leader-in-waiting—everything is just so wonderful that one would have to wonder why Labour members are bailing in their droves. And there will be more departures. I expect by the end of the week we will have heard that Jill Pettis, Martin Gallagher, and Steve Chadwick have decided to go, and that will take out a number of people who could have been talented additions to Labour’s Cabinet.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Seriously, it was in the headline in the paper, so we have to believe it.

What does that leave the Labour Party with? It leaves it with a number of people who have very safe Labour seats. That has to be the rump—or the heart, should I best say—of the new Goff-led Opposition. Those people include, of course, Tim Barnett and Harry Duynhoven. I cannot understand why Harry Duynhoven has not been mentioned in the promotion stakes; I find that staggering. There is also Martin Gallagher, whom I mentioned before. He may be one of those guys who goes or stays. There is George Hawkins, Mahara Okeroa, Lynne Pillay—I know that some of these names will be new to members—the Hon H V Ross Robertson, and, of course, Mr David Benson-Pope. Those people clearly, with their safe seats, will be part of the future of the Labour Party.

We have watched members opposite through question time today, and we have seen the congratulations, commiserations, or whatever it is that is going on around Judith Tizard. We have watched the glum face of Mr Mallard, who clearly is taking a step back.

💬 Simon Power: He’s not happy.

He has been very unhappy over the last couple of days. We saw an exiting performance from Mr Burton today. We have noticed that Darren Hughes is off getting a new suit fitted and therefore is not in the junior whip’s seat today. Sue Moroney is there, and she will be taking up her new position in it shortly. Labour did want to move Parekura Horomia, but, a little like me, it is damned hard to get him to go.

We want to know who is coming through. Who will replace Rick Barker? Who will replace Mark Burton? Who will replace Mahara Okeroa? Who will replace Damien O’Connor in the ministry? One would have to start looking at all of this and conclude that because 25 percent of the members of Labour’s caucus have bailed, saying they are out of here because it is going to be too tough, and because only another 25 percent are rock-solid in their electorates and will definitely be coming back to the House, then David Benson-Pope starts to look like a very good bet. I think Helen Clark’s dilemma there is knowing how good he is. She will need to have a bit of a talk with him.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What about Taito?

My colleague behind me asks: “What about Taito?”. Well, when we look at the list and see that people are bailing all over the show, then we realise maybe Helen Clark should creep over to that lovely office he has had, and say: “Taito, can we sort things out?”. I am not so sure—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s full name should be used.

Actually, this is a general debate, so we can be quite broad. Perhaps we should come back to the “member for Papatoetoe”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Speakers’ ruling 26/7 states members cannot use a member’s first name; they must use the full name.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think members are aware that the term “Taito” is a title and not a name, and therefore I think its use is acceptable in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is actually right. I stand corrected and I apologise.

I say to members that that particular member, by offering that point of order, may be crawling his way back. I will start to review my position there.

I want to say, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you have a fantastic knowledge of Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. You are an enormous talent in the Labour caucus. Why is there no speculation about your future? I think that is most unfair. But I want to say that, looking at the way things are going, with 25 percent of your colleagues bailing out and a whole lot of others thinking about whether they are going or staying, when you are sitting in one of those very safe Labour seats things look promising.

Was that not an interesting speech from that heavyweight? This heavyweight over here certainly knows brouhaha and incredulous statements that that member has no support for when he hears them. Gerry Brownlee is a member who was moved, and who has seen leadership change five times in his party. He is a member who supported the member from the Bay of Plenty who said National would remove the cap on doctors’ fees and would let them charge anything they want to in this country. He is a member who has watched a dual role in leadership play off in the sense of diverse differences in relation to tax concessions and tax cuts.

This Government has got involved in ensuring that working-class families are supported, and certainly, at the end of the day, they are benefiting from the efforts of this Government. A person does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand what is going on there.

All that this chap Simon Power from Rangitīkei has been on about is the crime rate. He denies that the Government has built up the police force without too much pressure, and with support from these people over here in New Zealand First and United Future. Katherine Rich certainly got her figures wrong the other day. My departing colleague Steve Maharey, who is going on to lead one of the great bastions of education in this country, is well rewarded in doing that, because he knows where the future is in relation to that. We know that we will be fighting them in the trenches.

