General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today I want to use some visual aids, as I am entitled to do under Standing Order 108. The first of them is the most amazing front page of the New Zealand Herald that I think anyone will have ever read. An entire front page of the New Zealand Herald is dedicated to an issue called “Democracy under attack”. I want members to know that this is the only time in my time in politics I have seen a newspaper such as the New Zealand Herald use its front page for its editorial. It is the only time I have ever seen the New Zealand Herald reserve the entire front page for one entire story.

The New Zealand Herald has been very critical of Governments in the past. I remember that when we were in office it gave the National Government a smack around for various things, but never for anything to the extent of a headline stating “Democracy under attack”. If we started to read this article, as many Auckland people who subscribe to this newspaper have done, and then heard it discussed on talkback as it kicked in during the day—

💬 Jill Pettis: It’s a Tory rag. My grandmother would never have it in the house.

Jill Pettis, the Labour Party star who is heading towards oblivion, says that the New Zealand Herald is a “Tory rag”. Well, I am afraid that it reports some things in this article that are bloodcurdling, and I want to share with members what it says: “Practically every other participant in New Zealand politics—not only parties but other interested organisations and especially guardians of political rights—has voiced concern at the implications of the Electoral Finance Bill introduced to Parliament …” and asked for it to be scrapped.

If it concerned the National Party only I could understand why Labour would say “Oh, that’s just a Tory rag.”, but here is a group that I would not have been the greatest advocate for, over the years: the Human Rights Commission. I said some pretty dreadful things about Ros Noonan when she was involved in the report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy, which Trevor de Cleene said was the biggest doorstop that had ever been produced in the world; I did not think she was that great. But the “Tory rag” reports the Human Rights Commission as saying that the bill is “a ‘dramatic assault’ on fundamental rights which ‘undermines the legitimacy of political processes’.” That is what the commission said—the Human Rights Commission, in what is supposed to be the “Tory rag”—and it gets worse because all sorts of other organisations have been going on about it. People might choose to read the front page of the New Zealand Herald, which a lot of New Zealanders are now doing.

I have a message for the Labour Party and it is this: “When you are in a hole, stop digging; even when it’s really deep and you think you might get away with it, stop digging.”, because accompanying that bill is another bill on the Order Paper of this Parliament, called the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Most people out there in television land will not know what that means, but I want to tell them, because my second visual aid is a cracker. It is a Labour Party propaganda brochure with a picture of Angelina Jolie in the middle—I think it is Angelina Jolie; that is what it looks like to me, does it not? No, I have the wrong person.

💬 Judith Collins: It is Helen Clark.

No, if it were Helen Clark, or supposed to be, then under the Fair Trading Act there would be a case of breach for portraying a product that was not real. I believe it is Angelina Jolie, or it might be Morticia Addams, but it is not Helen Clark.

On this brochure are seven pledges about what Labour would do, and then on the back some ghastly photos of people like Parekura Horomia and Trevor Mallard stating “Labour will …”; “Labour will …”. It is just covered with pledges. What would we say of this, a 2005 release? Well, it certainly has to be electioneering, and it must certainly have been paid for from the Labour Party coffers. Then what do we find down the front here? Oh, it is the parliamentary crest.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes.

Jill Pettis says “Yes.” It is the parliamentary crest, so that the poor old hard-serving taxpayer is the one who has paid for this picture of Angelina Jolie—I hope Labour got the rights to use it—to be put on Labour’s page of seven pledges.

The Labour Party has used public money to get itself elected. And now, as the New Zealand Herald says, it is taking two specific courses of action: firstly, to ban anybody else from having the right to have a say, and, secondly, to make everything the Labour Party does legal and legitimate. It is a disgrace.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Numerous times during the speech from the Hon Mr Williamson, Mrs Pettis interjected loudly, shrieking Mr Williamson’s Christian name as part of the interjection in a manner that was disorderly. I am surprised that she, as a former presiding officer, did that, and I would like to invite you to explain to her what the rules of the House are in that respect.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite right.

💬 Jill Pettis: I apologise to Mr Williamson.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for doing that. Behaviour like that is not acceptable during a member’s speech. Thank you for raising that, Mr McCully.

Newsflash! The New Zealand Herald is in campaign mode again. The press, we are told to believe, never has a view of its own, never has a bias, and never gets the facts wrong. The press has a crystal ball. It knows what a select committee is going to do to a bill before the committee has even reported back. The press remembers every detail of Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men. Yeah, right! It has upheld the pillars of democracy against the sneaky, pernicious campaign of the Exclusive Brethren. Yeah, right! It fought vigorously against the rather more well-heeled and subtle pseudo-thinktank, the Maxim Institute. Yeah, right!

