General Debate

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. On a different note, one of my great loves is to go back home to Ngāti Kahungunu and the people on the marae, and to listen, learn, and reconnect. All our marae have histories and legacies that can assist us in understanding our world. I think particularly at this time of Rongomaraeroa, and its dining room, Te Uaua Tamariki—literally, the Sinews of Youth. This name came from a great feast, kaihaukai, hosted by our tipuna Te Whatuiāpiti and his eldest son, Te Rangiwāwāhia. But like so many of our names, it represents another meaning. It honours the effort, the sinews, of the younger people of Ngāti Kere, who fundraised, who refurbished the marae, and who made it happen. The name recognises the hope that young and old, like Te Whatuiāpiti and Te Rangiwāwāhia, can work together. And this is the ambition I hold for our nation.

It is an expression of hope that I have returned to, in sharp contrast to the otherwise grim anger and despair that have played out across our screens over these fledgling weeks of the New Year. We have had talkback radio erupting with the rage of New Zealanders about tagging and taggers, a rage so violent that one would almost assume that the brutal death of a young tagger in Manurewa was being minimised—accepted as his fate. In the same period, we have witnessed an elderly couple—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but would members having conversations—unless they are directly related to their portfolio areas—please take them outside, and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the Chamber.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to Mr Sharples for interrupting his speech further, and in no way, Mr Assistant Speaker, do I dispute your ruling in respect of people, their seating positions, and the conversations they may be having. But it is also important that we have a line of consistency here. During the speech made by the Hon Bill English during the general debate, several Labour members moved from their seats to positions of advantage, and barracked during the entire speech that Mr English gave. Mr Assistant Speaker, no action was taken by you to rein in that barracking, and I would ask for some consistency to be applied to both sides of the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Power. Both sides were engaged in barracking, and the issue raised by me was not to do with barracking; it was to do with general conversation. There is a difference.

I was referring to talkback radio erupting with the rage of New Zealanders against taggers and tagging, and that it was almost assumed that the brutal death of the young tagger in Manurewa was being minimised—accepted as his fate. In the same period, we witnessed an elderly couple randomly attacked in their home by a man armed with an axe and a knife.

We have had a Cabinet Minister describe Waitangi Day as being a recruitment drive for gangs, and referred to what he calls the “ongoing degeneration in the behaviour and conduct” of young Māori men doing the haka as “making growling noises like underfed mutts”. While these comments were being aired, other media outlets were seeking conflict as the theme for Waitangi Day in 2008—the fascination with Tame Iti and with whether the Prime Minister would go on to Te Tii, and the astonishment that there could be peace at Waitangi. Well, contrary to some speculation, Waitangi Day has always been an opportunity for peaceful reflections around Te Tiriti o Waitangi, for collective spirit and commitment to our nation’s good, and for challenges, whether they be in protest or in the addresses presented in the church services of this festival.

I could go on, but it gets depressing. The point is that if one is searching for conflict and fury, sooner or later an issue will come bubbling to the surface. But just when we thought Operation Eight and the terror raids against Tūhoe were a bad memory, more arrests in Rūātoki and Maketū have taken place. As Tāmati Kruger, the chairperson of Te Kotahi ā Tūhoe Trust, remarked, these arrests felt like further persecution of Tūhoe.

This weekend at Ōpōtiki the Mātaatua kapahaka regional competitions were held, and I am informed there were 18 teams with over 700 adult performers. And every group had chosen in their compositions to deal with the terror raids from their viewpoint. This shows the effect that those events have had on the people of Mātaatua waka. So what will be the legacy from this period of time for the mokopuna of Mātaatua?

Last November the Marae DigiPoll of 1,003 Māori voters described how Māori perceived the impact of Operation Eight. The poll revealed that 68 percent of Māori surveyed saw the armed raids in te ao o te Urewera as unnecessary overreaction, 52 percent of Māori polled saw the raids as having negative consequences for race relations, and 55 percent of Māori surveyed agreed that the police had acted in a way that has terrorised Māori communities.

In the midst of this darkness I do, however, hold perpetual faith that it is the very nature of our people and our traditions that we can stand strong as we face our future. For what our histories also show is how uniquely Māori responses developed across Aotearoa in resistance to the actions. In Kahungunu, at home, when the police commissioner came to visit and talk about these things, the elders all wore black balaclavas as they sat on the paepae to greet him. Other iwi made their way to Tūhoe to show support, others lodged complaints with the Human Rights Commission, the Police Complaints Authority, and so on, and others had peace vigils.