There are some good people over there. I was at a function with Anne Tolley the other day where that joker Bob Clarkson, who has plenty of dosh, came over and looked after all the constituents there. I want to mihi to him, and to Tau Henare and Georgina te Heuheu, who are misplaced in that party—they are clearly misplaced.

What has this Government done over the past 7 years? I want to remind members about that. We have achieved one of the lowest unemployment rates in this country’s history. It is good stuff—a double tick. We have put around one-third of a million people into work. What is wrong with that?

A lot of those people roam around in the valleys and the dales of this country, in the rural areas. In the rural areas the economy is so strong that there are many more new tractors and four-wheel bikes riding up and down in the Bay of Plenty and out in Rangitīkei. That is because of this Government’s efforts in supporting all levels of the constituency out there. Certainly, the Government could even lay claim to the price increase per kilogram at Fonterra. It is because of this great Government’s economic advancement, achieved through the work of one of the best financiers in this country—Dr Cullen—and of our great leader, Helen Clark.

This Government has delivered almost the longest and most consistent run in the economy since the Second World War. We have done plenty. We have ensured that small business is surviving, we have ensured that big business stays on these shores, and we have done wonderful things for Māori business. I was privileged enough to deliver the futures document for Māori out to the year 2030, which tells us that Māori have an asset base in this country of $17.9 billion. At the end of the day we know how to support that and keep it alive.

We have reduced the cost of doctors’ visits and prescription charges, which is very helpful. One stands in wonder when one’s good efforts are put asunder by certain people saying: “Put the doctors’ fees up! Put the doctors’ fees up!”. What sort of legacy is that? It is outrageous and disgraceful. The Government has put out its free early childhood education scheme, and now National members say they will put it down by 40 percent. Flip-flop, flip-flop—it is very, very interesting.

Nearly 80 percent of all pre-school children are in education forums. We have now restored superannuitants’ living standards after they were punished so badly over nearly a decade, when they were put out in the cold, they had no power to keep them warm, they were put asunder, and their State houses were sold. Labour came back, and we will still be here at the end of this debate. And we will still be here as we go forward to the next election.

The other issue is that there is a lot of scaremongering in this country. Quite certainly, at the end of the day, when there are mad Pākehā and excited Māori, it is not a good mix.

Sir Apirana Ngata, Eruera Tirikātene, Duncan MacIntyre, Koro Wētere—they are men who were proud to be the Minister of Māori Affairs, and who could stand on any marae in this country and not be an embarrassment to this Parliament. But then we end up with Parekura Horomia and his matrix of dysfunction. He is a Minister whom no one understands what he actually says. He has a matrix of dysfunction. The matrix of dysfunction that I want to talk about in this House today is the matrix of dysfunction opposite that holds itself out as the Labour Government of this country.

I have to say the Prime Minister has been receiving a lot of mail from her colleagues recently, and I have managed to get hold of what purports to be a letter from Pete Hodgson to the Prime Minister explaining why he should remain the Minister of Health. That is what this letter holds itself out to be. It starts off “Dearest Prime Minister,” and these are the points. The Prime Minister said: “Write to us and tell us why you should remain a Minister.” This is what Pete Hodgson said: “First, I am your key strategist.” That is what Pete Hodgson said to Helen Clark: “I am your key strategist.” Sure, Mr Hodgson was the strategist for the 1990 election campaign, but lost that. He was the strategist for the 1993 election campaign and the 1996 election campaign, and lost both of those. Oh, he was the strategist for 2005, where Labour stole $800,000 of taxpayers’ money as the only way to win that election. So what Pete Hodgson said was: “The first point is that I’m your key strategist.” The second thing he said was: “I’m an electoral finance expert.” That is what Pete Hodgson said. Well that is very helpful, in light of what has been happening. But here is the kicker. Thirdly, he said: “I have a special connection with the health sector.” That is what Pete Hodgson said to the Prime Minister.

This letter says to the Prime Minister that Pete Hodgson should not go. That is what this letter says; it says that Pete Hodgson should not go. We are to ignore everything that has fallen apart while he has been Minister of Health. In his letter Pete Hodgson will be blaming Annette King for everything that has gone wrong. But we are to ignore all that has happened under Pete Hodgson. We are to ignore the fact that the army of health bureaucrats is getting fatter and fatter by the day. If people are worried about the obesity epidemic, it is in the Ministry of Health’s payroll. There is a 55 percent increase in the Ministry of Health’s payroll, 24 percent more staff, a doubling in the number of people earning over $100,000, and 2,000 more managers and administrators in the health sector. It is no wonder this health system is creaking under the pressure of bureaucracy.