It might come as a newsflash to the Opposition, but the reason the Labour Government has won three elections in a row and is looking good for a fourth is that it cares about Kiwis, and its actions show that it cares. This Labour-led Government looks after the old, the young, the sick, the crippled, and the unemployed with great gusto, and it will keep on doing just that. Labour is following in the traditions of Mickey Savage, Norm Kirk, and, yes, Dick Seddon, and is providing security for New Zealanders from the cradle to the grave. That is what Kiwis know about Labour, and that is why they are going to have a Labour-led Government for the next 3 years. The little flowers of the Opposition are going to wilt away, and a new generation of baby Tories will replace them at the helm.

I will give members a few stats from the health portfolio. Here is concrete proof that even the New Zealand Herald cannot ignore. Since 1999 we have seen 4,000 additional nurses; 1,300 new medical personnel; 28 new public hospitals, from Kaitāia to Invercargill; the largest immunisation campaign in New Zealand’s history; $2.2 billion pumped into primary health care, thus halving annual doctors’ fees for ordinary Kiwis, not doubling them like Tony Ryall would do; 7,500 extra cataract operations; 10,000 extra hip and knee operations; the largest campaign against obesity in New Zealand’s history; and on and on it goes. So while the Opposition thinks that it has had a lucky break because it found a newspaper that woke up in campaign mode, Labour has been getting on with doing the work, doing the mahi, and making ordinary Kiwis’ lives better day by day, week by week, year by year, and making a difference.

The saddest thing about the Opposition is that it is led by an agreeable chap who benefited from a State house when he was growing up. He knows what it is like when ill fortune strikes, so what he has grown up to do? He has grown up to try to take opportunities away from people just like him.

💬 Judith Collins: That is nasty.

Oh, oh! The member opposite disagrees. Has she had amnesia? Well, the health system might help her. Has she forgotten that National flogged off most of the State housing stock in the 1990s? I tell Mrs Collins that Kiwis have not forgotten the 1990s even if she has.

Kiwis have not forgotten the Employment Contracts Act. They have not forgotten how crippling it is to be unemployed. They have not forgotten what a Tory Government means for New Zealand. That is why the press got in a lather when Tony Ryall told the truth about doctors’ fees. That is why it got in a lather when the Hon Bill English—and I use the word advisedly—said that he would indeed privatise State-owned enterprises. To make that admission about privatisation was a very honourable thing to do. And the mask slipped, because the country saw, once again, what a return to a National-led Government would mean for ordinary New Zealanders: back to the 1990s, back to bulk funding, back to selling off the family silver, back to opening the country up to the control of foreigners, and back to wrecking the welfare State. Goodbye Mickey Savage, goodbye “Big Norm”, goodbye King Dick, and here we go market forces—fantastic! That is why we are on the Treasury benches and National members are on those benches, and that is why we will stay here and they will stay there.

We have just heard from the man who is in charge now, David Cunliffe. He is, in fact, the man who is “running the show”, which was what he said after 24 hours of fake humility and talking about how he was going to consult. As soon as he had a little interjection from my bench mate, the Hon Tony Ryall, what did “Captain Cunliffe” say? He said: “I am running this show,” and he basically said that Annette King and Pete Hodgson were absolutely hopeless, he was now in charge, that was fantastic, and everything would be great.

What has happened? What has he told us today? He told us that the Labour Government apparently cares about the little people in New Zealand. I think that is a wonderful notion. But, unfortunately, one of the little people in New Zealand whom this Labour-led Government did not care about and does not care about is Madeleine Setchell. In fact, this Labour-led Government has sat back and has allowed two Ministers—not just one, but two—to actively engage in making sure that Madeleine Setchell could not conduct her work as a communications manager in the Public Service. The third ministry, education, did not even bother to reply to her application for a job.

What we found out from the Hunn report, released this morning—which the Opposition was offered a briefing on for 15 minutes before it went public, in the usual display of political neutrality we seem to get from this Government and from the Public Service under Dr Prebble—was that Jim Anderton, who has been a Minister since forever and who has been in Parliament for a very long time, made sure that Madeleine Setchell did not even get a job in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. His method was to say to the chief executive: “Well, of course, it’s up to you, but it could be very difficult for Ms Setchell because people might be talking about her. People might think that she’d pass on information to her partner who works in the office of John Key. People might be talking.” So what did Mr Anderton do? He said: “Well, you make up your mind.”, and apparently the chief executive took his cue and—guess what—made up his mind that Ms Setchell would be politically unsavoury for this Government.

That is what is happening in the Public Service. We now have a culture of political interference that is so bad that chief executives have to trot along to the Minister to see whether a veto will be applied. As we have heard from the Hunn report, in two cases—that of Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Anderton—Ms Setchell got the veto. We have heard nothing today from Helen Clark and Michael Cullen by way of an apology to Madeleine Setchell. They were the ones who said Ms Setchell had not been up upfront enough about her relationship. Ms Setchell had been upfront, and that is absolutely plain from the Hunn report. Ms Setchell had been totally honest, because Ms Setchell is an honest person. She has worked for a long time in the Public Service and she understands about managing any perceived conflict of interest.

