General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today is a day of celebration for Māori. I want to recognise the achievement of those iwi who have had the courage and the steel to get here today. I want to recognise the central North Island collective of Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Manawa, Raukawa, and the affiliated Te Arawa iwi and hapū who are here with us today to hear the first reading of their settlement bill.

For close to 20 years, central North Island iwi and the Crown have been preoccupied with the question of how to get a resolution that puts asunder the dastardly deeds set on the tangata whenua by ancestors of Pākehā generally—those things that happened in the long dim past. Those things need to be left behind, and if we are serious about nationhood, then today has certainly expressed that. We in this country are serious about nationhood, not about playing the nasty games that we are used to seeing and that we picture and hear over on the other side. Over the last decade both the Crown and iwi have attempted numerous times to come together in search of an answer to this longstanding question, but for one reason or another consensus was never able to be reached—that is, until now. I commend Dr Cullen for his leadership. I want to recognise Margaret Wilson, who had the courage to instigate this road, our colleague Mark Burton, and Ministers Ririnui and Jones for the effort they put in.

We would not believe that there were things to celebrate in Māoridom, judging by the way that pack carries on over there. It is a disgrace. If one is a Māori, one is of a minority that has been used to working with the majority, and one gets very good at reading the signals—signals not just of discontent but of jealousy and conspiratorial setting upon the tangata whenua. Today certainly is a unique day. It is a day of expression, and the members on that side of the House should understand that they should not just push out platitudes of guesswork and suggesting that we should all live together as New Zealanders—and “bugger your culture”. Let us not do that. Let us make sure that we bring cognisance to nationhood. Today has shown that. The Māori people have turned up here in their hundreds, and their footprints have echoed on the marble floors of this place, where a lot of mumbo-jumbo is talked at times, and where there is not enough recognition of the great things that Māori achieve.

It is not just the size of the settlement that is unique; it is the way in which it has been managed. A whole lot of iwi have come together, and they could teach other organisations of this country how to come together, how to meet respectfully, and how to ensure that the pathway forward for future Māori generations is etched in a clear and distinct way in the sense of the opportunities that the global market brings to our people. And what is wrong with that? People do not like it. They tend to be suspicious and think: “Oh-oh, here comes that scratch about those Māoris. All the things they do are mad, bad, and sad.” Well, I have news for those people. I tell them that this Treaty settlement is one of the pivotal conduits to ensuring that Māori are on their way forward. It is surprising to those people that Māori collectively are among the single biggest owners of Fonterra—clustered owners of dairy farms. They are among the biggest exporters of meat in this country. They are now heading towards having a huge influence in Australasia in terms of forestry. Those three issues are relevant to the cultural, social, and economic transformation of the first-nation people of this country, and that surely was expressed right out front today. The people came in peacefully. They came in respectfully.

I thank the Māori members of the other parties—Georgina te Heuheu and Tau Henare—who had the privilege of sitting on the paepae with me to extend a welcome. We looked united, even though we came down to the House afterwards and fell apart. Well, this deal did not fall apart.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Fell apart laughing at you.

And I can give that member a lesson on how to get there. This is a great day for Māoridom.

The member started out in a somewhat political vein, and that is the first time I have seen Labour allow a Māori member to start the general debate for many, many years. I want to join with the member in acknowledging the huge achievement of the Treaty settlements that have occurred this week, because it does point to a positive way forward.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member may be mistaken, but he has certainly misled the House in what he just said. Māori members have led the general debate every year in Māori Language Week. That member does not like it, but he should tell the truth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to make sure that that rude exchange does not come out of my time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Speaker will be the judge of that.

OK. I want to acknowledge the huge achievement of the settlement that has been made today. It was unfortunate, given the sentiments that have been expressed on a bipartisan basis throughout this whole process, that the Minister of Māori Affairs decided to indulge in such petty politics. But I will make this point to him. It is precisely because of the new, forward-looking positive attitude among Māori leadership that Māori are moving away from the Labour Party. That is why it is happening.

I also acknowledge the contribution—[Interruption] Well, that member, whose electorate covers Te Wai Pounamu, will have to work very hard, because Ngāi Tahu have grasped the settlement National made with them, and that means he will almost certainly lose his seat. I also want to acknowledge the role that Dr Cullen played. Dr Cullen figured out that after 8 years of inaction from the Labour Government on Treaty settlements, something needed to be done. He used his status and his considerable capacities to work with many other people in now bringing together what is, as he himself has said, a historic week of settlements. Well, Dr Cullen at least then has a legacy, and he looks like a man who is pleased with it—his settlements and his KiwiSaver.

Dr Cullen has done his best for the Labour Government by delivering tax cuts in the Budget, and now it all hangs on Helen Clark. It all hangs on Helen Clark. The Labour caucus is sitting there in its meetings each week, waiting, waiting, waiting, for Helen Clark to pull a rabbit out of the hat. I need to tell those members that there is no rabbit and there is no hat. Helen Clark mostly gets it wrong, which is why Labour is doing so badly. How did the fantastically competent leader of the Labour Party manage to lose so much Māori support for Labour? How did she manage to achieve that? It is because she is out of touch. She is out of touch not with political tactics—she is full of political tactics—but with the aspirations of New Zealanders.