No more New Zealanders on a per capita basis are getting elective surgery today than when Labour came to office. The Government has put $5 billion extra into the health system, and there is no more surgery for New Zealanders. No more New Zealanders are getting to see a hospital specialist. In fact, the number of people getting to see a hospital specialist is 15 percent lower than it was when the district health boards started. Fifteen percent fewer New Zealanders are getting the vitally needed appointment with hospital specialists in order to get into care, to get into the system.

Then there are the emergency departments. Things have not improved in emergency departments around this country. We have all received correspondence concerning an elderly woman who died on the North Shore, having spent 16 hours on a trolley before being taken to the ward. As her daughter has written to us, how would those members like to spend their last 24 hours languishing in a corridor at North Shore Hospital? Is that the way Labour Party members want to treat the most vulnerable New Zealanders in this country? Do they want them to spend their last hours on this Earth stuck on a trolley in a corridor and under bright fluorescent lights? Is that the sort of end the Labour Party wants to give older New Zealanders?

The fact is, whatever Pete Hodgson is writing to the Prime Minister to justify his position, he cannot justify it to the people of New Zealand. There is $5 billion a year extra, and the public health service in New Zealand is in desperate need of new leadership, new ideas, and a fresh vision. That is why the National Party has released—and no other Opposition has ever done this—a detailed set of proposals that will improve the public health service of New Zealand. Do members know what? Labour has not criticised one of those proposals, because its members know that those proposals are in the best interests of the health system.

That was a fine rendition from the grim Reaper of the National Party, Tony Ryall. That last 10 minutes was all doom and gloom. There were no new ideas. There was nothing from that member about a way forward. He is the grim Reaper of the National Party. In fact, when he did have the opportunity to present some new ideas in the health portfolio, what did he do? He buried it. He buried it so deeply that New Zealanders now see a stark difference between what the Opposition offers, which is very little—higher doctors’ fees—and what the Government offers. The difference with this Government is that it is working to improve lives and it is making a difference for everyday New Zealanders.

The Government’s health policy has put a high emphasis on primary health care. Indeed, the member who spoke before me talked about elective services, but let us look at what has really happened. The emphasis on a Primary Health Care Strategy has meant that people can now pay $10, down from $25, to visit a doctor if they belong to a primary health organisation. The charge for prescription fees is not $15 like it used to be; it is now $3. People can now access health care at an earlier point, when they need to, not at a critical point in the hospital care system, when they have to. The stark difference in the Government’s strategy to ensure that everybody has the right to good health and well-being is to emphasise the importance of people accessing primary health care services earlier, when they need to, not later, when they have to.

But we have done a lot more in the health area, which has made a difference. There are more knee and hip operations, and more cataract operations. Phil Goff said that the number of hospitals that have been refurbished and that have been built is making a difference to many communities and to the lives of many people. We have done a lot more than that. In 10 days’ time the Labour Party conference will be an opportunity for everybody to see just how far we have come in the last 9 years, and how much we have made a difference to the lives of everyday Kiwi New Zealanders in health care.

In housing, we have moved from income-related rentals, we are looking to improve and increase the existing stock of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes, and we are also offering options for homeownership. That has made a difference. We have done more. We have provided opportunities for many homeowners to access rates rebates of up to $500. We have retrofitted homes so that they can be warmer for our kids and our old people, and that has had a vast impact on health care as well.

We have also made inroads in education. Just this year the commencement of the 20 free hours’ early childhood education for 3 to 4-year-olds will make a critical difference in providing a strong platform for all young New Zealanders to access good, strong education choices, going into the future. We are increasing the number of teachers in kura and wharekura. We have built more kura, and the first stand-alone wharekura is in my electorate, which I am very proud of. We are also enhancing the school curriculum to ensure that all cultures and languages can continue to succeed in an inclusive education system.