Is it not interesting that under this Government Ms Setchell did not, apparently, have a perceived conflict of interest while her partner worked for a major newspaper. That was fine. That was absolutely, positively fine.

💬 Shane Ardern: It was a neutral newspaper then.

It was, apparently, then a neutral newspaper. Absolutely—yet we have just heard from the previous speaker that, apparently, it is not neutral any more. We are now being told by the Labour-led Government that the New Zealand Herald is a Tory rag. I have a bit of news for those members. We always know that members are in trouble in this game when they start to bag the media. The fact is that the media will report what the media want to report. The media are not there as our servants—which is unfortunate, we sometimes think—and they will report stuff that we do not like, and this Government cannot stand it. It was all right for Madeleine Setchell when her partner worked for the New Zealand Herald, but as soon as he was working with John Key, suddenly she could not be trusted in the Public Service. That is what this Government said. Even the New Zealand Public Service Association, the union that supports and funds so much of the Labour Party’s activities, came out and said that that was not OK.

This is the first time we have heard about Mr Anderton’s efforts. Why has he been so quiet on this issue today? Where is his apology for Ms Setchell? That is what these people have done—they have tried to destroy this woman’s career. The Ministry of Education did not bother even to look at her application and did not bother even to reply—and this Government is going to use taxpayers’ money to campaign with.

What a negative lot the National members are! They are a very lacklustre Opposition. I am very pleased to be part of a positive Labour Government that is doing so much and doing very real things that make a very real difference in people’s lives in this country. Meanwhile, all the Opposition can do is to bleat and bleat and then copy Labour’s policies. What a weak-kneed Opposition it is indeed! I want to draw the attention of those listening to this debate to some of the differences between the Labour Government—which is going ahead and has delivered so much to this country already and has such a bright future ahead of it—and the performance of the Opposition.

Let us take, for example, the Labour team members and compare them with their opposite numbers on the Opposition benches. What would it be like to have Tony Ryall as the Minister of Health, for example? I think the people who care about our health system and who depend upon it to be an accessible system where they can get their health care, might be worried at Tony Ryall’s view and—yes—John Key’s view that doctors should be able to charge what they like for their fees, basically giving doctors a blank cheque to increase fees as much as they like. That is not on—not under Labour. We have been very clear that we have halved doctors’ fees, and we will continue to work in that direction. We will be clear with doctors that we expect those fees to stay reasonable. So would people in this country rather have David Cunliffe, with his bright new ideas for the future, or the ever-bitter Tony Ryall as the Minister of Health? I think there is no competition.

I would also argue that when it comes to looking after this country’s social development, New Zealanders would rather have Ruth Dyson as Minister over the likes of Judith Collins. We have just heard Judith Collins speaking with all her bitterness and rage, and she was not able to say anything positive. She could only grasp at straws about the Hunn report, which was published today.

Let us look at a vital issue of importance to this country—transport. I would put my money on having Annette King as a go-ahead Minister of Transport over Maurice Williamson any day of the week. When he was in charge of that portfolio he could not build a single road in this country. So there is no competition there. If it is a choice between Annette King and Maurice Williamson for better transport in this country, I know where my money sits.

Let us look at climate change. That will be the issue of the future. Would we put the future of this country and the issue of climate change into the hands of David Parker under Labour? He is a very serious and committed Minister. He knows his business and he goes about doing that not with fanfare but seriously and calmly as he puts out the right policies in the direction. Or would we rather have the frenetic Nick Smith as the Minister dealing with climate change issues? I think most New Zealanders would put their hands up and say: “David Parker any day of the week on that one, thank you.” Let us look at the area of local government. I would back my colleague Nanaia Mahuta any day of the week over John Carter as the Minister of Local Government. Nanaia Mahuta is one of those people who understand consultation very thoroughly. I am not sure the same can be said for John Carter.

I would also pick Nanaia Mahuta as the Minister of Youth Affairs over Nicky Wagner any day of the week. Has anyone heard of Nicky Wagner?

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Who?

She is the Opposition spokesperson on youth affairs. I am not sure I have heard her say anything yet. I certainly have not heard her say anything positive about the youth of our country.

It is the Labour team that has the ideas for the future of this country. I am very pleased that in the recent Cabinet reshuffle I was given the opportunity of becoming the junior whip for our party. In that role I am able to see a very committed team in absolute unity with collectivity of purpose. It is fabulous to be involved in such a role with a fabulous group of people who absolutely understand that unity, not division, is critical to the future success of this country. It is no wonder that during the nearly 8 years of this Labour-led Government, New Zealand has been able to turn the corner. It has been able to turn the corner because the failed market-led policies of the 1990s have been ditched, at least by this side of the House. But it is clearly evident they have not been ditched by National.