Today we have one simple question: why does Helen Clark stand between the New Zealand people and a referendum on the anti-smacking legislation? Why? We know that the smacking issue is controversial and complex, and that in this Parliament many members gave fiery and fine speeches about it. But the one group of people who have never had a direct say in it are New Zealanders. There is an opportunity in the next 3 months for them to have a say and Helen Clark will not let them have it, because she believes that they will do something that she cannot control, that she is not on top of, and that might get out from under her span of control. That is why Labour is taking such a pasting in the public opinion polls. The nanny State is telling us everything, from telling us which light bulbs we have to buy to distributing badges. It is no wonder that those members are losing Māori support, when their Māori education strategy consists of badges with “Wassup!” written on them. How aspirational and ambitious is that? “Let us get down with the 14-year-olds.”, says Labour. “Wassup, bros!” is the standard and the expectation. Those are the limits that Labour imposes on Māori.

The settlement that the member Parekura Horomia referred to today has come about from the Government side simply because Labour knew that it was electoral suicide to go into this election with no settlements, after spending 9 years in Government. That is why Labour did it. Of course, Labour is grabbing a tiger by the tail, because now, as we know, iwi with assets, control, a sense of destiny, and a sense of aspiration do not vote for Labour. That is what happens, because Labour is all about dependency and locked-in votes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Anybody listening to the previous speaker would think that National has counted its eggs before they have hatched. In fact, National is sounding very arrogant in terms of what will happen at the next election.

Let us be very clear about the legacy of Labour-led Governments. Let us be very clear about that legacy. It was a Labour Government that started the Waitangi Tribunal. It was a Labour Government that made claims to the Waitangi Tribunal retrospective. It was a Labour Government that affirmed that te reo Māori is an official language of this country. It was a Labour Government that had the Hui Taumata in 1984, which put the question to Māori: “What is your future?”, and asked them how they wanted to determine their way forward. It was a Labour Government that took those very brave steps, at a time when National had said: “No, thanks. We do not want to have anything to do with Māori.”

Let us be very clear about the legacy of Labour-led Governments, because we are very proud to continue that tradition and to be able to support not only Māori development but also the continuation of Treaty settlements; we know that the future of Māori depends on first reconciling and rectifying historical injustice, and that is why we agreed to the settlements. Treaty settlements are a fundamental part of supporting Māori to move forward, to look forward, and to advance. But we cannot advance unless we are prepared to reconcile the past—the injustices that have occurred. Many members on both sides of this House have acknowledged that the Crown has, over time, acted improperly, but it is a Labour Government that has been prepared to make some very brave decisions and to say that we will continue along this path, despite the opposition and negativity we have faced from the National Party. We will continue along this path, because we know that it is fundamental to growing a nation that is committed to ensuring that everybody has a place.

If we look at the proud record of achievement since only 1999, in terms of this Labour-led Government’s contribution to Treaty settlements, we see that we have already completed settlements with Ngāti Mutunga, the people of Te Arawa lakes, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Ruanui, Te Uri o Hau, Pouakani, and Ngāti Tūrangitukua. We continue to advance settlements in other areas. The Minister of Māori Affairs made the point today that this is a very historic time in New Zealand’s history, because iwi have shown something that this Parliament still cannot get a hold of: iwi will, through all adversities, collectivise their interests in the bigger aim of moving forward, whereas this House still fragments itself on the question of Treaty settlements and on the question of Māori advancement and Māori development.

We have a lot to learn, but let me say this in no uncertain terms: we are committed to Treaty settlements because we know that once a historical injustice has been resolved and reconciliation has occurred, then iwi can start to look to themselves to determine their way forward. Our greatest hope and aspiration as a Labour-led Government is that these settlements will contribute to the Māori economy, and to Māori working with Māori in ways that will realise their potential well beyond what this House could even fathom. We understand that, we know that, and we support that. People who listen to the words of the Opposition would be wrong to think that a vision of the future along those lines could be provided by those members. Although those members criticise us, they will not stand in this House and provide solid policy that people can hang their hat on—that would allow them at least to see where those members are going. Nobody knows where they are going; that is the problem.

The other thing that I want to draw to the attention of this House in this debate is in the area of education. Mr English raised comments around Ka Hikitia. Let me tell members the difference between Ka Hikitia and the model of education that the National Government favoured. If someone did not succeed in education under the National Government, that person was out, down the road, and probably on the dole. What Labour wants to see for the future, under Ka Hikitia, is every school and every teacher taking responsibility for the learning outcomes of students. Māori must succeed in education; to let them fail would be absolutely unacceptable to this Government. So Ka Hikitia is about personalised learning, it is about saying that there is no room for failure, it is about accepting that we have to do things differently, and it is especially about providing Māori kids with more pathways to enable them to succeed in education. That is why this Government supports apprenticeship training, as well. That is why this Labour-led Government will work as hard as it can to ensure that there are many pathways for young people to succeed in our society. We will continue along that vein and we are proud to do so.