So those are the types of gains we are seeing. Sure, we can do more to lift achievement, but we have come a hell of a long way from where we were when National was in Government. Either people fitted into its education system, or they just missed out altogether. We know we have a lot of work to do in this area, and that is going to be a major emphasis for us. We understand the importance of the education pathway that the Labour-led Government is leading the way on—our kids get many options to look at the way in which they can succeed, and Modern Apprenticeships is a really good example of that. In a number of our schools we have the Gateway programme, where kids can get on-site work experience and then perhaps gain a qualification in a trade.

The trades were totally neglected by National when it was in Government. It did not want to know anything about the trades. [Interruption] Yes, it totally abolished apprenticeships. That was not a very good look, because a lot of our young people in many of our provincial communities want to take up a career in the trades. The Young Apprenticeships initiative that we will be starting next year will again continue to have a fundamental and positive impact on the lives of many young people in the trades area. We can do more.

In employment we have already heard that the Government has made a number of inroads into reducing the level of unemployment that exists in our communities, but amongst young people in particular. With the support of local government and the Mayors Task Force for Jobs we now have fewer than 1,000 young people unemployed, and we know we are doing a good job.

It did not work for the All Blacks; it failed. In fact, it failed absolutely miserably. But now Prime Minister Clark is bringing in a new rotation policy. It has finally dawned on her that her 1999 team is long, long past its best—not that the benchmark was ever set particularly high. In fact, many Cabinet members, when they reflect, suddenly realise how low that bar was and that they jumped over it. Many, many names have been bandied around, about who is going up, who is going down, and who is going sideways in the Labour Cabinet and caucus, so let us have a look at a few of these names.

Labour’s junior whip, Mr Darren Hughes, has been talked of as a new high-flyer, and I believe that he is coming in representing the rainbow coalition, with his penchant and attraction for all things orange. He may well be New Zealand’s first child Minister. Apparently, at Mr Hughes’ student flat he had copies of Hansard on the walls and on the shelves. When we were all out having real lives, I believe that Mr Hughes was studying up for his future career. At least, we have had real lives. But in fact his ministerial career is not off to a very good start. His Paraparaumu Airport bill has him in deep trouble not only with the locals but with Labour Party president Mr Mike Williams, I understand. But one person will be cheering loudly if Mr Hughes does get the promotion to Cabinet, and that of course is Mr Nathan Guy. As we all know, marginal seats are not good places for Ministers to try to defend their turf from.

Mr Shane Jones has also been mentioned. He has also been christened “Parekura Lite”. Mr Jones can get up and speak for 10, 15, 20 minutes about any matter whatsoever, yet after he sits down we wonder what on earth he has said. We have no recollection of anything important whatsoever, other than that a fair bit of oxygen has been chewed up. Mr Jones wandered into Parliament, on the list of course. He double-dipped for a few years, to the tune of about $100,000 per annum, I think. Now he wants to waltz into Cabinet, and as we discovered today I believe that he wants to carve up the meat industry once he is in Cabinet. When Labour loses at the next election, apparently he wants to leapfrog over Phil Goff and take over the Labour party leadership once Helen Clark resigns.

Mr Charles Chauvel has also been mentioned as one of the up-and-comers. Mr Chauvel is indeed a very nice chap, and a most eminent and very good lawyer. I know that because Mr Chauvel told me so. Maryan Street is another cool customer coming up, and she is being talked of widely. It will be interesting to see what knowledge she brings to Cabinet.

Many MPs are also being talked of who are on the downward and outward list. One of those is the Hon Rick Barker, who was rightfully shown the red card by the good and very sensible voters from Tukituki in 2005, alongside his colleague Mr Russell Fairbrother, who was shown the card by the good and sensible voters in Napier. Currently, Mr Barker is preparing for his next career, as we see him on Saturday mornings driving around Hawke’s Bay in a big red bus, which belches black smoke into the atmosphere as he practises his new role as a bus driver. Apparently, he is standing again for selection, but I suggest to him that he keeps an eye out for his former union mates. Actually, to indicate how out of touch some of these Ministers and MPs are, I can tell the House that Mr Barker recently submitted to the Representation Commission on changes proposed to Tukituki’s boundaries. He wanted the name of the electorate changed from Tukituki to Hastings, totally forgetting and basically insulting all of the people in Central Hawke’s Bay, Flaxmere, Havelock North, Clive, Te Awanga, and Haumoana. How out of touch can a member get?