Today is a disturbing time to be a New Zealander. I wonder whether there has ever been a more disturbing time in our history. I never thought that in my lifetime I would see a leading New Zealand newspaper state on its front page “Democracy under attack”. The Labour members and their New Zealand First coalition partners can sit there, sneer, and toss off a newspaper as being a Tory rag, but I suggest that they take a step backwards and just reflect for a moment on where they are actually taking New Zealand.

When I take the warning of the New Zealand Herald of early this week and when I consider the report that was issued today on Ms Setchell, I realise that one thing is becoming increasingly clear: New Zealanders are concerned. The message that is coming out—and it is clear and unequivocal—is that this Labour Government, supported by its New Zealand First coalition partners, has taken the State sector and turned it increasingly into an extension of the political party that, for not much longer now, governs this country.

I say to Ms Setchell that she did nothing wrong. She is the victim of behaviour on the part of people who should have known better: from a Cabinet Minister to a chief executive to political appointees in a Minister’s office. They should have known better. It is a disgrace that this young lady’s name is being raised so often in this House today. It is good at least to have seen a little decency on the part of a couple of Ministers—which, I have to say, is not being matched by members in the House at the moment—who acknowledged that she did nothing wrong.

I want to reflect on the number of people whom I have employed over time. Never did I need to know whom they voted for. Never did I need to know their political sympathies. Never did I need to know with whom they were in a relationship. What has happened in New Zealand that a young woman who applied for and was appointed to a job—as was her right—has to lose that job because people were concerned about whom she was in a relationship with? People were concerned about any political or other views that she might have. Is there anything more rotten in a democracy than that?

I believe that a number of people need to reflect very, very carefully on their role in this matter, and that goes as far as “Dr 2.5 percent Prebble”. The point has been made in the House, and it must be made again, that in an environment where the Government has politicised the Public Service in New Zealand, and has worked very, very hard to make the Public Service an extension of the political party, it will be very, very difficult for members on this side of the House to have confidence in those in whom trust was placed to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen.

Today a very concerned group of Tūhoe people came to Parliament to express their anger at what had happened to them back on 15 October, when their homes and community were blockaded by black-garbed anti-terrorist police who were heavily armed and wearing balaclavas. People were forced out of their cars, treated as criminals, and photographed beside cards, in violation of our law. Today, on the steps of Parliament, I and other MPs from different parties have listened to their anger. My message when I spoke to them today, and it is the same as my message to the Government and to all New Zealanders, is that there has to be a better way—a way of respecting all communities, a way of bringing them together and not acting as if a whole community were made up of terrorists.

We have to recognise the hurt of the Tūhoe people, and recognise that they have longstanding grievances, some dating back to the confiscations of the 19th century. We have to address these issues and we also have to use the good community policing processes that we have built up over the last few years. If the police felt that something was going wrong, why did they not turn to their iwi liaison officers? Why were those officers sidelined in favour of a massive surveillance operation for over a year, which intercepted the communications of a large chunk of the community and of thousands of New Zealanders around the country?

It is almost as if the police wanted there to be some sort of terrorist plot. Of course, when a huge anti-terrorist capability is developed in the police force, there is a certain institutional pressure for the police to want to use it on some people in this country. They forgot their essential crime prevention mission, which is just as important as crime detection and prosecution. They could have brought iwi liaison officers into play much earlier if they thought that people were going off-track. But those iwi liaison officers were ignored and sidelined completely on 15 October by the “shock and awe” operation of the terrorist squad.

In the same sensationalist vein, the Dominion Post today carried lurid details, supposedly from the police case. It stated that publication was in the public interest. It is in the public interest long term for New Zealanders to know what happened and to get some of the factual background, but that is best disclosed in a public inquiry after the court cases that will proceed shortly on arms charges. The Dominion Post has prejudiced—possibly fatally prejudiced—those cases. They may have to be aborted altogether. We should wait for a proper public inquiry that can do three main things: firstly, bring out the factual situation and put it in context, with input not only from the police but from others in the community and others affected; secondly, cover policing—cover what was done right and what was done wrong in the police operation, and find out what we can learn from it and how we can improve it, in terms of building community relations and better crime detection and solution—and, thirdly, I think as part of that, reinforce the role of community liaison officers, such as iwi liaison officers, and perhaps develop another category of liaison officer called a political liaison officer.

Plenty of people—and I include myself in this—know some of those who were arrested. There are a lot of wise heads in the political community of people active in social change issues, environmental issues, and the like, who would have jumped at the chance to bring their wisdom to bear if they had been alerted to anything going wrong. That perhaps can be an outcome of all of this.