After 9 long years we are now hearing from the Labour Party what it will do for Māori for land settlements, and what it will do for Māori for Treaty of Waitangi settlements. But what we have not heard this afternoon is what Labour will do for job security for Māori who are trying to support their families as the cost of living in this country is rocketing. What Labour did not tell Māori is that there was the biggest drop in employment in this country in the last quarter—the biggest drop since Labour culled the forestry industry during the 1980s. What the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, did not want to tell Māori was that Ruth Dyson said that it was actually quite good that people have been losing their jobs. That is what Labour members did not talk about.

How come Labour members do not talk about what this Government will do to help Māori to feel safe in their homes and on the streets? What will it do to help Māori and other New Zealanders feel safe in their homes and on the streets? What the member did not tell the people was that under this Government violent crime is going through the roof. And what does Annette King say is to blame? She says that the sun, the moon—and now urban design—are responsible for the crime in this country. What she did not want to tell Māori is that her Government’s soft bigotry of low expectations is seeing appalling standards in our education system whereby the best it can do for young Māori is to say “Wassup?”. How patronising it is to think that some young Māori person, at the age of 15, will be inspired by the likes of Professor Des Gorman or inspired by the likes of Papaarangi Reid with a badge that says “Wassup?”. That will not encourage one young Māori person to look at their leaders in this country. There is a need to show role models, and a badge that says “Wassup?” does nothing anywhere near that.

What about Māori in the hospital system and in the New Zealand public health system? What about the thousands of Māori who were culled off the hospital waiting lists 2 years ago—the old people who were told that they could not get their operation because they were guilty of being on the waiting list for more than 6 months? What about the Māori in Auckland, where we have now discovered there is a code purple in our hospitals? It used to be called code red and people had to sit in the emergency department at Waitemata for 36 hours. Now we discover in Auckland that there is a higher level called code purple. North Shore Hospital has been in code purple for some time and it is not able to provide the emergency department care that New Zealanders want. Neither have we heard a word about what the huge ballooning bureaucracy in health is doing to Māori and other patients in this country. How can it be that the health budget has doubled yet fewer people get to see a hospital specialist and fewer people get elective surgery? How can it be that the health budget has doubled yet more people are waiting longer and longer to see a general practitioner? They are waiting longer and longer even to get on a general practitioner’s books. How bad is that?

We have not heard one word heard from the Labour Party about the problems facing the country in this area because this Labour Government has squandered the opportunity of the last 9 years. Families—Māori, Pākehā, Asian, and others—would have been much better able to weather the storm of the economic consequences befalling our country if this Labour Party had rewarded hard work and effort and cut taxes for hard-working New Zealanders. Instead this Government has wasted those good years on a storm of social engineering. The latest example was revealed by Mrs Jo Goodhew yesterday. Hairdressers will now be required to prepare public health risk management plans, as well as apply for a consent from the city council. How ridiculous is that? But it is what this Government has spent its whole time doing.

In relation to the Government’s social engineering on the smacking bill, Helen Clark will not let New Zealanders have even a say. That tells us about the arrogance of the Labour Government. As we travel around this country we meet a lot of people who say they are voting National for the first time because of Labour’s arrogance.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Before I turn my attention to the political cockroach of the National Party, I want to celebrate, along with Parekura Horomia, how enjoyable this day has been.

Unfortunately the quality of the day is ruined by the fact that my two Māori colleagues in National have been made to sit down while we suffer the snivelling ranting of that man, who spent all his time opposing the creation and establishment of Māori seats in the regional council area of the Bay of Plenty. The woman who—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I have to warn people in the gallery that this is a debate between members. Thank you.

Not unlike the insect for which the man is named, unfortunately he will be back. Not only did he assist Don Brash to spread his recipe of racism and odium, and not only did he work quietly away with Bill English in his failed attempt to spread further untruths about the Treaty and take the National Party to its lowest ebb ever, but also he distinguished himself, in the time that Winston Peters was unfortunate enough to work with National, by every day taking secrets and information away from New Zealand First’s association with National in the 1990s, in order to undermine Winston Peters himself.

The nerve of that man, to stand in this House and displace my tuakana Tau Henare, and to displace Georgina te Heuheu! She is the one who should be speaking in the front line in this debate. She is the one who belongs to the Tūwharetoa tribe, she is the one who has driven it to accept this settlement, and she is the one who has been overlooked by Bill English, with his fetish and his unquenchable thirst for recognition. Every time that the man stands, his thunderous brow shows his bitterness and sourness. There is no future for Te Ao Māori in listening to those two Pākehā. E tau ki raro, tukua ngā Māori kia kōrero.

[They should sit down, and let the Māori members speak.]

Let us hear from our tuakana, Tau Henare. Occasionally he goes veering into territory that he does not know how to get back from, engari, kai te pai, kai te pai. [but it is fine, it is OK.]

Today we need to acknowledge that many iwi are taking great heart from the joy and happiness shown in Parliament. Our Pākehā fellow New Zealanders can take heart from the fact that where goodwill and fairness reign, settlements can be rapidly entered into. Today fairness was evident. That land is not going back to the Crown. Hone Harawira spoke drivel about the Crown setting itself up as judge and jury. He should spend some more time in this House and not go wandering around spreading such half-baked ideas.

