General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I think that many members of the House will not be aware of the findings of the police, announced this afternoon, in respect of The Hollow Men alleged theft case. People will remember that the National members claimed repeatedly that someone had hacked into their computers, or stolen their emails from former leader Don Brash’s computer. The police have concluded today that this did not occur. The police press release states: “The investigation has concluded that no unauthorised or unlawful breach took place.” That makes absolutely clear that it was an inside job, and I think that if we look at the network—the spider’s web—of who got one email, we will see that it gets it back to English or McCully.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the members’ full names.

It gets back to Mr English or Mr McCully.

💬 Hon Member: The Hon Bill English.

The Hon Bill English—they are all honourable men, are they not?

So which of the hollow men leaked the email? It is particularly important that we find out today, because we know what the hollow men have said about asset sales. John Key was advised, along with Don Brash and Bill English, to inoculate the issue, to get it off to one side, and what did they attempt to do last weekend? Very, very ineptly, they tried to inoculate the issue.

💬 Hon Member: Very slippery.

They were exceptionally slippery in their approach, but that is typical of John Key. They did not rule out a whole pile of other things, such as preparation for sales. They did not rule out the issuing of new shares in State-owned enterprises or their subsidiaries. They did not rule out the dilution of the ownership of State-owned enterprises. What those members have made absolutely clear—and Bill English made it clear in the House yesterday when he turned down the opportunity to have a debate on the sale of the Auckland airport shares—is that they do not like discussions about the hocking off of New Zealand’s assets to their mates and to foreigners. They do not like talking about it.

National members are not prepared to get up in this House and defend their position of wanting to sell New Zealand assets to their mates and to foreigners. Asset sales will be a defining issue at the next election, and the fact is that Bill English was not prepared to have that debate. He could not stand up in this House and defend his position. He knew even more that John Key did not have the ability to defend his position in the House, and for that reason they blocked the debate yesterday.

The other point, of course, is that there is not a position within the National Party on this issue. There is quite a degree of unanimity on a position, but it is another position. It is the one that was espoused by Bill English less than 1 year ago. I ask Bill English how many rats he is prepared to swallow. It is bad enough to have John Key swallowing rats, but how often is he prepared to have his integrity and his principles impugned by his leader? What sort of character is he? We always thought of Bill English as someone who would stand up for principles. We thought he would stand up for the things he believed in. He was a hollow man, but he was at the edge of the hollow men rather than right at the core.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: He leaked the emails.

He might well have leaked the emails to get them out.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: If he didn’t, he definitely knows who did.

I think it is fair to say he is pretty close to the person who leaked those emails. He knows about the leaking of the emails, and it was just one of the—

💬 Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening to this debate particularly in the last 20 or 30 seconds. The member keeps referring to “he”. I think he is bringing you into the debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I do not think the member was doing that. That was a frivolous point of order, which can lead to disorder.

It is a question of using the second and the third person. If the member goes back to school he will work that out. Bill English is the person we are talking about. He is the one we are discussing. He is the one who knows who leaked those emails. He is the one who was close to that person, and he knows he does not have the ability to stand up to John Key when John Key is being more and more hollow all the time.

Nothing illustrates better Labour’s inability to understand what is affecting New Zealanders in their day-to-day lives than its putting up Trevor Mallard to talk that rubbish. He is a man who used to be scary, a man who used to be perceptive, and now he is not.

I observed the Labour Party congress over the weekend and we heard an awful lot about Labour. We heard an awful lot about what Labour wants to do. We heard an awful lot of a song that I am sure we will hear an awful lot more of. Senior Cabinet Ministers were standing around, singing a ditty written by a Labour candidate. We heard nothing about what is affecting New Zealanders as we speak.

What is affecting New Zealanders as we speak is that interest rates are double what they were when Labour took office. What is affecting New Zealanders as we speak is the growing prospect of unemployment, particularly in the building industry. Yesterday I spoke to a builder who told me that, for the first time in 7 years, he had someone knock on his door a month ago looking for a job, and he has had five more people do that since. If no lending is going into the property market, then no building is being done. If no building is being done, then people will lose their jobs.

The other thing that Labour members are not talking about is rocketing fuel prices. Electricity prices have gone up 5 percent per year in every year that Labour has been in charge. Will that stop now?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What’s your plan for that?

Our plan is not Labour’s plan, which is to ignore it and to pretend. We heard Helen Clark yesterday. Her plan is to tell New Zealanders that they have never had it so good. “Pretend we were not in Government.”—that is Labour’s plan. Labour’s plan is that New Zealanders have never had it so good, that Labour was never in Government, and that this is all about what might happen if people vote for Labour again. I have to say to the member that that plan is not working, because interest rates have not stopped going up.

I ask what Labour members think is happening in households where people are getting notifications from their bank that the money they borrowed at 7.5 percent will be renewed at 10 percent—10 percent. I ask what that member thinks is happening. Does he think those people are thanking Dr Cullen for wasting taxpayers’ money for 8 years and squandering economic growth, for forcing their household into a position where they will have to cut back on everything, and for telling them on the TV that the Government is taking no notice that they will have to run an overdraft so that Dr Cullen can make promises in the next Budget to make them vote for him?