What do we know this week about the National Party’s economic policies that we did not know last week? We have found out that they do not have any principle. National Party members’ policy is to say just whatever they think their audience wants to hear.

Last week John Key went to Southland, and what did he have for the people of Southland? He had a $200 million subsidy, in the form of a suspensory loan, to form a commercial meat export company. This is the most cynical form of naive, pork-barrel politics we could ever imagine. It is a return to the worst excesses of Muldoonism. The meat companies never even asked for the loan. The subsidy is supposed to help them create a megamerger company for the export of meat. The megamerger might well be a good idea. We will have to see. But the meat companies have to produce a business case for it. If John Key has seen the business case I would be surprised, because I know that it has not been formed yet, but when it is we will see it. It might well need assistance from the Government, through legislative changes, for example, but it will not need a cash handout; nor should it get one. It will not need us taking away money from schools, hospitals, or the police and giving it to the most important foundations of our economy.

If we have to subsidise the primary industries’ system in New Zealand, we are in big trouble, because that is where 65 percent of our export earnings come from. What would happen if we go back to subsidising agriculture? We would take an immediate hit in our major markets around the world. Retaliatory tariffs would be imposed before the sun came up. Our trade negotiations would be laughed out of every forum around the world. But the long-term effects are even worse than that. Farmers would get the message that they do not have to adapt to market conditions, and they do not have to build successful, creative, or innovative businesses. If they want cash they can just invite John Key and Bill English down to the paddock for a romp.

What does this policy tell us about National’s vision for New Zealand’s economic development? It tells us it does not have any. National has no ideas about the way to make New Zealand more innovative. It has no ideas about the way to make our businesses more competitive globally. National has no ideas at all about the way to improve our international connections, but it has a fair idea about the way to destroy them. It has no ideas about what agribusinesses actually need. It can put up taxes on average New Zealand families to pay for cash handouts to export businesses that can succeed without them. But that is National’s policy.

We know that is National’s policy because National members in this House this week could not even answer a most simple question: under National, would a household with two kids, and on the average wage, get a tax cut of the same size as a family with $100,000 of income? National will not answer that simple question because the answer is no, it will not. Every other party in this House could answer that question, but National will not answer it because the answer is no. There will not be room for tax cuts for “Joanna Average”, because National is taking out any tax cuts in order to return subsidies to the agricultural sector. That was a policy in the 1970s that led to a top marginal tax rate of 66c in the dollar. That is what happens when every part of the economy tries to subsidise every other part.

When National is faced with hard decisions, it cannot be trusted to make the best call for New Zealand’s long-term interests. I watched those backbenchers over there. I watched the face of Mr Groser. How would he ever stand up and answer a question on that with any credibility in any of the forums in the world he used to trot himself around? I wonder whether he was told about this great new subsidy policy. How would he ever hold up his head in the areas in which he has walked before? What about Bill English? The Southland Times said: “When National Party finance spokesman Bill ambled across the paddock, Mr Key quickly told him ‘I’ve just committed you to a suspensory loan.’ ” Did Bill say “Shock, horror! What have you done?”. Mr English replied “As long as it’s under $200 million I don’t mind.” Oh well, so much for Bill English’s financial credibility.

National has no fiscal credibility. Its members have the credibility of a sailor in a saloon. They are completely cynical. They are far too inexperienced for Government office. The official National Party policy is now to bring back Rob Muldoon’s “family benefits for sheep”. That is it. They have had 9 years to think of a policy, and that is the one they have come up with. I cannot believe it. I always knew that John Key was a flake, but I did not know he was an absolutely ridiculous, stupid flake and that he would go to Bill English’s electorate and tell the people there, with Bill beside him, that they are going to give them a $200 million bribe. How many electorates are there in the country? Sixty-nine or so, by the time of the next election. So we have had one, which has cost $200 million, and there are only 68 to go. I am going to count, as National goes through each electorate, to see how much this is going to cost New Zealand.

Would Lianne Dalziel please put a blanket over that member’s knees, in case he catches a chill. That was the most pathetic little speech I have heard from the failed man who does not deserve to be in this House.