Of course, Mr Burton has been spoken about. He was, quite frankly, invisible to me until his recent hapless, hopeless defence of the Electoral Finance Bill, and his defence of that bill will tar him and his legacy for good. His use of curious interpretations of Canadian and Ontario law to justify the most Draconian bill New Zealand has seen in many, many years—if not ever—will tar his legacy for ever.

Mr Maharey announced his intentions last week, but what really is not widely known is that he got the kiss of death from the Prime Minister on 11 October this year. On that date the Prime Minister and Mr Maharey opened a new electorate office in Palmerston North. There was glowing and wonderful public relations, with gushing endorsements of each other, then only 8 days later Mr Maharey announced his intention of resigning.

I want to do something novel this afternoon—it is certainly novel for me—and that is to give kudos to the Minister of Justice, Mr Mark Burton. We know that we have a bill, the Electoral Finance Bill, that is not quite right. I think the Minister of Justice has said that, and indeed the Prime Minister has said it. Parliament and the Justice and Electoral Committee are now working to fix it up.

The concern I have is how we go about fixing it up, the difficulty being that what we are doing here is regulating not just politicians and would-be candidates but indeed anyone who in an election year wants to express a political opinion and spend money to that effect. People actually have to make a statutory declaration even for $10, and if they want to spend more than $5,000 on a policy, then they have to register with the Government that they want to express a political view. That is pretty tough.

I was impressed with the Human Rights Commission’s submission on Thursday. I myself think that we should not have any of these rules, but, given that in Parliament it is believed that there should be some limits on the freedom of speech, it seems to me important that we get the rules right. The Human Rights Commission, which is actually set up independently of the Government to have a statutory function to protect the rights of New Zealanders, said that it agreed with the Minister and the Government on the intent of the bill but was concerned about its impact. The commission suggested that it would be happy to work expeditiously with the committee on how to amend the bill to deal with some of the concerns the public have—and, indeed, I think the Government now has, in response to submissions.

It seems that that is a good way forward. I will therefore propose to the committee tomorrow that we advise officials to attempt to amend the legislation in light of the Human Rights Commission’s suggestions, and that we authorise the committee to consult with the Human Rights Commission so that we can speed up things with a bit of two-way dialogue. Indeed, when the officials come to report back to the committee, I suggest we invite the Human Rights Commission along, as well.

It seems to me that for this process to have any integrity, Parliament should really work quite hard to have the Human Rights Commission on board, with a tick. I was pleased that the Minister of Justice was prepared to say: “Yes, we are going to be looking at changes to the bill; that is what the select committee process is about.”, and that although he did not agree entirely with the Human Rights Commission’s submission, he was not against the committee’s taking on board its recommendations and attempting to deal with those concerns.

I believe that this issue is so vital and so important because it affects every New Zealander. I do not think it is the Minister’s intent to chill political debate or political expression; I think the Government wants to have a set of rules that attends to its objectives but does not freeze out people who have a dissenting view or who want to express a political opinion.

I would like to think that around this House we could work with the Human Rights Commission to get some sound electoral finance rules, so that we protect people’s freedom of speech and so that we ensure a proper and fair democratic process. Do we in this country really, really want to be passing electoral law that the Human Rights Commission is implacably opposed to, because of its impact on our freedom of expression? I do not think so. So I will be looking forward to tomorrow and to each political party agreeing to work closely with the Human Rights Commission to see whether we can take on board its concerns. We have to say that the commission is the neutral arbiter of human rights in this country.

It is good to follow Rodney Hide—somebody who was talking about ideas, somebody who in his time here has actually changed his politics and wants to discuss ideas. That is unlike the National members. The poor old National members are obsessing over there after 8 years in Opposition, and looking forward to another 8 years. All they can do is to obsess about who will be in the Cabinet. But the problem for them is that it will not be any of them. They do not have to worry about who will be in Cabinet because—I have to tell them—they are in Opposition. They are in Opposition, and that is where they will stay. They are obsessing about who will be in the Cabinet over on this side of the Chamber; it is a nice problem to have. It is a nice problem for the Prime Minister to have: who will make up her team going into the future and going into the Labour Party conference the weekend after next?

I have a question for National members. Why does Mark Blumsky want to leave Parliament? Why is it that National has got him chained to the desk down here, when he wants to go right now? He is desperate to get out of here. He says that the politics of the National Party are rotten, and that he wants to get out. Maybe somebody should look at who is next on the list, and then ask National members why they fear Mark Blumsky leaving this place before his time comes up at the next election. I think that is an interesting little question for National members to contemplate.