That is what is happening. New Zealanders are running overdrafts so that they can pay the tax Dr Cullen will use to try to buy their votes. By my calculations he has about $4 billion to spend in this election. I say to the Labour members that New Zealanders will see that for what it is—the last gasp of a dying Government that has squandered a decade of growth.

I would ask Labour this question. If Labour is responsible for everything that has happened in the economy in the last 9 years—the growing house values, the greater employment, the rise in people’s incomes—then why does it not make sure that it does not stop now? Labour members will not make sure that it stops. They cannot make sure it stops, because hardly any of those things that have happened are actually due to the Labour Government.

There will be a big job to do in New Zealand—that is, to put away a Government that is, in its own words, focused entirely on power. That is what Michael Cullen said yesterday. When New Zealanders are suffering and want a growing economy, Michael Cullen has said that this was about a contest for power. I am telling him that this is about a contest for a vision for New Zealand over the next 10 years. That is what it is about. It is about raising incomes and raising our economic prospects.

Is it not interesting—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Colleagues, there are 402 Standing Orders that give us good grace and good order, and an opportunity for all members to make a commanding contribution. I am sure there will be some commanding contributions today. In the meantime, let us have some order.

It is interesting, is it not, that every time Mr English is accused of anything to do with The Hollow Men, we never get a denial—we never get a denial.

I will talk today about accident compensation and about the fact that we have a world-class, no-fault system. I ask the National members opposite whether accident compensation is another of their items on the menu for melting down the family silver. Is this another thing on their privatisation agenda—whether they do it by stealth or in an obvious way in front of the public of New Zealand? The public of New Zealand needs to know. Privatisation can occur in a number of ways, and the National Party has been particularly slippery over this asset. Most recently, it has taken its accident compensation policy down off its website. Previously, the party has said that it is in favour of choice for accident compensation, and would be interested in exploring some competition in some accounts. I want to know whether that is something like a partial float. Is it a partial float that the National Party has in mind for accident compensation? I make the point that Mr Key has tried, in fact, to inoculate himself over asset sales, but he and his party have been silent over privatisation and competition when applied to our accident compensation system.

I will explore for a moment just who stands to gain out of privatisation. There is in fact $2.6 billion worth of levies up for grabs if National privatises all the accounts except the non-earners account. Let us say that National is not going to get rid of the whole thing but will privatise just some of the accounts. Well, there is about $2.6 billion in levies up for grabs there.

I wonder whether members remember the leaked Insurance Council memo during the 2005 election. The memo stated in relation to National’s accident compensation policy announcement: “This is a very positive announcement for the industry, particularly the scope of the competition across all accounts.” The memo also stated: “The details of the policy have been deliberately kept out of the announcement after consultation with the Insurance Council.” That was a memo from the Insurance Council of New Zealand, dated 21 August 2005.

Mr Murray McCully said in 1998: “Creating a competitive environment is a vital part of the reforms. Insurers, like everyone, are in business to make a buck.” That was from the Southland Times in 1998. Let me just go back a little further to 1993, when an article written by Brent Edwards for the Evening Post was headlined: “ ‘ACC not for sale’ say Bolger and Birch”. Let me go beyond that to talk about another article in 1993: “Privatisation plan denied”. We cannot even get National members to deny a privatisation plan, because we can remember that last time they denied a privatisation plan, they went ahead and did it. They denied it; they said it was not going to happen. They said that the accident compensation scheme would be safe, and that there was no intention of taking things away.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was Labour that sold all the State assets. It was Clark and Cullen that sold them.

It was the National Government. There were absolutely cast-iron guarantees from the Minister for ACC and the Prime Minister at the time that the National Government would not sell and would not privatise accident compensation, but it went ahead and did that very thing. The policy was not to do a sale, not to privatise, but that is what the National Government did. That is what it did, in opening up the scheme for private competition; that is exactly the same thing.

Now we are hearing the same slippery arguments coming across the House. We are hearing the same slipperiness around the definition of privatisation. We might as well add accident compensation to National’s list of items to be sold or privatised.

New Zealand First wants every single citizen of this country to know something that we have been saying for many years now: New Zealand First will not sell strategic assets. We will not sell strategic assets, and we are very, very pleased that other people are starting to come on board with that message, because that is what New Zealanders want. New Zealanders want to know that those things that were gained by the sweat of the brow of former generations, through hard work and sacrifice, will not be flogged off to people to the advantage of other countries. New Zealand First has made that an issue in its very name, and has followed that up ever since we were formed. We will take that issue into the next election.

Just last week National said it would not sell strategic assets in its first term. If we put that around the other way, we could say that National said last week: “We will sell strategic assets in the second term.”, and of course it will. It will sell more than strategic assets; it will have schools for developers. We will see Bob Clarkson’s portfolio, which now includes retail shops all over Tauranga, extended to schools.