Let us talk about credibility. Seven years ago that Government was told to start a national standardised reporting system for serious fatal errors in the New Zealand public health system. It did nothing. In the meantime people have died and services have not improved, because this Government has done nothing. What has been released today goes to the heart of Helen Clark’s credibility. She is the Prime Minister who orchestrated the health system in our country today, and it is the health system that is failing New Zealander after New Zealander.

What a patronising, pompous response that was today from the caretaker Minister of Health. Did members hear it? Let us just go through the nonsense that he said. First of all, he said “We compare well internationally.” But his own officials told a press conference and a select committee today “You can’t compare the information.” Then he said “It’s only a few people per 10,000.” But he did not know what his officials at the press conference said earlier today. Dr Mary Seddon said, “Well, actually, we don’t count everything. We’re not telling you some of the sentinel events because they are confidential.”, and “Our hospital cannot pull the information out of the system.” That is what she said. So the Government has tabled the information that it did not want to table. The only reason that information is being made available is that the Ombudsman has forced the Government to provide it. The Ombudsman has forced the Government to provide that information.

And that information is shocking; that information is frightening. I think New Zealanders will be shocked when they see some of the mistakes that have happened: the patient whose skull was opened on the wrong side after the wrong patient’s CT scans were sent to the referring hospital; the brain tissue sample that went to the wrong laboratory department, requiring the patient to undergo a second brain operation to get a sample; the kid who was administered the wrong drug and whose mother was ignored; or the rest home patient who developed a clot on the brain and died in her bed 3 hours later, after neurological observations were ordered but not carried out. There is a litany of these stories.

We should not blame and shame. That information should have been out much earlier, on a consistent, standardised reporting basis, so the public could be assured the Government had done something. But instead we have only the tip of the iceberg. Even the Government’s closest advisers say that not everything has been reported. One of the advisers said that her hospital is not even able to get that information in order to be reported. That is how bad the health system has become. I agree with the Dominion Post headline “What is going on in our hospitals?”. What is going on in our public hospitals, when over $5 billion a year extra has been put into the health system but Ron Paterson says that our hospitals are unacceptably unsafe? Is that what Helen Clark promised in 1999? Is that what Labour is about—that people who use public hospitals have to use them when they are unacceptably unsafe? Is that what Labour stands for?

💬 Hon Members: Yes.

Yes, that is what Labour stands for. What would Michael Joseph Savage think? A public health service, run under a Labour Government, is described by a Labour-appointed Health and Disability Commissioner as being unacceptably unsafe. That is what is happening to our public hospitals. Seven years ago that failed Government opposite was told that if it brought in a national standardised reporting system it would save lives. That has happened in Australia, and it has saved lives. But this Government just ignores it, and it will carry the consequences in November.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member, I ask the members on my right to please look at Speakers’ rulings 57/3 and 58/4.

What a hugely ironic speech, demanding high-quality public health services, from the member Tony Ryall who was part of a Cabinet that charged people to go into every public hospital in New Zealand. We did not call them public hospitals in the bad old days of the 1990s; we called them Crown health enterprises. Nobody will ever forgive National for that, and nobody will forget that Tony Ryall sat at the table in a Cabinet that said that every patient who goes into a public hospital in New Zealand should get a bill. That is what he said. Mind you, given Judith Collins’ version today of National’s social welfare policy, I am not at all sure how beneficiaries would be able to pay their bills to go into the public hospital if they had no money, because she certainly would not be giving them any advances on their benefit.

My colleague Jim Anderton referred earlier on to John Key as a flake. Well, I have read a lot of John Key’s statements and I think that Jim Anderton was really underestimating John Key. I think he is a whole snowstorm all on his own, frankly. He has the most amazing ability to say just whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear and then, on the same day and sometimes in the same hour, say completely the opposite to a different audience. He must think that we do not get the papers. He must think that nobody reads the Southland Times. Lesley Soper reads the Southland Times. She makes sure that we know what is in the Southland Times, and we know what John Key said to the Southland Times, which was that he would give a $200 million interest-free subsidy to the meat industry in Southland. It is just extraordinary.