This was a great day. From the dust of unhappiness that we saw in the valleys of Tūhoe, they were here doing the loudest hakas and giving the most powerful speeches of acclamation. We were reminded of why Tūwharetoa has a special status in Te Ao Māori by the leadership shown by te upoko o tō rātou kāhui ariki, Tumu te Heuheu. [the head of their paramount chiefs, Tumu te Heuheu.] That only worsens the fact that his sister-in-law was prevented from speaking in this debate; that is shocking. Not only did we see manaakitanga in the form of Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa but also the smaller tribes from te māniania roa o Kaingaroa [the long plain of Kaingaroa] were included, as well. Ngāti Whakaue and Raukawa are people who are easily forgotten, because they live so close to big taniwhas. But they will not be forgotten any more. They are handsome beneficiaries of this settlement, and they should mihi every day to Dr Cullen, who has shown the fortitude and not inconsiderable skills of a magisterial career that links him back to 1981. I say, firstly, we should salute that man and the leaders today who have brought their vision and their willingness to be pragmatic over many of their grievances, to move forward, and to assure fellow New Zealanders there will be an end to this grievance process. Secondly, I say no one is losing. There are no losers here. The pūtea can be used and dedicated to drive economic empowerment, drive economic thinking, and move away from the isolationism that is reflected in much of our Māori kōrero on the marae.

We cannot, as Māori, afford to be isolated. We must join the fray, make relationships, and celebrate the opportunities that will arise when economic power can flow from the sensible stewardship of the settlements. That is what this Government has delivered today. Yesterday it delivered that for the proud people of the Arawa waka. Today it is delivering it for Tainui, Arawa, and Mātaatua. In the near future, it will be delivered for our people from Taranaki and other parts of Aotearoa. That is why the tide is going out on those who are more interested in the politics of isolation. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Can I take a moment to congratulate my whanaunga, my extended whanaunga from Ngāti Raukawa and Te Arawa, on today’s great achievement. I say: “Congratulations whānau; well done!”. I take the opportunity also to reinforce my colleague’s comments about a person whom I have often described as the Uriah Heep of the New Zealand Parliament—that is, the Hon Tony Ryall. I say that, for all of those same reasons that Mr Shane Jones just recounted to the House. One of the most despicable things that I can ever think of is that one would be a partner of a person and would feed information and intelligence from his Government to his opponents, in order to bring down Tukoroirangi Morgan and Tau Henare. The Uriah Heep of the New Zealand Parliament needs to be recognised for what he is. I say: “Trust him—sure can’t.”

It is interesting that once again in recent weeks we have had the scourge of gangs emerging back on our streets. It did not go unnoticed by New Zealand First that down in the deep dark south an Invercargill Mongrel Mob leader made the headlines by telling the nation that he had turned a corner, changed his life, and sought to steer his gang away from crime; the gang had sought to give up their weapons and give up their ways of violence. But within a week he was back in the headlines. In fact, he is under arrest and behind bars, and is facing allegations of arson and the same old criminal goings-on that have brought Māori into disrepute for generations. It is interesting, because I have heard people in this House say: “Oh, the Mongrel Mob are turning round their ways.” In fact, I have been out at Silverstream to a State-funded celebration, which happens every year courtesy of Government funding, and Kim Workman from the Prison Fellowship is there. They line up the Mongrel Mob, complete with their patches, and tell us they have changed their ways. Tell that to Hastings, tell that to Flaxmere, and tell that to Invercargill.

Over the last few days members will have heard New Zealand First ask the Minister a few simple questions in the House. We have asked how many patched gang members, their affiliates, and their associates exist in this country. The Minister tells us it is 3,000 to 3,500. That is interesting because a former Minister George Hawkins told this House there were 10,000 in 1995 and 21,882 in 2002. So what are they saying? Have the numbers gone down? We do not think so. Why is that of concern to New Zealand First? It is of concern because to deal with the problem we first have to accept we have one. We cannot reform alcoholics if they do not say: “I am an alcoholic.” We cannot change the face of gangs in this nation, and the turmoil the gangs unleash on us and the impact they have on our children by feeding them dope and P, if we do not admit to how many there are. Detective Inspector Patrick Boyle of the Asian Squad and the Casino Squad in Victoria Police in 2005 reported to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia: “One of the factors that pose the greatest barrier to successfully addressing a gang problem is the denial of gang presence.” I would add to that—“or the minimising of the size, extent, and impact that that presence has in your community”. If we fail to do that, we condemn ourselves to the future that the gangs dictate. We condemn our current children, our current grandchildren, and our future great-grandchildren to the same scourge and the same impact. We then watch them as they all get flushed down the toilet as well.

It is interesting and poignant right now, because today’s settlement marks a new step forward for many Māori, and the only thing that holds us back is those primeval, Neanderthals in our presence who destroy our mana, destroy our reputation, and take the legacy of our tūpuna and spit upon it, by consistently and continually attacking us and the wider New Zealand, the way they do. It is time this House, and it is time this Government, accepted that we have a huge problem. The Police Association said on television last week that police believe that there are 6,000 members of gangs. They believe that each one of them has five to 10 associates. They believe that the problem is not 3,000; it is 60,000—the size of Napier!