We should do the listening. That is what the Law Commission will do now that the Terrorism Suppression Act has been referred to it. We perhaps need to listen to the people we did not listen to when the Act was passed in 2002: all those groups that said that it was a politically biased Act that could affect them as political activists. We should consider whether their claims about the Act, and about the recent Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, mean that we should go back to the Crimes Act and get away from these political offences, and we should deal with serious criminality through that Act. We should also not go down the track of just increasing surveillance; there are better ways.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The one thing that we would probably find some common ground on is that we do enjoy a great country. It is a place of privilege and, in comparison with many other countries, it is certainly a safe place. There has been a lot of debate over the last couple of days on some activities that have been conducted, but can I say this: violence of any kind in any of our communities should not be tolerated. There is a place in New Zealand, as a safe society, for peaceful protest, and we as parliamentarians know the importance and the heritage of that. But when violent activities of any kind happen, whether in the home or in our communities, we as parliamentarians are forced to show some kind of leadership as to where a way forward might be.

We are all experts in hindsight. We all can say how things could have been done better. Certainly on the issues raised by Mr Locke, I am absolutely sure that in terms of the activities conducted in Rūātoki, there will be some reflection as to what could have been done better. That is a responsible message that should be heard near and far, and it is something that should be picked up on. If the day ever comes in New Zealand—and certainly in this Parliament—where people are actively supporting tension and continued tension for a negative outcome, then we should caution ourselves, because that is not the kind of New Zealand that I want to be a part of.

Constructive engagement in this area would want to see Tūhoe actively engaging in ways that mean they can continue to reach their aspirations. That means carrying on with the Treaty settlement process. That means constructive engagement from here on in with the iwi liaison officers in their areas in order to give life to their memorandum of understanding with the police. That will also ensure continued engagement of all services with those people to ensure that no opportunity is missed by them or their children.

But let us look at the context of this debate. I think my colleague David Cunliffe really hit home what this debate is about. It is not about political pot-shots, although the Opposition would like it to be. It is about understanding what differentiates us and what we value as a Government in the role we have as responsible leaders in this country. It is about ensuring that we have a really good health system; that we have a really good education system that delivers to all our kids; that we will look after our environment; that we have a strong economy; that the social well-being we invest in continues to see opportunities for all our kids; and that we support young people, families with children, and also our kaumātua—our old people.

In particular I want to talk about the strategies that the Labour-led Government is taking to support kaumātua. As members know, in 2001 we launched the Positive Ageing Strategy. What did that say? It said that we wanted to ensure that in Aotearoa New Zealand our kaumātua can age positively, that they continue to be valued in our communities and in our society, and that we will work alongside communities to ensure that kaumātua well-being can be achieved. There is a lot that can be said about this area, and I really want to highlight some points.

Members know that in this term, as part of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, we have increased the floor for New Zealand superannuation to no less than 66 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly wage for a married couple. That is fantastic, and it is significant for a number of our kaumātua. We have also increased the appropriate income thresholds to ensure that all kaumātua and veteran pensioners who receive the disability allowance and/or the community services card remain eligible following the 1 April 2007 adjustment.

Also, in July last year we removed the sharing expenses rule. In the past that rule meant that some single superannuitants were prevented from getting the living alone payment if their families were helping to pay some of their household expenses, such as contributing to the power bill or something like that. We have also ensured that the rates rebate scheme, where people can claim a rebate of up to a maximum of $500, travels through to far more people. In fact, 300,000 people will be eligible this year, as opposed to the old scheme under which only about 4,000 people were getting rates rebates.

We abolished the mandatory requirement for age-based driving tests for people aged 89 years and over, not to mention the gains referred to by the Minister of Health—extra hip and knee operations, and more cataract operations. All this contributes to positive ageing for kaumātua, and all these gains continue to support their well-being. Those are the gains under a Labour-led Government that cares about kaumātua well-being.

It is a sad day indeed for the New Zealand Parliament when one Opposition member after another has to rise and raise the issue of the employment by a Government department of a person who has no political aspirations, to the best of my knowledge, and who is totally neutral in regard to her political involvement. We have to rise in defence of the process that should be in place and that has been in place for a long time. But it is even worse when we are doing that with a Labour Government in power.

Labour campaigned up and down the country prior to the 1999 election about how it would put in place law that protected the employment of individuals. The very foundations the Labour Party is built on are around protecting and looking after those who serve the public and who work in the public sector.

I do not want to canvass everything that my senior colleagues have already canvassed, but we saw today in the select committee a senior bureaucrat, a senior public servant with over 30 years’ experience in the Public Service, skipping and jumping across the top of pinheads because of the intimidation that has seeped through this Government—intimidation that has now been placed on public servants in this country. The only place we can look to blame for that is right at the head of the Government. We can go right to the top, to the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the senior Ministers involved in the process.

We have a woman, Madeleine Setchell, who was headhunted—we found out today—for a position. She declared her involvement with, or link to, the National Party—tenuous though it is. We should look at the facts around that link. Her partner is a former New Zealand Herald reporter who came to work for the National Party. I do not have a clue what his politics are, but I would suggest to members that prior to his appointment to that position he probably favoured the Labour Party. I would not mind putting money on it that he has probably voted for Labour at least once, twice, or three times in his life, until he saw the light and changed sides.