But if that is not bad enough, he then comes into this House and demands accountability. He demands that everyone tells the truth and that everyone sticks to their policy. He rants and raves about tax cuts and about improving opportunities for New Zealanders, and he weeps crocodile tears about the number of people who are moving over to Australia. He says that we should pay people better, but then he says—and I happen to have the very quote here, from John Key on 17 December last year—“We would love to see wages drop.” That is what John Key said. That is an exact quote: “We would love to see wages drop.” How will low and middle income New Zealanders feel when they read that that is the National Party policy, and that its policy is not to cut their taxes, actually, because for 8 years the National Party has voted against every single tax cut for business and for individuals. It voted against the Working for Families package, and it voted against research and development initiatives and tax cuts for business. National voted against them every single time, and for 9 years prior to that, when National was in Government, how many tax cuts did it introduce?

💬 Hon Members: Ah!

OK, I will give members a clue: it was fewer than three. I will give them another clue: it was fewer than two. I will give them another clue: it was fewer than one. The answer is zero—9 years in Government and not one single tax cut from National; 8 years in Opposition, and National voted against every single tax cut made by Labour. There is a word for that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

We are not allowed to use it in the House, so I will not even stray down that path, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I appreciate your guidance. But I will tell members that the public in New Zealand will use that word, and more, to describe the way John Key is tricking them into thinking that they would be better off, because they will not be. They will be better off under Labour because we not only have a commitment to our policies but we also have 8 years’ track record of increasing the minimum wage every single year.

On 1 April this year the minimum wage goes up to $12 an hour. What did the minimum wage increase by for 9 years under National? By how much did it go up? It went up by 87.5c. [Interruption] No, not in a year and not in 2 years, but in a total of 9 years there was less than a dollar’s increase in the minimum wage. It is an outrage to treat our most vulnerable, hard-working citizens in that way for 9 years. It is now at $12.

That Minister and her colleagues are almost at the point of becoming irrelevant to the political debate in New Zealand. I am pleased that the Hon Lianne Dalziel is in the House, because while I was sitting here thinking about the nature of the amendments we will have to make to the Financial Advisers Bill, it struck me that if I were Owen Glenn and I had invested in the Labour Party and ended up with Lesley Soper and Darien Fenton, then I would be making a submission on that bill as to how my investment should reflect some decent advice. It should not be allowed; we should have an exemption clause in that bill to disallow those sorts of investments from occurring, and I know that the Minister is smart enough to agree with me.

One of the things I have been enjoying most about question time over the course of the first couple of weeks of this year has not been the faces on the front bench members of the Labour Government necessarily, but those of the next generation of Labour—the David Cunliffes, the Clayton Cosgroves, and the Shane Joneses, who throughout question time now have their heads down, ignoring what is going on around them and slowly trying to distance themselves from the carnage that is occurring on the front two benches of the Labour Government. But only one person in this House is enjoying it more than National members are, and that is Phil Goff. Phil Goff is sitting across the House and having a ball. He is grinning from ear to ear, knowing that his time is coming.

💬 Jill Pettis: He’s a hated man.

The member has got that right!

One of the things that has disturbed me most over the last couple of days is the issue that revealed itself this morning. A leading gang figure, previously associated with Black Power and now associated with the Headhunters gang, was released from jail after negotiating the return of the stolen war medals. The New Zealand Herald revealed this morning that this gentleman, Daniel Crichton, was granted bail on serious drug charges after acting as a “conduit” for those thieves. The fact that this transaction occurred within the walls of Mt Eden Prison is extraordinary in itself, but the question on the minds of the public today will be whether this individual is any less dangerous to the public today than he was when bail was originally denied.

The interesting thing about the Prime Minister’s response today was that she said it was a matter for the judge who was hearing the bail application. In fact, the police must have changed their position in order for the position relating to bail to have changed so dramatically. The question is this: if this individual had not been involved from within Mt Eden Prison in allowing the return of the medals, would he have got bail in ordinary circumstances? The answer is no. Has his behaviour changed? Has his history changed? Has his propensity to commit further crime changed? Has his risk of flight changed? Those are all matters under consideration at a bail application. Nothing has changed around the risk factors; all that has changed is that this individual has now, “After negotiations with the Crown and the police,” gone on bail.