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: What’s your solution?

I tell Dr Wayne Mapp what New Zealand First will do. We have told him that for 12 years but he has wax in his ears. Actually, he just does not want to know because it is too hard; it is too tough. He and his Government failed for generations, despite all the hard talk, and despite all their ranting now. New Zealand First says that the first step is to make the issue a priority. We must lead from the top and separate the issue out from policing. We must make sure that we pass legislation to make it illegal to be a member of a gang. Do not tell me what the wannabe National Party is going to do.

This week two things have united this Parliament. The first thing goes back two decades, and that is honouring the grievances of the past and settling them. I congratulate the iwi of the central North Island today on that. The second issue is that yesterday the House unanimously supported the Prime Minister’s motion to condemn the Mugabe regime and its fraudulent election.

It is just a pity that the Prime Minister does not have a better appreciation of irony, because on that very same day she told the people of New Zealand that, no, they could not have a vote on something that 10 percent of the population has signed a petition for. She said they could not have a vote at the time at which it would matter most—at a general election. No wonder Tom Scott’s cartoon today made a very apt comparison with the Prime Minister. Who does the Prime Minister think she is? Does she really think she can just issue a decree saying: “No, you can’t vote at the time of a general election.”? That is what she seemed to say again today, and her excuses were completely fatuous.

It is simply absurd to suggest that it is not possible for the Electoral Commission to do something as simple as draft a, literally, one-line ballot paper with the simple question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. That is a one-line question that has a simple answer—yes or no. Why would the Prime Minister not want the public to give their answer at a time when 80 percent of New Zealanders will be at the polls? It is an extraordinarily simple thing, and to hear the Prime Minister today with all her excuses is the sort of thing we heard in Zimbabwe, is it not? It took 6 weeks to count one vote—right through March, and right through April—and we are hearing the same kind of fatuous absurdities from the Prime Minister today.

The Prime Minister knows, of course, that she is not correct. She knows perfectly well that the excuses she raised are just that—excuses. She knows that the last possible day on which a vote could be approved is 26 September. That is nearly 2 months before the last possible day for a general election. Well, snap elections can be conducted in 4 weeks—that happened in 1984. In fact, in 2002 the Prime Minister called an early election, and that was done in only 6 weeks. So surely the Prime Minister cannot seriously expect New Zealanders to believe her when she says that it is all too difficult and that we could not possibly have time to organise a referendum at the same time as the election. She does not really need to hear the public’s voice on election day, and she said there is plenty of time to do that by postal ballot. Well, we know the real reason for her stalling tactic, do we not? She does not want the referendum to be yet another reason why the public would say no to her Government.

💬 Ron Mark: Did you vote for the smacking bill?

I say to Mr Mark that the key issue is not my vote; it is the vote of the public. Surely that is what a democracy is actually about—the public having their say. I have always stood for citizens initiated referenda, because the public should have their say.

The reason why the Prime Minister wants to deny a vote is that she wants to deny the opportunity for the public to say no to her Government. Well, I say to the Prime Minister that the message is very, very clear. She needs to uphold our democracy—that is a simple proposition. A democracy is about people having the right to express their views. So I say to the Prime Minister that she should give the people their vote on a citizens initiated referendum, and at the most relevant time, which is at the general election.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to ask the member a question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, the member is perfectly entitled to do that, but it is most unusual during a general debate.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to ask the member a question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection? There is. It has been opposed.

It is the public of New Zealand that matters. Apparently Ron Mark does not want to hear what the public want to say. He is obviously lining himself up with the Labour Government in denying the public of New Zealand the right to have their say at a citizens initiated referendum.

💬 Ron Mark: That’s a lie!

Mr Mark should go to the Prime Minister and tell her that she should be telling the public of New Zealand to have that vote.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give me some guidance? What that member said is clearly not the truth, Mr Assistant Speaker. You know—it is in the Hansard—that New Zealand First called for a referendum during the passing of that bill. So what redress do I have against a member who tells an untruth?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is of course entitled to say what he likes in the House. We have freedom of speech, and it is a debatable issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at what the member said earlier—which you heard, Mr Assistant Speaker—about people telling lies, and so forth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well—

💬 Dail Jones: I appreciate the opportunity that the member has given New Zealand First to make it clear that what he was saying about supporting a referendum is untrue. We do support a referendum. We proposed it in the bill. It is New Zealand First policy that the member is now trying to support.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Mr Assistant Speaker, you heard Ron Mark say that I was telling a lie. I ask him to withdraw and apologise for his statement. It is quite simple.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member used that particular language. He is a longstanding member and knows he cannot use that language in the House. The member should withdraw and apologise for the use of the word.

💬 Ron Mark: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I right in saying that the only way I can address an issue that I believe has been deliberately misrepresented is to take the person to the Privileges Committee?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot actually raise that on the floor of the House. But the member of course can seek leave to make a personal explanation. That is something entirely different.