💬 Simon Power: Oh, oh, oh!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: There is no “Oh, oh, oh” about it; that is what he does. [Interruption] Exactly.

💬 Simon Power: Well, so what?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: And National members say “So what?”. Its members are quite happy for Mr Clarkson, or any other developer in this country, to own schools. Their response to that is “So what?”.

The National Party dithered around over the recent sale of Auckland airport. At first National members said they did not know whether they would sell it, but when Labour—thank heavens—stopped the sale, National members said that of course they would have sold it. We knew all along that National would have sold it, so I do not know why Mr Key could not have said that right off the bat. That airport returned to New Zealanders $101.9 million in the last financial year—$101.9 million, year on year. Something that we have to learn in this country, and something that we want to say to the shareholders of Auckland airport, who are moaning about the fact that they could not make a windfall gain—in other words, they only bought their shares for a quick sell-off, for a quick sale, and for a quick profit—is that shares in New Zealand should be bought, and investment should be made, for the long-term benefit of the company, of the entity, and of this country.

That is what we said about Fonterra, which is another iconic company built up by former generations in this country. New Zealand First fought—and, thank heavens, sense was seen by the shareholders of that company—so that shares would not be listed on the stock market. We want to see citizens of this country grow their wealth through the wealth of companies they have a beneficial holding in. We do not want to see short-term capital gain becoming the whole and sole purpose of the New Zealand stock exchange and stock market.

There is another situation further south where a little company called Nutritek has been taken over by Russians. It is the same thing, and, members can mark my words, the New Zealand dairy industry is under threat, because bit by bit people from other countries will come in and grab that absolutely prized export commodity of New Zealand farmers. New Zealand First is the only party in this Parliament that can stand up with an unblemished record of opposing asset sales, and we will continue to do that into the next years ahead.

It is no use people running around and papers reporting that New Zealand First, some way or another, will disappear at the next election. That will not happen. Everybody is hoping that will happen. I remember a Speaker of this House who said we would be dog tucker.

💬 Pita Paraone: That’s right, but where is he now?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: He is dog tucker and we are still here. We will remain here and we will stop these asset sales.

Members of the National Party were watching the Labour Party congress over the weekend with interest. We were watching because a Government that is as far behind in the polls and as out of touch with New Zealanders as that Government has a lot of work to do in order to get back on the right track. We know that that particular congress did only two things.

The first thing was to run workshops to work out how to rort the legislation that Labour brought into this House. That was the first thing that the Labour Party did. Senior Cabinet Ministers were sitting in workshops and working out how to get around legislation that they had worked very hard to shove down the throats of hard-working New Zealanders who wanted to have a say in this year’s general election.

The second thing that we saw, from Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and Labour’s answer to the Spice Girls, was a direct attack on other political figures in this House. There were direct personal attacks from four members of Parliament, three of them Cabinet Ministers. We know that the squalor in South Auckland should have been worthy of Maryan Street’s attention, but, no, she had time to write lyrics to a song that she stood up and sang at the Labour Party conference. We know that the Minister for Social Development and Employment should have had plenty of things to think about, with the pressures that families are under at the moment from the rising prices for food and fuel, and from rising interest rates. Blocks of cheese are now around the $14 to $16 mark. But that Minister did not want to know about any of that; she does not care about any of that. She had to spend her time scripting the words to a song at the Labour Party conference. The Minister of Women’s Affairs had time on her hands too, while families are feeling the pressure of rising food prices, to sit and scribble down a little ditty to sing at the Labour Party conference. There was also someone else involved; I cannot remember who it was.

The cost of accident compensation levies is to increase under the administration of the Hon Maryan Street in a matter of weeks, and she had the time to sing a song at the Labour Party conference. We know that Lianne Dalziel was far too smart to let herself be caught up in all of that, but I can assure members that that will not be the last time for the public of New Zealand to see that particular song being sung on their TV screens. What we do know is that at $250,000 a pop, those Ministers, with all the economic pressures that are on New Zealand families today, had the time to sit down and compose a song of personal abuse against the Leader of the Opposition. We can imagine what an outcry there would have been if, in 1998, Doug Graham, Don McKinnon, and Paul East had stood up at a National Party conference and sung a song about Helen Clark. We can imagine the outcry there would have been and what the media would have made of that. But the Labour Party has sunk lower than it has ever sunk before.

Violent crime is out of control. Did we hear anything come out of the Labour Party congress about how to make New Zealand’s households safer? We heard not one single thing about that. Did we hear one single policy about dealing with rising food prices, rising interest rates, and rising fuel prices? No; we had time for a little comic relief from those highly paid Ministers, who should be getting on with the job of helping New Zealand families to deal with the economic downturn. The Labour members have squandered 10 years of economic growth. Their attitude is that they are OK on their big, fat salaries. They do not care about the pressures that New Zealand families feel under today, because they could just leave that conference in their Crown cars and wander home to have a glass of wine, despite the pressures that New Zealanders are under in their homes.