It was not a matter for the judge. The judge would have listened to the applicant for the bail application—that is, the counsel for the defence—would have listened to the police’s application on the bail, and would have made a decision there. The New Zealand Herald reports today “After negotiations with the Crown and police, Crichton was released on bail”, in a decision that has been described by Amanda Upham, the daughter of Charles Upham, as “disgraceful”. She says: “This deal is becoming more farcical by the day.”

What we found out earlier this afternoon will actually make the matter worse. We knew today at 2.51 p.m., or thereabouts, that Tony Wall from the Sunday Star-Times had filed a story stating: “Crichton said he found out through his contacts who was behind the theft, but would not say how he found out … He said other gang members also found out, and there was something of a clamour to take advantage of the information. ‘Everyone saw it as an opportunity—they”—that is, the gangs—“are opportunists like everyone else, they will have a go. Everyone tried to grab them.’ ” Under Labour, this is what our justice system has been reduced to.

There are clear lines of division down this House, and none can be clearer than the division between the National Party and the Labour Party on wages, incomes, and protecting workers’ jobs. Every so often we get a flash of honesty from the National Party leader, John Key. Recently he was in Auckland and said to a business group “You can ignore quite often what I say publicly. Trust me, when I become Prime Minister I will be a traditional National Party Prime Minister.” Putting aside, for example, his dreams and ambitions, it does show something of the man himself and what he says. It shows an underlying amount of duplicity.

We can look at another very interesting and revealing quote from the man, on 17 December: “We would love to see wages drop.” This demonstrates the National Party’s attitude to wages and incomes as being a cost to business. It is not a matter of how much people need to sustain themselves or look after themselves and their families, to pay for bread, to put meat in the fridge, and to look after those things; it is a cost to business. It is also reflective of the National Party’s view about trickle-down and supply-side economics.

National Party members have traditionally argued that if we give money to the wealthy and look after them, then they will invest the money, and from the investments jobs will flow, and so on. That is the trickle-down theory, which was characterised by the great economist J K Galbraith as something akin to giving the horse the finest bundle of hay, and when the horse is finished with it the birds can feed. That is the National Party’s attitude towards workers. Labour has a different view. We believe that if we look after ordinary working people, then they will strengthen their families and do much better.

Again, another very clear line between National and Labour is that during the 1990s the National Party held down the minimum wage. As Ruth Dyson said, it increased by 89c over 9 or 10 years. It went up something like 10c a year. During that period, with the Employment Contracts Act and all the rest that was done, wages in New Zealand fell dramatically behind wages in Australia. A 50 percent gap opened up. In that time, in 1990, the National Party went around New Zealand assuring New Zealanders that it would protect their wages. The National Party even wrote letters telling people it would look after their penalty rates. What happened? Their letterboxes were stuffed with these letters, and penalty rates went, wages were slashed, conditions were slashed, and New Zealand went downwards in a terrible spiral. The wage gap between New Zealand and Australia rose.

That is what the National Party did when it promised to look after workers and their wages. Now we have a National Party leader saying “We would love to see wages drop.” I have to say that workers in New Zealand should be afraid—very, very, afraid. What will be the first line of attack? The Employment Relations Act will go. The National Party will bring back the Employment Contracts Act on steroids. If this happens, the National Party will do what it did in the past. It will hold the minimum wage, and the regular increases in the minimum wage under Labour will go. Workers can look forward to no more increases in holidays. Remember that the Labour Party increased annual leave from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. The National Party has promised to put the fourth week of annual leave up to be negotiable. We know what that means; it will be negotiated away and workers will be back to 3 weeks’ annual leave.

Under National, the apprenticeship system was scrapped. Our young people had no hope or opportunity of learning skills and getting a career. Labour brought the apprenticeship system back, and we got young people gaining skills and a career for themselves. Labour achieved paid parental leave. National voted against it all the way. Labour brought in KiwiSaver to help people save for their superannuation or homeownership. National voted against it all the way.

As we can see, there is a clear line of difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. The Labour Party understands very clearly, by way of making interventions in the market, supporting contract negotiations, and supporting people who work for a living. Labour is helping New Zealand families, and we have reinforced that with family support.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: They’re going to Australia.