As the member well knows, I simply—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would Dr Mapp and Mr Mark please be seated. I am on my feet. Dr Mapp, your time has expired.

I wish to make a personal explanation. Just to make it absolutely clear, I voted against the legislation that Mr Mapp voted for, which he spoke of. Secondly, I did so at the time because I was part of a party that called for a referendum. I believed that we needed a referendum then, and I still believe that we need a referendum today. I take exception to people who would misrepresent the truth about New Zealand First’s position on that issue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Mark.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ki āku rahi, Tainui, Te Arawa, Mātaatua, he rarau, he rarau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To my esteemed greatness, Tainui, Te Arawa, and Mātaatua, a plume, a plume.]

I take as my starting point a quotation from the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech this morning, because I think it actually encompasses what the deed signing was about. He said: “The parties to the Treaty had an opportunity to show that with good will, it was possible for new settlers and indigenous people to gain and learn from each other. But almost immediately, that opportunity slipped away. In the end, our colonial experience was classic, not unique; the mistakes of other nations that we had the chance to avoid, we instead repeated. … We failed to deliver on our obligations of partnership and respect. We failed to deliver full equality for Māori, and we failed to protect the rights of Māori—both their basic human rights and their rights of property.” But the events at the hui of yesterday, today, and āpōpō mean that all is not lost.

However, I am going to tell the people that on the horizon, storm clouds are forming once again. Kai reira he ngārara e noho ana.

[There is a monster sitting over there.]

What has become increasingly apparent is that this ngārara is taking form—hideous, in fact.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Hideous?

Hideous. The only policy that National seems to actually hold without flip-flop and fly is the policy on the abolition of Māori seats. I cannot understand, when National has a history of Māori members—icons in New Zealand and Māori history who occupied Tory seats. We have Ngata, we have Pōmare, we have Carroll, we have Te Rangi Hīroa, and we have others. Yet that party is hell-bent on abolishing Māori seats, abolishing our right to make choices, and abolishing our right to have options as tangata whenua. It is almost the same as a Treaty breach, because what that does for you people is that if National wins the next election—and I will certainly win the Te Tai Tonga seat ahead of Bill English—that is the reality that will confront you as a people. Today we were absolutely proud, ka tū mana mai i runga i te kaupapa tuku iho a koro, a kui mā, kua waihongia,

[standing proudly upon the proposal handed down by the elderly men and women,]

and then we have this ngārara sitting there, if National members should assume the Treasury benches. I have some sympathy with the Māori Party, because what will happen is e te hoa, kua ngaro koutou i te iwi, kua ngaro pērā ētahi ō mātou.

[friend, you have lost the people, like some of us.]

I cannot see how talks of coalition can actually go hand in hand with a party that bases its opinion on some research done in a remote university in Canterbury led by a professor of law by the name of Philip Joseph, who says—

💬 Dail Jones: Business Roundtable.

Oh, Business Roundtable. Yes, they are mates. I forgot them; put them in. He said separate seats are “a symbol of racial separatism.” and “an insidious form of reverse discrimination” that “sideline Māori … issues”. Like hell they do! That is why you are here today. I have news for Professor Philip Joseph. I tell him to stop living in Ostrich Avenue with his head buried somewhere subterranean. The abolition of Māori seats is not just about the individuals who occupy them at this point in time. He tūnga tohunga tēnā, he reo mō ngā iwi katoa o te motu.

[That is an important role, being an advocate for all the people of the land.]

What it says is you will not have an electorate MP at all in any of those seven seats to represent your specific Māori issues, but they will.

💬 Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the member, but you have already admonished the gallery for taking part by applause today, yet we have a member—and Speaker’s rulings 45/4 and 45/5 state that a member must not address the gallery—continually using the word “you”. Is he referring to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, or to the gallery? I think if we are going to maintain some level of order, then there needs to be some determination on that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I remind the member that the debate is within the Chamber, so he has to address the Chamber through the Speaker or to the members.

Ahakoa kua mōhio au ka noho mai i runga rā, ko te ture o te Whare, me kōrero mai i runga i te papa o te Whare.

[I know that if you sit up there, the rule of the House is that you must speak from the floor.]

I thought that was a rather technical issue, because we have forms of respect that you do not understand. I am referring to that member, not to the Speaker. I am saying here that the dreams of assimilation are the nightmares of our people. Tēnā tātou katoa.

I extend my congratulations to a certain group among the people who were here this morning, and they are Tūhoe. For what the Tūhoe community have gone through in Ruātoki, and the bitterness of that, I apologise. I am actually a member of the Crown even though I am not a member of the Government. As I see it, this place of Parliament is the Crown. So I take the opportunity to apologise for the actions of some people up in Ruātoki. I say that because I have a mokopuna now—I am a grandfather of a 2½-week-old grandchild. I and the gentleman sitting on my right share a mokopuna, and that mokopuna is Ngāti Hine, Ngāti Porou, and also Tūhoe. So I thank Tūhoe for coming, and it is wonderful that they are here.