The Labour members do not want to talk about their record over the last 8½ years, but let me just say this right now: we will be talking about their record. We will be talking about their record right up to the election day, and we will be reminding New Zealanders of all the things that those members do not want the public to be reminded of. We will be talking about the wasted money in the areas of corrections and courts, and about the huge increase in violent crime—nearly 43 percent since Labour took office. We will remind New Zealanders of the appalling record of the last 8½ years.

That speech was made by Mr Power and showed an admirable level of interest in the qualities of the women singers in our party. I am astounded that he does not show a similar level of interest in the ability of his own female colleagues to sing. That, no doubt, is because they are constantly off-key. They are constantly scrabbling around looking for ideas because they have no plan. The very thing that Mr Power refuses to talk about is the plan that was outlined by the Prime Minister: an acknowledgment that on 1 April a variety of very positive changes were brought in that will boost the economic credentials and prospects of our country.

That plan was also aided by the trade deal that was recently signed up, trumpeted up and down the country, and delivered by the quality leadership of Helen Clark, aided by Mr Goff, overseas. What do we hear? We hear petty, ridiculous, irrelevant renditions of the activities of our congress, which, at the end of the day, was a balance between heavy policy, fraternalism, and the ability to have fun. What we are entitled to do is to mix the three, unlike Mr English, who, every time he talks, has a thunderous brow and that same mean-spirited look that he uses to disguise the fact that National has not put through one single idea to this House that will go forward as a contest for the election.

National members act like magpies, stealing all the ideas from this side of the House. Let us just tease them out. There is still no commitment from members opposite about KiwiSaver, which now has well beyond 500,000 subscribers. There is no commitment from those members in relation to supporting the Government on business tax changes. They are constantly carping and exaggerating stories about how badly the economy is going, without realising that there is an incredibly innovative package on its way from Dr Cullen that will pass the four tests he has identified as a threshold. Such tax relief will address the concerns that are being exaggerated by members on the other side of the House. Of course, those members do not realise that it is not the fault of the Reserve Bank or Dr Cullen that credit is tight. Rather, international institutions are pointing out that debt in our economy is at an all-time low in terms of the Crown balance sheet. Only the National members want to ratchet up the balance sheet further. Why? It is in order for them to hand it out in a set of indiscriminate, very hurtful tax relief packages that are designed to worsen the prospects of working-class, poorer people and to reward those who are deeply disappointed because the Electoral Finance Act prevents them from surreptitiously funding that party and undermining the tenets of a social democracy based on universal participation. That is why those members will not join with us to uphold the underlying principles of that particular legislation.

Let me come back to the other things that members opposite are not talking about. They did sell assets; they will sell assets again, I say to New Zealanders, because those spots will not be erased from that particular creature. Whether the creature serves herself up as a pink bat or a leopard, we will not scrub those spots off that creature.

Secondly, without a doubt we would see the further deregulation of the labour market if National wins, and working New Zealanders will realise that a vote in those members’ direction is a vote that will condemn them to a conduit of poverty.

Thirdly, National members will not put forward any sensible ideas for investing in and enhancing the human capital of our own workers, for example. No, they are likely to join a crusade to force wages down, in the belief that we can create greater productivity in our sensitive industrial sectors by squashing the earning potential further out.

When those ideas come to the fore, closer to the election, we will have a real contest. We will not have this phoney war, talking about a ditty, talking about affairs at a congress to which they will never be invited and we will never have them. No doubt their plants were outside with the protesters, advertising free party pills, demonstrating based on the material that they were handing out—their Friends of the National Party pamphlets. But there was nothing, not a single word, said about the recent package to assist the agricultural sector. There was no alternative package. They are sunk.

On Saturday I was in Papakura, my electorate, at a march for law and order and for more police for Papakura, more visible police, supporting the police. I was very, very concerned by the reaction of people. They felt that this Government did not care about them. In fact, what we saw on Saturday was my counterpart Ruth Dyson, together with Maryan Street, Moana Mackey, and Steve Chadwick, busily creating a personal attack on John Key—a personal attack they thought was so funny they wanted to share it with the people of New Zealand.

That pretty much sums it up. The good people of Papakura care about their city, and care about the fact that grocery prices are now completely out of control. The price of butter rose 82 percent in the year to March, the price of bread has gone up 12 percent in the year to March, it is 21 percent for milk, and 44 percent for cheese. These are not luxury items. These are staples. These are basic food items. Possibly they do not go anywhere near the kitchen table of the Prime Minister, but this is what the people of Papakura are concerned about. They are concerned about being able to feed their children. They are concerned about their children getting a good education that means something. They are concerned about graffiti, and that is why they wanted me to support the bills on graffiti. They are concerned about the fact that violent crime is now at the highest rate it has ever been.

They are concerned about interest rates. They are concerned about the fact that they are now paying 10 to 11 percent in interest on their first mortgages. They are concerned that they have bought houses with a 10 percent deposit, or in some cases no deposit, and now they are finding that their mortgage is worth more than their house. They are concerned about the fact that although we have had good job statistics over the last few years, these will not last while we have these bad conditions. They are very, very concerned. All they can hear from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister is that the people of Papakura do not matter to them.