The member talks about people going to Australia. I have suddenly developed a theory about this. Maybe a number of people are going to Australia because they realise that the National Party just might get in—but I doubt it—and that if National said in 1990 that it would look after wages and conditions and it is now promising to cut their pay, it will be a tough life. Workers need to believe that, and believe it very clearly. It is very scary for New Zealanders to be confronted by the leader of the National Party saying “We would love to see wages drop.” That is what he said, and I believe him.

Today, 20 February, is something of a “Green letter day”, because today, finally, after 8 years of our requesting the information, the Government has begun to release some of the documentation about adverse events in hospitals in New Zealand. For 8 years the Green Party—year after year, like a broken record—has been calling for consistent public documentation of how many adverse events are taking place in our hospitals. Finally, we have begun to see some of the data.

The data is chilling; it is horrifying. But apart from the horrifying reading that all of the documentation provides, it also shows that, sadly, the entire system of adverse events reporting in New Zealand is still a complete shambles, with different district health boards using different systems, definitions, and reporting. Some choose not to bother to report adverse events at all; Tairāwhiti District Health Board, for example, did not bother. The entire system is voluntary. It is up to district health boards to decide what to report—or whether to bother. Then we have the huge discrepancies. Capital and Coast District Health Board ambled into the Health Committee today. It officially released information about its serious and sentinel events—that is, official information—then we learnt that completely different statistics on those same events were released today by the same district health board. Whom on earth do we trust?

Through the Green Party’s raising of this issue in the Health Committee we have written to the Minister of Health, but Minister after Minister has refused to divulge the statistics. We asked for every district health board, as part of its annual report, to show its statistics on how many adverse events there had been. Here we are, 8 years later, and despite the documentation released today we still do not know even basic information: how many medication errors there have been, the infection rates, and how many surgical deaths occurred in our hospitals last year. In the House today the Minister refused to answer a simple question and divulge how many people died last year as a result of a district health board failing to take some action or taking some action. How many deaths were there? How many people were permanently disabled as a result of a medical error or an adverse event? The Minister refused to answer those questions. He is trying to fudge. The statistics talk about different things; one lot talks about preventable deaths, and another lot talks about different forms. The Minister pretended he did not know the answer. We know that the Minister knows only too well and does not want to tell New Zealanders the truth.

These statistics are simply the tip of the iceberg. They do not even include simple things like data on hospital-acquired infections, even though adverse events ordinarily include them. We simply have no idea of how many people are suffering, for example, from hospital-acquired infections in New Zealand hospitals. Last year the Health Committee was assured by Capital and Coast District Health Board that it had a policy of open disclosure in reporting adverse events. But then we discovered that at the same time that it was telling us that, it had been locked in a 2-year battle with the Dominion Post over its refusal to disclose its adverse events—its deaths and serious disabilities. It was only the intervention of the Ombudsman that made that board—forced it to, kicking and screaming—reveal its figures.

I believe that the only reason we have these reports today, inadequate though they are, is that district health boards have been forced, and the Minister of Health and the Government have been forced, kicking and screaming, to divulge these statistics, even though Minister after Minister, for 8 long years, has refused until now to divulge them. We know that every single adverse event costs about $10,200, yet every district health board that reports to the Health Committee has refused to answer the question of how much adverse events cost it. Here the boards say: “We don’t collect this data.”—which is all they need to say. Capital and Coast District Health Board told us this morning that it had 1,009 adverse events that included patient harm. If we add up $10,200 for each of those 1,009 events, we find that they cost the board about $10 million a year. But the board is trying to hide that, as well.

Last week the Minister of Health issued a press release that said the Minister was keeping a close eye on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board because he was concerned about several things, including continuing apparent tensions with the present board and its clinicians. I put it to members today that this press release was a total smokescreen to try to redirect the public’s attention away from the mess that this Government has got itself into by mistakenly appointing to the board an outside director who is now the subject of a review about conflicts of interest.

Let us go through the details of this mess. Firstly, the Minister of Health appointed a Wellington-based, independent director to sort out the Hawke’s Bay District Board. The board had apparently bucked the trend by not simply saying “Yes, Minister” on a range of issues important to the district health board. Secondly, following that director’s appointment, that outside director’s company, Healthcare New Zealand, was the recipient of an initial small million-dollar contract with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. The company was made preferred bidder in a multimillion-dollar contract that was subsequently withdrawn. Thirdly, a whistleblower revealed that documents regarding the terms of reference for the contract on the withdrawn bid had been emailed back and forth between various recipients, with accusations that the terms of reference had been changed in an attempt to favour the bidder.