I will cut to the chase—we have only 4 minutes. This is the only time that this House has seen nearly every Māori member of the Labour Party get up and speak. Members listened to the chorus of abuse from the Labour members when Bill English said in this House that this is the first time that the Māori Labour members have been allowed to speak, and speak first, in the general debate. Trevor Mallard got up and said: “Oh no, they’re allowed to speak first in Māori Language Week.” How ridiculous is that?

Let us not forget that it was Labour that introduced the foreshore and seabed legislation, which resulted in the birth of the Māori Party of our brothers and sisters. It was Labour that did it. It was not us. Who was the bad guy in the foreshore and seabed debate? Not us; it was Labour. [Interruption] Oh well, I tell Mr Tanczos we can only wish for the sight of a matakite; unfortunately, we have not got it.

I want to say that Māori success is not all due to Labour; Māori success is due to Māori, and they will succeed with whatever tools that they have at their disposal. It is not because Labour did this, Labour did that, and National did that, National did this. At the end of the day it has nothing to do with what Governments do, but it has everything to do with what Māori want to do and are able to achieve.

💬 Sue Moroney: What will you do about the Māori electorates? What’s Tau’s position?

Oh well, that person has just had an enlightening time being part of a Māori caucus, and now she knows everything about being Māori. Well, congratulations; nau mai, piki mai, kake mai, and all of that.

This is what Labour gives to Māori education: Ka Hikitia. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on a book that says nothing, that produces nothing, and that does not give Māori education anything except a bloody badge to wear that states “Wassup!”. Well, I thank the Government for the badge that says “Wassup!”. “Wassup!” is the total sum of its thinking about Māori education. What about a full run-out of Te Kōtahitanga programme? Oh no, there is nothing like that, because it is successful. Do members know why it is successful? Because it is not run by the Government, just like matua whāngai, just like kōhanga reo, just like kura, and just like wānanga. It is not run by the Government; it is run by Māori.

💬 Sue Moroney: It is. It comes from the school of education in Waikato. It is funded by the Government.

I tell that member to please be quiet and go back to the farm. Labour members can continue on a path of righteousness only if they are here. Let me tell the House about a little something that Labour members may not have noticed in the polls on the weekend, and let me make it quite clear: the National Party is not taking today’s events as Labour having a clear winning shot at the election.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure to take this call in this general debate. It has been an exciting day with the signing of the deed of settlement for the central North Island iwi collective. This is the biggest single Treaty settlement in dollar terms and in terms of the number of people—over 100,000 individuals. It is also the biggest in terms of the amount of land—some 170,000 hectares. That is a huge commitment to historical Treaty of Waitangi redress, and I am proud to belong to a party that has helped broker such a deal.

Labour has a plan for the future. Māori are a central part of New Zealand’s future, and our policies are all about building on Māori assets and achievement in partnership with Māori. Central to this is our position on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I note a quote from Dr Cullen, who said: “the place of the Treaty in New Zealand today in one sense … is a simple one. It is that it is a living document which provides an orderly framework for the settlement of historical grievances and the resolution of ongoing debates about the rights of the original inhabitants and owners of the land.” It is acknowledgment of us as tangata whenua. So for Labour the Treaty is very important.

What is National’s position? National members think the Treaty is an irrelevance, actually. National members on the Health Committee, led by Tony Ryall, last week voted against inclusion of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Public Health Bill. So, as usual, National voted against it. What about other parties? The Greens voted for the Treaty clause, New Zealand First voted for the Treaty clause, and I note that although Tariana was not present at the actual vote, the Māori Party too, at a prior meeting, indicated its support for the inclusion of a Treaty clause. So what hope would there be for Māori in the Treaty settlement process if National were to gain a mandate, given its position on the Treaty?

This is a typical position of the Opposition. It has no thought for today, no thought for tomorrow, and no thought for the future. Unlike my Labour team and our leader, Helen Clark, Opposition members do not have a long-term relationship with Māori or a long-term emphasis on supporting and working with Māori. So what would National do for Māori? Actually, of its 14 policies I think there is only one related to Māori, and that is to abolish the Māori seats with no consultation and no kōrero. They would rather listen to the Business Roundtable and a non-Māori academic. Will Māori put up with this? I know they will not. Frankly, National has no plan for the future development of Māori. I recall that John Key’s mentor, Don Brash, actually thought about scrapping Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development. Anō, no consultation and no kōrero; just the privileged National Party telling Māori how to live their lives.

I have one more point, starting with a quote from John Key when speaking about National’s Treaty settlement policy in early March 2008. He said: “in attempting to distinguish between our current position and the formal policy document that will follow later this year, I gave the impression that National did not have a date for the settlement of historical Treaty claims. This was wrong.” I am not sure exactly what was wrong but apparently National’s slogan is that all historical Treaty settlements will be completed by 2014. I note that it is now later in the year, and still there is no policy and no detail. That is typical of National.

Labour is the only major party that is delivering actual and tangible benefits for Māori. We will continue to do so, and we will continue to build on the relationships we have. So at Rātana Pā next year, we will be there; at the Kīngitanga hui and coronation, we will be there; and at the annual Māori Women’s Welfare League hui, we will be there. For Labour this is simply business as usual. The National Party never comes to any of these events, it does not have any ongoing relationships with Māori, and it never will. It wants to get rid of the Māori seats, and it does not have any commitment to historical redress.