Yesterday we heard John Key ask Helen Clark why it is that the Government is not talking about the things that matter to the ordinary Kiwis of New Zealand. He asked: “Why are you spending so much time attacking John Key? Why aren’t you attacking the real issues in this country, the things that matter—debt, the fact that people cannot pay their bills, and the fact that they do not feel safe at night? Why is that?”. Helen Clark said “Diddums.” She said “Silly old John Key, worrying about that!”.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What did she say?

She said “Diddums.” That is exactly what she said, and then she laughed. That is what she did. Of course she does not need to care really, does she, in her mind? She does not have to worry about these things. She does not have to worry about any of it. What did Michael Cullen say yesterday, when he was asked why it is that they are indulging in these personal attacks on John Key, rather than dealing with the real issues? He said: “This is about a contest of power.” That is what he said. Who is in power—that is exactly what it is about, because that is all they care about. He did not say “This is about my vision for New Zealand.” He did not ask “Who’s going to produce a better New Zealand?”. He did not ask “Who’s going to raise up New Zealand’s living standards?”. He did not say any of that. He said “It’s all about power.”, and that is all he cares about.

Yet, today, we saw it again. There was personal attack after personal attack on this side of the House from the Labour Government. There was a personal attack on John Key and a personal attack on some of my colleagues on the front bench. There was a constant personal attack. Who did they get to do it? It was Trevor Mallard, the one they can always rely on to do their dirt and the one they always wheel out every time Helen Clark is in trouble. The people of New Zealand have had enough of this. Maybe it was fun one time, maybe it was entertaining, but I can tell members that someone who has a $400,000 mortgage and a house that is now worth $380,000 is in trouble, and in trouble big time. That is what is happening to many people in my area, and that is what is happening throughout this country. What does the Government do? It has a contest about power, and it has a little ditty that it puts out. Those people thought that was funny. They could not see that this is not just about sideshows, it is about people.

The only time the previous speaker has been a household name in New Zealand politics was when she was involved in a campaign of personal attack that saw her colleagues cringe with embarrassment and have to call her off. Since that time she has hardly been involved in political debate in our Parliament. I will let people decide for themselves about that member.

I have been interested to listen to the National members in Parliament today. They have tried to tell us that they are concerned about the issues of ordinary people. I find that very, very difficult to believe, when I compare their voting record in this Parliament, their public statements in the media, plus all the things they say in private about ordinary people, with what their record is. We heard from the deputy leader of the National Party about National’s concern about some of the things that we know families are finding difficult at the moment. We are listening to people in our constituencies and around our communities, and we know that issues concerning petrol prices, interest rates, and dairy food items are really snapping at the family budget; we know that. I was listening to Mr English, and I wanted to hear from him whether he had any concrete solutions as to how the New Zealand economy would somehow lower petrol prices on the international market. I was looking to Mr Heatley to see whether he had any ideas as to how the price of dairy food items could come down, when there are 100 percent increases across the world economy. We heard nothing from them on these issues. I want to know from them how they would lower interest rates if they got the chance to be the Government. There is simply no concrete substance from these members on any of the things that we know are affecting working people.

We also heard from the National Party this afternoon that despite the fact that its members complain about political correctness, they lack a sense of humour. When somebody got up at a party conference and spent one small part of it making a bit of a joke about the fact that the National leader’s policy positions have come to the point of being so farcical it is beyond words, they take great personal offence, as we have heard. We are criticising John Key, and we will continue to do so up until election day, on the slipperiness of his policy positions. It is his policy positions that we seek to denigrate, I say, because there are so many of them. We disagree with them so strongly when he does this. He is not ready to be Prime Minister of this country. I say to National members that they should get used to the fact that John Key’s flip-flops and slipperiness on policy will be the subject of scrutiny from the Government, because the people of this country deserve to know what they are voting for. No apology is made for that at all.

I wondered, though, when I was listening to National speakers—who are really concerned about the issues confronting working families at the moment—how worse off those working families would be, with all those international prices and pressures that are at them at the present time, if the National Party was in power at the moment. A lot of the policies that Labour is putting forward, as part of its plan for the future, target those issues that are so important to working families. Doctors’ fees are a critical part of those policies. Doctors’ fees have fallen enormously under the Labour-led Government. People pay only $3 to pick up a prescription and the under-sixes go to the doctor for free, which is a longstanding policy of New Zealand First. But if National was the Government of this country, we know that Tony Ryall’s policy would be for people to pay more to go and see the doctor. Working for Families is a Labour policy to help families, with tax credits, and the 20 hours’ free early childhood education a week is saving families lots of money every week. The National Party opposed that policy and said it was terrible. At the weekend it became National Party policy. Then the Nats wonder why we make fun of them for the positions they take.

We also introduced KiwiSaver, paid parental leave, the interest-free student loan policy, and the 1,000 extra front-line police in our communities, which the previous speaker was talking about in her concerns about law and order. National opposed 1,000 extra police going on to the streets, and in fact when National were in Government it was going to cut the number by 450. There is the minimum wage, which has increased nine times in 9 years, and of course 4 weeks’ annual leave for ordinary people.