Fourthly, the serious accusations of conflicts of interest are the subject of a review that is currently being conducted by the Ministry of Health. Lastly, there is an underlying matter that necessitates total transparency and the exposure of all relevant details uncovered in this investigation. The husband of the then Minister of Health, who was chief operating officer at the district health board at the time of the Healthcare New Zealand negotiations, is now an employee with that company. So why do I suggest that the accusations of discontent at the district health board between the board and the senior medical staff are a smokescreen?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Why?

Quite simply because it is untrue. Firstly, it implies that the whole board has a breakdown in its relationship with the senior medical staff. That is simply incorrect. By making these accusations, the Minister accuses two board members, who are themselves senior medical staff, both of whom have a pedigree that is hard to beat in New Zealand. David Barry and David Davidson are two board members who, between them, have over 70 years’ experience and service. David Barry set up the paediatric service at the Hawke’s Bay Hospital. He has an international reputation in asthma research. He is a man who is respected by his colleagues, and he has the utmost integrity. David Davidson was the Hawke’s Bay’s first specialist obstetrician. He was a pioneer and is totally respected by all medical professionals in Hawke’s Bay. The board has full faith in him.

The second reason that this is a smokescreen is that the fact is there is no breakdown, no apparent tension, and no discontent between the board and the senior medical staff. I personally rang around a significant number of senior consultants on Sunday evening and spoke to them. My research indicates that there is virtually unanimous support for the board, not ongoing tension. In fact, a number of consultants believe that the relationship they have with the board is one of the best in the country. Once specialist, David Lawson, said: “This is the best board we have had in 15 years. Our department had made huge progress in recent years with waiting lists reduced from 800 to 100.” He said that this was hardly a sign of a malfunctioning board. John Rose, chairman of the senior medical staff, told me that at present there are no issues simmering or ongoing between medical staff and the board. There will be a meeting in which these staff will get together and make sure that the message is clear.

I challenge the health Minister to call a range of senior medical staff—which he has failed to do until now—as I have, to ensure that next time he accuses the board of having a breakdown with senior doctors, he gets his facts right. As my colleague Craig Foss said, these accusations about the relationship between the board and senior medical staff are a pathetic attempt at diverting the public’s attention from the relationship between the Government and the board. So why has Minister Cunliffe done this? In short, he wants to get rid of the board. He wants to drive a wedge between the board and the Hawke’s Bay public by falsely accusing them of a bad relationship with senior medical staff.

Firstly, I would like to take a minute of the House’s time to say a few words about my wonderful colleague Ann Hartley, who will be making her valedictory speech this afternoon. Ann is one of the most encouraging and supportive MPs in this Parliament. She has seen the best and the worst of this House, not least in her role as Assistant Speaker, and I admire her immensely for her courage and her integrity. She is a hard worker. She does the hard yards out in the community, often behind the scenes and without fanfare or ego. She is a woman with great heart and great commitment, and I will miss her sorely.

We have seen an extraordinary event in the National Party—John Key has been caught telling the truth. He has been caught out owning up to his real views on the wages of ordinary working people. He wants to see them drop. National wants to cut their pay. There is a great election slogan: vote for National and vote for a pay cut! John Key has confirmed what we already know. National does not really believe in wages going up for ordinary workers. In fact, those members quite despise workers, and they have no idea what to do about it anyway. John Key says that National will cut taxes and, hey presto, wages will go up. Well, no they will not. He says that National will lift wages by driving economic growth. What the heck does that mean? I want to know how National will make sure that the growth and the wealth that workers help to create is passed on to them in better wages. Are workers supposed to hope that economic growth will somehow trickle down into their pay packets?

To increase wages requires real measures, like those that this Labour-led Government has introduced—and, may I say, National has voted against those all the way through. I refer to such things as the annual increases to the minimum wage—and is it not wonderful that there will be a minimum wage of $12 an hour from 1 April—14 weeks’ paid parental leave, 4 weeks’ annual leave, and fair and decent compensation for working on public holidays. I am talking about such things as strengthening health and safety laws and labour laws, and protecting vulnerable workers in situations of contracting out. That is why the gap between Australian wages and New Zealand wages has stopped sliding under this Government—it is due to active labour market policies, not National’s approach of “anything goes”, “take it or leave it”, and “tough luck if you’re a low-paid worker with little bargaining power”.