When Helen Clark makes a speech to the Labour Party conference the weekend after next, she will not be going there to tell the delegates that the war in Iraq is over.

💬 Jill Pettis: No.

Oh no, she will not be telling them that—technically or not. She will not be going there to say: “We are going to put your doctors’ fees up.” No, she will not be making that sort of speech. She will not be going there to say to our delegates: “We’re going to sell assets that you already own.” No, she will not be doing that. I tell the House what she will do. She will know which party she is leading; she will not get to the conference and get her words all mixed up like the Leader of the Opposition over there did with his ums and ahs.

John Key tried to put out policy but has given up that idea, because it has gone just so badly wrong around doctors’ fees. After poor old John Key’s ums and ahs through his policy launch, up stepped the undertaker, this grim figure behind him—the Hon Tony Ryall. And what did Tony Ryall say? He said: “We don’t support Labour’s fees control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” He sounded like a bloody undertaker come to bury the National Party’s policy once and for all. He let the cat out of the bag; he said what National would do: put people’s doctors’ fees back up. Well, National has to pay for the tax cuts somehow, does it not? Doctors’ fees and prescription fees will have to go up, because the market will take care of them. The market will determine doctors’ fees. Yeah, right!

New Zealanders know what the market did last time, in the 1990s. People had to have a little plastic card issued by Jenny Shipley, by the State, to say that they were poor and that, therefore, they could get a cheaper visit to the doctor. Helen Clark will not be making that sort of speech to the Labour Party conference. She will be telling delegates about the halving of doctors’ fees, about the prescription charges that have come down, about the fact that this country has the lowest unemployment rate in the world because of Labour’s economic policies, that we have more people in employment than ever before, and that that number continues to grow. She will be telling them that we are doing something about the skills shortage, which was actually created by the former National Government, which scrapped apprenticeships and made tertiary education so expensive that it drove most talented New Zealanders offshore with a massive student loan—and, of course, this Government has put in place a dramatic piece of policy, by taking interest off student loans, to fix that issue.

No, the Prime Minister will be going to the conference to tell Labour delegates that the job is not done, that we have to work hard in the future as a Government to make sure that we undo the damage that was done in the 1990s by the National Government, by Jenny Shipley, Gerry Brownlee, and all that lot over on that side of the Chamber, who want to go back to those days. They want to put up doctors’ fees and they want to put them at market rates. They want to say to young New Zealanders that they will pay a market interest rate on their student fees and on their student loans, like they did in the 1990s. National wants to sell State houses—again. This Government has built 7,500 houses, and we are nearly getting back to the 13,000 that the former National Government sold off.

💬 Jill Pettis: 13,000, they sold.

National sold 13,000. The Government has rebuilt 7,500. Those tenants who need help from the Government are about $120 a week better off just because of income-related rents. We have put money into the pockets of 360,000 New Zealand families through Working for Families. That lot over on the other side of the Chamber voted against Working for Families. That is what our delegates will be hearing at the Labour Party conference.

That speech was from Mark Gosche, a member who has huge potential in his party but who will never actually be able to take it further. Let us imagine the situation if someone were a member of the Labour Party at the moment. I was sitting here thinking that if I were the Prime Minister, I would be very, very disappointed, and very sad. She has some big problems in front of her. What does she do with her political party? The message the Prime Minister will be giving at the Labour Party conference will be: “Look, I know we are in trouble; we are going to lose this one. But I have a plan. I’m going to change the rules so that those guys can’t fight on a level playing field. I’ll change the rules, not fight on the basis of policy or people.”

Why can the Prime Minister not fight on the basis of policy or on people? She has nobody to put up the front now. Her loyal lieutenant resigned last week. The person she had put her money on to take over and lead the party after her departure is going. That opens a huge hole in the Labour Party now. Who will be there, and who will be coming up behind? We can imagine the list of people she can look to.

You know, a Prime Minister would normally think that his or her Ministers outside Cabinet were there for a reason: to learn to come into Cabinet. Would that not be expected? But who would a Prime Minister choose out of these Ministers: Minister Judith Tizard, Minister Dover Samuels, Minister Harry Duynhoven, Minister Mita Ririnui, Minister Winnie Laban, and Minister Mahara Okeroa. Who would be chosen to go on to the front bench? None of those Ministers have the potential, the desire, or the ability to go on to the front bench.