However, the doozy of them all goes to the asset sales policy at the weekend. That was extraordinary. The Labour-led Government would never support strategic asset sales. That is a clear black and white policy that we have. When it comes to the family silver, National is prepared, as Dr Cullen says, not just to sell the family silver, but to melt it down. So I ask National members this. At the moment there is an issue about railways. Do National members believe that if the Government buys railways they should be sold again?

💬 Chester Borrows: You sold them!

The member for Whanganui has a train track going through his electorate. What does he think about railways coming in? He is interjecting that we sold them, but it was his party that sold the railways. I get sick and tired, as a young man in New Zealand politics, of realising that the National Party backbenchers are so bankrupt in terms of the history of their own party. How does one get a National Party selection if one does not know what one’s own party has done in Government? It is farcical. National sold the Paraparaumu Airport in my electorate—one of the worst asset sales ever to have occurred—and then there is the Auckland International Airport issue, which Ministers ruled on last week. The flip-flopping that the National Party has done on that in terms of policy is absolutely unbelievable. Its policy previously on this matter was that mum and dad investors should be able to buy assets. That is what happened when it sold Contact Energy, when it cut the pension, when it increased student fees, and when it cut taxes. So that just tells us what National does when it wants to cut taxes. One cannot trust National on asset sales—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is interjecting in the second person, and it will cease immediately.

Listeners will be amazed to know that that member, Darren Hughes, is the funny guy. He is the funny guy of the Labour Party. At the Labour Party conference at the weekend, where members had nothing better to do than to pull up stand-up comedians from the audience, Darren Hughes put up his hand to go up and entertain the Labour Party. And this was at its conference in election year! They called on the funny guy, Darren Hughes. He does not know whether he wants to be Charlie Chaplin or a Minister of the Crown. So at a Labour Party conference, while the rest of New Zealand is suffering under high petrol prices, increasing mortgage interest rates, tough taxes, electricity prices going up, and all that type of thing, Darren Hughes is called upon to entertain everyone and to make them laugh. That was Darren Hughes, who is a Minister, apparently, in a Labour Cabinet.

I have a question for the House, because Darren Hughes is here—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What’s the question?

Where are the four canaries? Where are the four canaries now? It was so funny, was it not, seeing the four canaries—the four Labour MPs—sing insulting songs on Saturday night about John Key while the rest of the country was suffering. But where are the four canaries now? Are they speaking to EMI? Maybe they are at Woodstock. Darren Hughes, who wants to be considered a Minister of the Crown, is instead playing the funny guy while people in the country are suffering. The four canaries will not front us in the debating chamber. We do not know where they are. That is the point, is it not?

It was very funny on Saturday at the Labour Party conference, but in the cold light of day, when Darren Hughes and the four canaries are faced with the fact that people’s mortgage interest rates are going up, when they are faced with the fact that petrol is going up and people cannot fill their tanks, when they are faced with the fact that electricity prices are going up, and when they are faced with the fact that the grocery bill is going up, it is no longer funny to abuse and insult people in the National Party, and it is certainly not funny to New Zealanders.

Labour members may not want to talk about their record, and they may ignore it, but their problem is this.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What’s their problem?

Their problem is that every time struggling Kiwis pull up to the BP service station and pull out their wallets, they are reminded of the cost of petrol and of the fact that they are being taxed too much. Every time struggling New Zealanders get to the checkout counter at the grocery store, they are reminded that they are being taxed too much and that food prices are going up. Every time a young kid walks down to the letterbox and brings back a letter for dad and he opens it—

💬 Chris Tremain: Is it another bill?

—it turns out to be a bill from the electricity company, and Dad is reminded that he is being taxed too much and that the Labour Government has let electricity prices and everything else get out of control.

That is the problem with this Government at the moment. While those Labour members are laughing and joking at some Labour Party conference, concert, or whatever it was, the rest of the country is struggling to pay for basic things such as food items, petrol, electricity, and mortgage interest rates. It is unbelievable that only Darren Hughes was able to front us today; the others are not here. I will not name them because that would be against the Standing Orders, but even Darren Hughes was here for a while.

It is just not funny any more, is it? One might want to joke at one’s weekend concert, but, in the cold light of day, families are struggling in New Zealand. Labour members should be talking about solutions rather than having a “funny man” contest at its conference in the weekend. New Zealanders and the National Party will not ignore Labour’s record. They will see its record on election day.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Eighty percent of New Zealanders would rather see set nets and trawl nets banned than have the blood of an extinction on their hands. That is the result of a Colmar Brunton poll released today by the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand. Eighty-three percent of New Zealanders would prefer to take the small economic hit than to see our Māui’s dolphins and our Hector’s dolphins disappear from our coastlines forever. There are only about 100 Māui’s dolphins left and just a few thousand Hector’s dolphins. There is overwhelming support from New Zealanders for the conservation of the species. So what can be done to meet this demand from New Zealanders to save the Māui’s dolphin and the Hector’s dolphin?