National has a shameful record on wages. It slashed Kiwis’ take-home pay in the 1990s, and it made sure that its friends got richer at their expense. The gap between Australian and New Zealand wages grew by 50.4 percent between 1990 and 1999.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: How much?

By 50.4 percent. But real wages grew by just 0.3 percent in 9 years. In 5 out of 9 years wages did not grow at all. That is disgraceful, and that meant misery for the people John Key now pretends he cares about. In many cases, lots of workers, like caregivers—whom I hear him bleating on about—and hospital workers, retail workers, factory workers, and many others were earning less than they were 10 years before. National cut their hourly rates, their weekend rates, their overtime pay, their allowances, their sick leave entitlements, and their annual leave. It meant that the families of those workers struggled to make ends meet, that they had to work two or three jobs, and that they had to work longer, faster, and harder—and one will notice that the National Party is very sensitive about these figures.

National seems to be very firmly committed to the same old low-wage, low-skill, “work until we drop” economic model we had back then. John Key has just confirmed it. Now we know what John Key would like to do about wages, but what about the rest of National’s plan to do over New Zealander workers once again? When will National members come clean about the rest of it—their real agenda? They cannot soft-soap working people forever. Workers are asking questions such as these. When will the 90-day bill be reannounced? When will the minimum wage freeze be announced? When will the sale of annual leave be announced again? When will those members tell the people that they are going to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation? When will those members tell people that they are going to scale back workers’ rights? John Key has been caught telling the truth about wages. It is time for him to tell the truth about the rest of it.

I want to talk for 5 minutes about one of New Zealand’s most fabulous success stories—in particular, the New Zealand dairy industry.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: You were against Fonterra!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: As I say that, I am already hearing jibes coming from the National Party, because those members do not think that Fonterra or any of these outfits in New Zealand are important. Those members think they should be sold off to whoever is prepared to buy them, because those members do not know the history of this industry.

This industry was brought up to what it is today by men and women who understood that each generation would take the previous generation’s work, build on it, and pass it on to the next generation. It was not something that one flogged off or put on the stock market to reap a windfall reward. The people who grew this industry knew what a cooperative structure was. It was people banding together to add value to their farm produce, so that the efforts of many small farmers could be put together to take on the world. People in that industry never ever had a problem raising money, and they do not have a problem raising money today. Everybody in this country should know that.

What they cannot do using just their own money they can and have done through joint ventures and other recognised business models, and they have been hugely successful. In excess of 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports go through that one company today. We know that there are people who do not care about that. We know that there are other people who look at that with envy. We know that there are other people who have had no access to this company who now want access so that they can reap the rewards of something that was not built up by the present generation, nor built up in the last 5 or 15 years, but was built up by farming people for in excess of 100 years. There are people who want to go in there and clip the ticket and strip it. When I say that shares may reach a spike if they are listed on the stock market, and may go from something like $7 per share to something like $30 or $40 per share—admittedly, for a short time—one can see why people are keen to list this company on the stock market.

I want to make sure the average good, hard-working farmer—the likes of whom built this company, and who are still out there today—is heard in this process. Thank heavens those farmers have been heard recently. They have said to the directors, and they have said to the moneymen who are advising on a listing for Fonterra: “Hold on a minute. Not just yet. We want to stop for a cup of tea, we want to have a talk about this, we want to know what you’re doing, we want to know what you’re saying to those investors—not farmers but Queen Street farmers—we want to see what you’re offering them, and we want a fair vote in this company. We want to make sure that all of the issues are on the table.” God bless them! I knew they would understand. I knew they would hold up this reform, if only they were given a chance. My fear was that they would be overruled by a few big operators within the company and by the propaganda of the executive.

I want to compare those people who are running this company today with the people who started it and the people who made it what it is. The people running it today want to flog off 100 years of hard work, but we never ever doubted the intentions of the people who built it up. We may have disagreed with them, we may have had robust arguments, but they were hard people who worked their guts out for the industry, and we never ever doubted their intentions. They wanted the company to succeed for the farmers, not for the international moneymen, and New Zealand First will help them.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.