He came to work for the National Party. He has no influence over what his partner’s politics might be, and I defy members in this House to stand up and, hand on heart, tell us today that they all know exactly which way their partners have always voted, right from the time they first voted.

💬 Jill Pettis: Shane, you’ve been sniffing those tractor fumes too much.

I would ask the members interjecting from the other side of the House whether it is right that a Government department goes out and headhunts somebody, employs that person, and then that person is down the road because the Minister says that he or she cannot work with that person and to get rid of that person and send him or her off. I ask whether that is right.

You see, it goes right to the heart of democracy. If we have a Government department that cannot give its Ministers information or advice without fear or favour, then we have corruption. I have visited Nigeria, along with a recently promoted Minister in the Labour Government. I tell members to look at what happens there. Because there is such a high level of Government control or fear in that country, there is corruption.

I say to Government members opposite that they should be ashamed of what has been reported today in the Hunn report. They should take immediate action to make sure that something similar to this incident never happens again.

Let us look at some of the facts. Madeleine Setchell lost her job, so she applied for another job, with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. We would imagine that that would be a sensible thing to do, given that she was headhunted initially. That is where she thought her best career opportunity lay. But Minister Anderton stepped in. He is not a member of the Labour Party—we all know that—but he has certainly had a long history with the Labour Government. He has been a member of the Labour Government, and he has certainly been someone who has campaigned up and down the country to protect workers from the evil excesses of those to the right of centre.

The report states that Mr Anderton told his chief executive that he did not think Ms Setchell was suitable for the job. I say that that it is wrong and that the Government is rotten to the core.

Kia ora, talofa lava, warm Pacific greetings to you all. I have my hand on my heart, because I am so honoured and humbled to be appointed as Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. This provides me with a great opportunity to build on the huge economic and social gains made by our Pacific people under this Labour-led Government. The Pacific community has been asking for a Pacific Island Minister, so it is a huge privilege for me to be appointed as the first Pacific Island woman Minister and Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, and this could happen only under a Labour Government.

Our party has a strong history of advocating for Pacific people. It was Norman Kirk’s Labour Government that acknowledged, by establishing our ministry, the value that Pacific people were adding to New Zealand through economic, social, cultural, spiritual, and sporting contributions.

Under our Government, Pacific people have made real gains. Helen Clark has provided strong leadership and the Labour-led Government has developed and implemented a wide range of sound policies. We have turned round the hurt, the damage, and the misery of the previous decade of neglect under National when our people suffered the most. The economist Carl Davidson commented that the policies of the 1990s under National destroyed and eroded Pacific people’s self-confidence. They suffered terribly under the harsh economic and social policies that impacted on the ground.

However, under Labour, hand on heart, unemployment has halved. Figures released last week showed that our Pacific unemployment has dropped down from 14.9 percent in 1999 to 5.5 percent in 2007, and that is great news. Working for Families is also increasing the incomes of thousands of our families. People only have to visit many of our people on the ground to see a lovely positive spirit that is happening. Of course, there is KiwiSaver, and we have learnt a lot from our elders about how it is important to put money away, to save for one’s future, to save to buy one’s first home, but also for retirement. As for health: yes, it is much cheaper to go to the doctor. That is important for our families but more important for our children. The other additional support that we have offered—because we have a younger population, and it is important that investment goes into our children—is the 20 hours’ free early childhood education that is saving $4,500 per year, per child, for each of our families.

I will give members a bit of a human story. Yesterday I went to Cannons Creek School with the wife of the President of Uruguay. That is a low-decile—decile 1—primary school in my Mana electorate, in Porirua. Approximately 90 percent of the students are Pacific children, and they are benefiting enormously from the Labour-led Government’s programmes. There is big investment in literacy and numeracy, there is the Fruit in Schools programme, and there is the linking up of parents and caregivers with the teachers and the children so they can be supported to help their children. The reading programmes at schools have been enhanced, and it is lovely to see the Computers in Homes programme that our Government is supporting. The children have created a beautiful website and a DVD from Patricia Grace’s story about children in Cannons Creek School. Those are all fabulous examples of seeing our children walk with pride, determined to learn, and determined to be amongst the global leaders of the future.

Our Pasifika education plan is also showing that our children are starting to do much better in terms of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, and they are participating much more in tertiary education. In Modern Apprenticeships Pacific people are only 3 percent, but we are working to up that number. I get a good, positive feel from our people on the ground. It is also important for Pacific young people that we have wiped the interest on student loans so they can be encouraged to go on to tertiary education, to study, and to be part of our Government’s determination to absolutely transform us and of its commitment to the global economy.