The Fisheries Act states quite clearly that the Minister has the power to take action. It states that a Minister can take measures, as he or she considers it necessary, to impose a remedy or mitigate the effects of fishing-related mortality on any protected species. Although there has been much debate about the necessity for Ministers’ actions in other kinds of cases, such as the squid fishery cases, in this case, for these dolphins, there is no doubt, at all. A recent National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report, which included a contribution by an author from the Seafood Industry Council, quite clearly concluded that it is absolutely necessary to fully reduce fishing-related mortality to zero if the dolphin population is to recover at all. Even then, the institute report states that with the best and only option to achieve zero fishing-related mortality, it will still take 50 years for the dolphin population to grow by just a few thousand and not even to double in number. The fact is that if the current management continues, the dolphin population will fall to just over 5,000 by 2050, and that is, in effect, extinction. Dolphins are on the brink of extinction at that stage, and certainly the Māui’s dolphin, with just a hundred or so individuals, will certainly be extinct by 2050 if action is not taken now.

One of our concerns, as the Green Party, is that none of the three options presented in the Government’s draft threat management plan will actually do what is needed. They will not reduce the threat mortality to zero. We need an option four, which is to ban set nets within the area of the entire range of these creatures, and to have observers on all trawler vessels within that range, if we cannot simply prohibit trawling from the area.

There is no population management plan for the Hector’s dolphin despite its critical status, and the plan in the draft threat management plan is very weak—much weaker than what is provided for in the Fisheries Act. The plan is not binding, and its finalisation will not see dolphins protected until the proposals are implemented in legislation. There is no way that we will see any action put in place before the next breeding season of these dolphins in the summer. We know that we have to act right now to prevent the dolphins’ extinction, but we cannot be assured, as I say, that these measures will even be implemented by the next breeding season in the summer.

It is absolutely necessary for this Government to take action to introduce a bill that will implement measures to prevent an extinction. It was not so long ago when there was a dolphin extinction. One of the Chinese dolphin species became extinct. New Zealand is very rapidly reaching for the silver medal of extinction by not taking action to do something about the problem now, when it has the opportunity to do so. If there is one Government bill that should be introduced under urgency—to prevent even one more dolphin slaughter and to prevent litigious fishing barons from delaying the protection that is so desperately needed—then this is it. The Minister should use the power he has under the Fisheries Act to protect these species from extinction.

If there is hesitation—and in all these matters when it comes to the fishing industry there is hesitation—I urge the Government to have a look at the Colmar Brunton poll that was released today. It shows that 83 percent of voters are willing to see set nets banned. It is a popular issue amongst the community itself. People in the community are clearly claiming conservation of the species as a major priority for them and as something they are prepared to give over some benefits for, in order to see these species survive. It is true that there may be something of a loss of fishing revenue for some of the commercial fishers, but it is a matter of pitting that against the survival—indeed, the extinction—of an iconic New Zealand species at the hands of this Government. If the Government and the National Party need to take a more shallow approach to it, then it might be worth reminding them that 83 percent of the voting population is about 2 million people. That is a significant voter population, if that is what is going to push their buttons to make something happen. This species needs to be protected now. Thank you.

I will take this opportunity to talk a little bit about the slippery asset sale policy of the National Party, but I heard some things before that I feel I must comment on. I heard National members saying that they were concerned about petrol prices. Of course, we all are concerned—not just personally but for all the people in our electorates. So I waited to hear what a future National Government would do about the internationally set price.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: You’ve been waiting for 8 years but doing nothing.

Well, I was previously the Minister of Commerce and had to look at this issue. I found it a difficult thing to deal with. So I ask the National members who are here what they would do about petrol prices. What would a future National Government do?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: We wouldn’t have wasted 8 years—

It would not have wasted 8 years. That is all we hear. We hear them whingeing, whining, grizzling, and groaning, but we never hear from them what they will do. That is the huge frustration. Of course—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The member on my left is interjecting in the second person. That will cease immediately, otherwise he will go back to his own seat. He is using the position to facilitate interjection, which is out of order.

When National members try to start to talk about what National would do, they slip and slide on it. One of the things that is not well known around this place is that actually quite a lot of humour goes on here, even though the National Party has attacked the Labour Government for its humour, and the National Party is a bit humourless. But a lot of humour goes on around this place, and some of the best humour comes from cartoons. There have been some fabulous cartoons. My own policy on this issue is that having had a few cartoons done about me in my time, if I think they are funny about other people then I suppose they are funny when they are done about me. I think that that is the general rule I have applied.

I have picked up a fabulous cartoon. It shows the leader of the National Party, John Key, sitting at a table with a little label on it that states “National first term”. John Key is holding out in his left hand a turkey—a nicely cooked, fresh, juicy turkey—that has “Assets sales” written on it. John Key is saying, in front of a whole lot of microphones: “Rest assured, this issue is off the table.”—that is, the asset sales issue is off the table. Sitting underneath the freshly cooked turkey is a salivating bulldog with a knife and fork, and with a bib on that states “Second term”. The cartoon means that although the National Party has said that asset sales are off the table for the first term, everybody knows that they will be on the table for the second term. That is the problem with the National Party: even when it tries to clarify, it still tries to be slippery.