So the Prime Minister will have to go further back. Will she go back to Shane Jones, the man who has made his name in this House for his gripping questions at question time? Will she choose that person? Will she go for Charles Chauvel, somebody who has been doing his time, just sitting there, patiently waiting for the opportunities? Or will she go for Maryan Street, the loyal, dependable, former Labour Party president? What would members do if they were Helen Clark? There are not many choices, and that is her problem. That is what she is sitting there thinking now: how does she go into an election with a team that will not do it, a team that is divided and corrosive?

One person out there is licking his lips at this, and that is Phil Goff. Phil Goff knows that with Clark in trouble and Maharey going, he has a straight road to the job he wants: Leader of the Opposition, leader of the Labour Party.

Politics is all about timing, and the timing of the Labour Party and its members is bad. They know they will be out at the next election, and they know they will be out for 12 years because John Key will be one of the greatest Prime Ministers of this country. Those Labour members who have any brains will be getting out now. They know they will be sitting in Opposition if they do not get out now. The ones that cannot get out have nothing else they could go to anyway. They are sitting there because that is their only option; that is the best they can ever achieve.

We have to feel sorry for some people. The new Labour members who come in will have come in at the wrong term in the electoral cycle. They will come in and be in Opposition for the next 12 years. Let us imagine those members coming in. They will not get promoted and they will be sitting there for 12 years in Opposition. Is that not a shame for them? Is that not a shame for Labour?

Well, it serves them right. A party cannot do what Labour has done year on year, and ignore what the public of New Zealand want. The public of New Zealand have seen, in Australia, a country that is developing and giving tax cuts to its people. Australia is rewarding people for hard work and enterprise—the kind of things that the Labour Government should be doing for our people.

But what has Cullen come up with this week in response to that issue? He has just come out and made four tests for any tax cut. These four tests he made on the hoof and in the middle of question time. He had no concept of what they were; he could hardly remember them today when he was again asked about them. So what are these tests? Well, the fourth test is probably the most obscure of them all: “they must be fair; that is, the benefits must not all go to those on higher incomes but must be spread more fairly across the entire population.” That is the test the Labour Party uses to make tax cuts.

It is not difficult to follow the heavy hitter—the previous speaker, David Bennett—who demonstrated the Opposition’s obsession with looking at the refreshment on this side of the House, and not coming up with one policy in the general debate today. How sad that is; what a waste of energy that is. I say to the member that he should hold his powder. Things are going to happen over here, and he will be interested in watching them with great glee.

Before I begin I just want to offer congratulations from this side of the House, from this proud Labour team, to the Hon Steve Maharey on his decision that it is time to move on. It reminds everybody in this House that one day they will personally face a decision about a time to move on and contribute to New Zealand society with the experience that one gains in this House. We wish him well.

In 10 days’ time we are going to go out with our Labour conference and show that the Labour team has not collapsed, and that we are actually continually refreshing ourselves. Our leadership is there to guide this team and to bring through new policies and new energy. We are continually developing as a team, and working with our electorate branches around the country to bring through new policies and new ideas. We are bursting with these new ideas. We will show that we can build on the gains that we have made over the last 7 years, which have been hugely significant. We now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We are the envy of the developed world, with 3.6 percent unemployment and the longest run in continuous economic growth since World War II.

The people of New Zealand vote on actual gains, on experience, and on what has happened over the last 7 years, but they will also be watching for policy from the Opposition. I just want to mention one of its policy debacles. Actually, it was the Hon Tony Ryall who seemed to love the term himself—the matrix of dysfunction. The launching of the Opposition’s health policy was a matrix of dysfunction. If ever I have seen those in the National health team look liked stunned mullets, it was when they heard Tony Ryall. They said: “Yes, he is right. John Key did not say he was going to take the cap off doctors’ fees. Tony Ryall is right.” He himself said today that that was rubbish. What Tony Ryall actually said was: “We don’t support Labour’s fee control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.”

To make matters worse John Key came in, supported Tony Ryall, and said: “Well, the market will sort it out. They can go down the road if they don’t like how doctors are charging.” Well, I wonder whether the leader has actually been out to Te Whaiti, to Murupara, to the rural heartland of New Zealand, where people can go nowhere to visit another doctor. So where do they go for this?