I am also excited because this week, in fact on Monday night, the Hon Mahara Okeroa went to the celebrations honouring New Zealand’s Pasifika artists at the Arts Pasifika Awards. It was fabulous to see our Labour-led Government putting investment in the arts, because it is important for our children and young people. I will read out the names of the winners: Justine Simei-Barton, Dr Okusitino Mahina, Nina Nawalowalo, Sale Pepe, Sani Muliaumaseali’i, and the WakaUra Cultural Dance Company. They represented film makers, actors, opera singers, painters, and artists. I am very excited about this Labour-led Government and am proud to be part of the Labour team.

Yesterday, in a debate in the House, Jeanette Fitzsimons employed an interesting term. I think she talked about a “phoney debate” to describe the misinformation and political point-scoring that has been dominating the political landscape at present in regard to parliamentary and election funding legislation. I suspect that the 17 percent of New Zealanders who live with a disability would rather that we spent the same amount of passion, the same amount of energy, and the same amount of time prioritising and focusing on their ongoing and unmet need to enjoy inclusion.

In New Zealand we have a first-class strategy document, which means that we cannot hide behind the excuse that we do not know what needs doing. We have established a Minister for Disability Issues, which I presume means that we have, at some time in the past, identified the need to put some effort into advocating for this sizeable sector. We have an Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner that provides disabled people with somewhere to register complaints. However, that is only as long as those complaints fit prescribed parameters. We have closed down residential institutions because we now subscribe to a philosophy of support that believes disabled folk are well able to live a normal life.

We have the theory right, but the fact is that this sector is the only one that is given virtually no say in the services and support it gets. Most of the people in it live a long way from normal lives. As the political momentum builds and picks up speed, and as we start hurtling towards an election, will we be trying to outdo each other with policies to improve the development of a world-class workforce to support those with disabilities? Will the two old parties be trying to outbid each other with promises to improve respite services for parents who are exhausted by the day-to-day care of children with high and complex needs? Will they be competing to see who can come up with the most innovative way to develop more individualised packages of care and funding so that disabled adults can take control of their lives and their own destinies? I seriously doubt it, and this is why: the challenges are complicated and they are often considered to be in the too-hard basket. In New Zealand we talk about celebrating diversity, but we do not seem to include the disabled as a vibrant part of our diverse make-up, and because we do not value their contribution we do not prioritise their inclusion.

Of the 570,300 adults with a disability that Statistics New Zealand tells us about, 209,500 have low support needs, 268,000 have medium support needs, and a whopping 97,700 have high support needs. Sixty percent of adults with disabilities have multiple disabilities. Three-quarters of those with disabilities do not qualify for support under Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provisions, and they look over the fence with justifiable envy at their ACC counterparts due to the measurably better services and support that they receive.

Who is going into the next election championing the need to close this very unfair gap? I want to put up my hand and say United Future is going to do that. So where do we begin? A good suggestion as to where to begin is found in a motto often quoted by the Disabled Persons Assembly about not doing anything to or for disabled people without including them in the decision-making process. Currently we are committed to developing relationships across the sector and to listening, and we are currently on a sharp learning curve. We put up our hands and say we are not experts but we have met, to date, with lots of people who are authentically connected to the issues faced on a daily basis by people in this sector. In our travels to date we have encountered considerable frustration by those who see huge amounts of money wasted on unwanted services while at the same time they experience funding shortages for items that they consider to be absolutely vital.

As we go about on our travels we ask these people what their priority is. It is unsurprising that the answers vary. So at this stage we are not jumping out with some clever policy or platform. We have about a year before we will face an election, and we have that considerable time to make sure that we go into the next election with a policy platform for those who are in this sector, who are voters—17 percent of all New Zealanders, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—and who are just looking out for somebody to be their advocate.

I am pleased to take a call this afternoon in the general debate. It has been very interesting to listen to the National members’ claims during the debate this afternoon. Most of them do not stand up to much scrutiny, at all. We are currently considering the Electoral Finance Bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I have had the opportunity to sit on the select committee a few times while evidence has been heard by it and while it is considering all of the submissions. I have to say, listening to the debate in the House this afternoon, that I have never heard so much bluff and bluster.

I actually wonder what National members will say in the next few weeks when that bill comes back on to the floor of the House. Mr Maurice Williamson held up some campaign pamphlets that the Labour Party put out during the last election campaign, but he omitted to mention any of the campaigning—the tactics and publications—that the National Party engaged in during the last election campaign. Do National members not remember all of those billboards that were plastered around our electorates, or all of those pamphlets that were put into letterboxes as late as 6 o’clock on the night before the election?

By coincidence, I happen to have a National Party candidate’s campaign form here in front of me. It was totally funded from the parliamentary budget—the crest is relatively tiny. I am sure the member Dr Nick Smith’s photo has been airbrushed. In fact, I am absolutely positive the member’s photo has been airbrushed and optically enhanced, one would say, given our knowledge of the member. So the National Party really is continuing to engage in bluff and bluster. There is not a great deal of sincerity to what National members are saying, at all. During the last 8 years, this Labour-led Government has delivered remarkable gains for New Zealanders, and it is very proud of that.