Of course, on that policy, the National Party has annoyed everyone. It has annoyed the public because the public know that asset sales are actually on the agenda. It is just that National members have not got the fortitude to say “This term.”; they have said “Oh, next term.” But the National Party has also annoyed its own support base, who are asking “What is wrong with asset sales? Why isn’t my party, the National Party, coming clean and saying that asset sales should be on the agenda?”. We know there are lots of National members over there who think that asset sales should be on the agenda. Bill English believes in asset sales. Why does he not come clean and say so? Maurice Williamson agrees with asset sales. He has said in the past that they should be done. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith believes in asset sales. In fact, John Key himself—a man of the private sector—desperately believes in asset sales. But they just cannot bring themselves to come to Parliament and say “Well, we actually believe in asset sales, because we are the National Party and our supporters want us to do it.”

What is wrong with them? They cannot do it. Do members know why? It is because National members know that if they said that to the public, the public would never, ever vote for them. So National has had this kind of $1 bet each way—a bit of slip here, a bit of slide there; a bit of flip here, and a bit of flop there. They have said “We won’t sell assets in our first term.”, so everybody knows that that means it will sell them in the second term.

Let us have a look at a bit of history. In 2002 John Key said he believed that some form of orientation towards privatisation in health, education, and superannuation made sense. That was in 2002. In 2003 John Key said “I can’t see any compelling reason to own Air New Zealand.” Then in 2004 Don Brash said they were not willing to say whether there were going to be any State-owned enterprises. And so it goes on—slipping and sliding on asset sales. Assets will be gone under National.

We have just heard from a departing member, the Hon Paul Swain. He saw the writing on the wall. He is saying goodbye. He saw the writing on the wall: the Labour Government will be gone.

Today is a very sad day at Elim Christian College at Botany. A close-knit school community is mourning the loss of six students and one teacher who were caught in a swollen river during their outdoor training course. Our sympathy goes to the families, fellow students, and teachers, and we entrust the leadership of the principal, Mr Murray Burton, to lead the grieving process at this difficult time. I am sure that the Christian faith can ease some of the pain that must be being felt by the families who are suffering the loss of their dear ones.

New Zealand communities, in general, are suffering a pain of a slightly different kind. They are suffering in order to make ends meet. The latest statistical report shows that in the past year the price of nine common household food items has gone up by 25 percent. Like my effective and hard-working colleague Judith Collins—very shortly the Hon Judith Collins—has said, the household items going up are not luxury items. They are necessary food items. A kilo block of mild cheddar went up from $6.49 to $10.69. That is what New Zealanders want politicians to debate—not asset sales but the price of food on their table. There has been a whopping increase of 82 percent in the price of butter.

The Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, needs to reflect on his facts.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

He accused some of our kids of going to school without breakfast because they want to stay slim. That is an outrage. It shows how out of touch this Labour Government is.

Last Saturday the Hon Maryan Street found her voice. She sang. She was mimicking and having fun at the expense of our leader, John Key. She did not find her voice last December when the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) quietly—on 23 December, 2 days before Christmas—put out a little price increase, a pressie for all New Zealanders. There was a 2c increase in the accident compensation levy for petrol. The workers’ levy went up from $1.16 to $1.24. Senior citizens, who seldom use their cars, will find that their registration fee will go up by $40.

💬 Judith Collins: What!

It will go up by $40. Well, Maryan Street did not find her voice at Christmas. She did not speak up and tell New Zealanders the good news of how wonderful the ACC is for dealing them another increase.

Maryan Street did not find her voice in early January of this year when we found out that a serial burglar, who has been behind bars for 12 years, had demanded cosmetic surgery for a part of his ear that was bitten off during one of those burglaries. She did not find her voice to speak up. I, as the Opposition spokesperson, had to put out a statement and say that the Minister for ACC needs to front up and tell the corporation it does not have to be intimidated by that type of demand. She did not find her voice to speak up for the people.

Daily, like other members here, I have people approaching my office about not getting operations when they were genuinely injured in an accident and being made to wait and wait. Maryan Street did not find her voice to speak out for all those people. Instead, she endorsed the corporation to spend $5 million telling the public what a wonderful job it is doing and to tell people that they are covered. But then the Advertising Standards Authority found that the advertisements—$5 million worth—were misleading. People are not covered, and the corporation has had to withdraw the ad. So, with $2 million, what did it do?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What?

It handed out paper fans at the Pasifika Festival. I am not too sure how people with a paper fan in their hands would suddenly learn a lot about the ACC. What is the correlation between the corporation and paper fans?

💬 Judith Collins: Paper fans?

Yes, and it gave out minties. What does the ACC have to do with handing out minties? The corporation also spent $1 million on Australian consultants to tell us nothing new.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.