Standing behind Tony Ryall and the leader, John Key, were experienced doctors and people in the Opposition team who know about health. They looked absolutely stunned. It was not in National’s health policy. They did not know that this surprise was going to be launched that day; it was a ripper. Then Tony Ryall went on and got confused trying to justify this incredible blooper. He said: “I don’t think New Zealanders have GP costs as the top-of-mind issue in health.” Well, I want to remind Tony Ryall that when we got into Government in 1999 it was one of the major issues that was at the top of their minds for New Zealanders, and they have not forgotten. Lest they forget, the privatisation by stealth went on for 9 years under a National Government, and here we have Tony Ryall, Bill English, and Nick Smith still on the front bench.

Leopards do not change their spots. The same people are there coming out with policy and forgetting what destroyed the National Party for 9 years in the 1990s—user-pays in New Zealand hospitals, the break-up of the health system, and the funder-provider split. Talk about bureaucracy in health, when we had to deal with the funder-provider split! In 1998 and 1999 only half of Vote Health went to the public sector.

I will start with a question: who did Ron Mark mean when he referred in question time to the “loony tunes” of the left? He should not be referring to the Labour-led Government like that. It is in enough trouble without that kind of help from its minor coalition partners.

You know, the Prime Minister has a big problem, because between her overseas trips she has to sit over there in the House, look over at us, and feel the chill—the chill of inevitable defeat. Those members opposite know it, and they are panicking. The Prime Minister looks over at our side of the House, and who does she see? She sees John Key, the future Prime Minister. She sees National’s front-bench members, our future Ministers, and rows and rows of enthusiastic, talented, able, and hungry members of Parliament from the National Party. She must look at our MPs who, day after day, get big hits on the Government in this Chamber. She must cast her eye over the National Party caucus and see those members who have removed and replaced her own Labour MPs from their constituent seats with young, hungry, capable, hard-working, and good-looking National MPs.

So who have we got? We will start with young Craig Foss. Who did Craig take the seat from? He took it from Rick Barker. And what about Jo Goodhew? She had a famous, famous victory over Jim Sutton. Anne Tolley took the East Coast seat from Moana Mackey. Then we have Chester Borrows, who took the seat of Whanganui from Russell Fairbrother. It is a shame he could not do the same thing with the heartland rugby competition, but I suppose there is always next year. David Parker was defeated in Otago by yours truly, Jacqui Dean. What about David Bennett? What happened to Dianne Yates? David Bennett took the Hamilton East seat from her. Jonathan Coleman took the Northcote seat from Ann Hartley, and Eric Roy took the deep-south seat of Invercargill.

Why did we beat them? Why did we take all those provincial seats back, and why will we go on winning more electorate seats at the next election? I will tell members why. The reason is that we are good. We are effective electorate MPs. We are the ones who live in the towns and villages of New Zealand, and we understand the problems of provincial and rural New Zealand. We understand issues such as the compliance costs that have been heaped on small business, and the utter frustrations of builders facing an onerous licensing regime. Of course, this issue is not just confined to towns and villages; it is also happening in the cities. My colleague David Bennett in Hamilton East faces exactly these issues, as well.

What else do we good electorate MPs do? We fight and we try to help local authorities struggling with registration under the new Building Act. In the Waitaki District they reckon it is going to cost them the wages of another two building inspectors—this is in a small local authority—just to comply with the Building Act requirements. I ask the Labour-led Government whether that is helpful. We fight on a daily basis for schools that are being chronically underfunded, and where principals feel more like building inspectors than educators. It is no wonder they are leaving the country at the rate of 700 people a week. We good National electorate MPs are fighting to find hospital-level care beds for elderly people who have lived in their towns all their lives, and now, because there is not the level of care for them there, get shipped out of town into hospital-level care. The level of underfunding in elderly care services under this Labour-led Government is absolutely shameful.

We are the constituency MPs who are fighting for the rights of high-country farmers under tenure review against a Minister who just does not care for the farming sector. Never mind productivity, never mind the fact that these farming families have been good stewards of the land for over 100 years—the Minister for Land Information cares nothing for that. He will return it to the Department of Conservation’s control, where it will be left to grow weeds and become a fire hazard, which leads me on to the Rural Fire Authority.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.