Further evidence of bluff, blunder, and bluster coming from National members is the completely erroneous claim that it is the only party of tax cuts. In fact, Dr Michael Cullen revealed in the House today that research has shown that National has only tampered with tax once in the last 40 years, and the one time it did tamper with tax it actually put up the business tax rate. I have to say National has quite successfully portrayed itself as the party of tax cuts, and some of the media—some of those Tory rags—have gone along with National’s claims and printed the story that it is the party of tax cuts, whereas the reality is that National has voted against every single one of Labour’s tax reduction policies since we have been in Government. National has voted against tax cuts more times than it has ever reduced tax rates. I repeat, National has only ever tampered with tax once, and that was to put up the tax rate.

The facts are now out there: National is the party of tax increases; Labour is the party of tax reductions. During just this term of Government there have been three significant tax reductions by Labour, and National has voted against them every single time. So the claim by National members that their party is the party of tax cuts does not hold water, at all. Also, more recently, National has been caught out on the hoof through that vocal person who is its health spokesperson, Mr Ryall. He was caught out when a very sharp journalist showed that National would increase the cost of going to a doctor.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Last Thursday Dr David Collins, the Solicitor-General, brought to an end the most bizarre act of political theatre this nation has seen since July 1984, when Rob Muldoon famously called a snap election after a late-night drinking session. However, Dr Collins was stone-cold sober as he announced: “I am unable to authorise any prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.” In that one sentence, Dr Collins brought an end to a sequence of events that had been unfolding in Aotearoa over a lifespan of 18 months. It was a sequence of events that, amongst other never-to-be-forgotten moments, included detaining people without charge for many hours, including young children; taking people into custody at gunpoint; herding people into a shed and keeping them under guard for several hours; children hungry and crying, and a girl as young as 15 being subjected to an intimate body search; searching and photographing innocent citizens while they were stopped at roadblocks; smashing into homes; and so it goes on.

For the Tūhoe nation Black Monday will be forever etched in their memory as the day that police sought to blockade and lock down an entire community for the arrest of two people. The principal person whom they targeted lives in Whakatāne, and the police knew that—they had 18 months’ worth of evidence. On this day our armed police moved en masse into the peaceful valley of Rūātoki, dressed in armed garb and masked. The fact that the late Sir John Turei, a significant kaumātua of Tūhoe, was Howard Broad’s adviser counted for nothing when Howard Broad sent his police storming into this community. Police iwi liaison officers, who do a great job and are trusted by our people, were not even considered. My colleagues have sat with these people and heard their stories, and we will not forget. We will not forget the story of children being separated for 4 to 5 hours from their mother, who was barricaded in another room. We will not forget the story of a young mother who was forcibly spread-eagled on the ground while her two teenaged daughters watched on. Clad only in bare nightwear, they were motioned out on to the road and made to put their hands above their heads.

Many New Zealanders watching Native Affairs on the telly on Sunday nights would have heard the Minister of Police describe the people of Tūhoe as “collateral damage”—collateral, subordinate, secondary, or additional. That is the language of death, and these concepts are more commonly used to describe the aftermath of bombings in Iraq, the costs of war against innocent civilians, or damage that has occurred as a result of these actions. Was there compassion, understanding, or respect for the people of Tūhoe? No way. Tūhoe is the casualty that even the Commissioner of Police acknowledges it will take decades to heal and to repair.

The atrocities that have occurred in the midst of our communities under the name of anti-terrorism have brought out the worst prejudice, fear, and political name-calling that this House has witnessed for some time. There are some people in this House who should remember their own history before they start putting labels on others. Perhaps one of the most shocking performances last week was the abuse that was laid into the Anglican Church, which was accused of “bleating on” and of “using divisive, victim-mentality thinking” for daring to call for a review or repeal of the anti-terrorism legislation.

What we have seen in this last month is a division into power and powerlessness—a sense of false righteousness used to intimidate and cast doubt on those who dare to challenge the terror raids. But the question we are left with is, who will hold Parliament to account for faulty, flawed legislation? Who will hold the New Zealand Police and Police Commissioner Broad to account for an overly heavy all-powerful assault on the people of Tūhoe? There has never been any doubt that if laws have been broken, crimes committed, or regulations breached, then the individual parties must be answerable to the law of the land and to the police, with their 18 months of evidence, some of which we have seen in the Dominion Post this morning, that has been selectively chosen in the so-called interest of the public. But those upholding the law must never be above the law, and that is why the Māori Party has called for Howard Broad to do the honourable thing and resign. Perhaps he must also be part of the collateral damage of Operation Eight. Kia ora.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.