So what is business as usual for me? Well, I will tell members a little bit about what I did during the last adjournment. For me it is all about the future, and it is all about our children—it is all about our tamariki me mokopuna. For us, as identified this morning, it is all about education. Māori now have an economic base where we can start mobilising our young people so that they can be the directors, they can be the lawyers, and they can be the doctors that will service not only our people but the rest of New Zealand. We have a commitment to being part of this country. The National Party does not think that we have any right to be part of this country. It does not think that our status as tangata whenua has any value whatsoever.

After 9 long years Labour is absolutely out of touch with all the New Zealand people. There has been too much emphasis on public relations. There has been too much spin and too much of “It’s all about me.” Ordinary Kiwis in the street are not interested in spin; they think they are being manipulated. They are not interested in public relations; they think it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. They do not think that life should be all about the politicians; they think it should be about the people.

The Māori proverb is right: He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. New Zealand belongs to the people. It is the people who do the work, it is the people who pay the bills, and it is the people who contribute in every possible way. Government should be all about respecting and serving the people, but that is not the case with this Labour Government.

The know-it-all Labour Government shuts its ears to the people. Although Parliament is designed to encourage the voice of voters, Labour shuts it down as much as possible. On select committees the Government controls the process so that submitters who do not support the Government position are inconvenienced and time-limited. Submitters against the Government stance on the Real Estate Agents Bill, the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill, and the Electoral Finance Bill have complained bitterly about their treatment.

The know-it-all Government shuts its ears to the people. Parliament allows for citizens initiated referenda, but to qualify for one there is a high threshold: 10 percent of the voting public need to support it. In the case of the petition relating to the anti-smacking legislation, hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have gone to the trouble to sign, and that petition has been presented to Parliament. But Helen Clark, with ears firmly closed, claims that it is too late to run a referendum alongside the general election. That is outrageous nonsense and an arrogant manipulation of the truth. In 1999 the National Government took only a week to determine that Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime could be held on election day—only 1 week! National listened to the people, so why can Labour not do so?

The know-it-all Labour Government shuts its ears to the people. An election is a time when voters can learn about political parties, their people, and their policies. It is a time to appraise options and to understand individual parties and their visions for the future. It is a time for engagement, for talk, for debate, and for a free flow of information and opinion. Labour’s Electoral Finance Act is designed to shut that down. The bill was so rushed, the provisions were so complex, and the penalties were so draconian that no one knows how to manage it.

The Electoral Finance Act has scared off the public—they will not have a say. Why would they get involved? The Electoral Finance Act has paralysed legitimate contributors to the process who need to have a say, and it puts all politicians who have to work under its rules at risk. The rules change by the day. No one knows what the detail means. Ironically, it is the Labour MPs who are mostly breaking the law, but all MPs run the risk of acting illegally.

Labour is a tired, old, and cranky Government. Its MPs are indulged and arrogant. Not only have they forgotten that it is their job to listen to the voting public but, worse, they are trying to reconfigure the parliamentary process so that the public cannot be heard. Labour must not be allowed to deny democracy.

The law and order parties in this House were given a tremendous bonus a couple of weeks ago when the sequence of four tragic murders in South Auckland sparked a ferocious law and order reaction around the country, in the media, and in this Parliament. Knee-jerk reaction has come from all sides. The Green Party understands the sorrow, anger, and despair felt by all those affected by the recent deaths. There is no denying the sense of personal insecurity and fear that comes from living in an area where violent crime seems insidious and apparently unstoppable.

However, what we do not need more of is simplistic solutions about building more prisons or shutting down some liquor outlets, desirable though the latter might be. Neither of these measures will, in the end, solve the underlying causes of individual irresponsibility and social dislocation. Rather, we should be listening to people like Manurewa Community Board member Alan Johnson and Pacific Island journalist Tapu Misa, who have rather different ideas about the causes of what is going on in South Auckland, and about the solutions. They both talk about the indifference that communities in places like Manurewa have faced over the last 30 years—on a number of levels; not just about the indifference shown by the thugs who killed their fellow citizens.

The reality is that some people are the living embodiment of the impact of two and a half decades of Government policies that deliberately caused unemployment and poverty, and then neglected those who copped it the worst. In the 1980s Rogernomics saw hundreds of thousands of people deliberately made unemployed in the name of our joining the brave new world of the globalised economy. In the early 1990s National deepened the crisis by slashing benefits and bringing in the Employment Contracts Act. The fact that Labour came in 8½ years ago and began to try to compensate for all of that, aligned with much lower unemployment, has not been enough to make up for all that was lost in the 1980s and 1990s. Many people in communities like some of those in South Auckland and elsewhere have lost their connection to the workforce, to a living income, and to any sense of belonging to what some of us would call mainstream society.

The result is as we see it now—a cross-generational pattern of crime, addictions, physical and mental illness and injury, anger, and disconnection. On top of this, another generation of children and young people are coming through in the same mode, and the Bible will not necessarily save them. I think the most telling figures in this debate have been those presented by Alan Johnson in the New Zealand Herald last week. He said that in Manurewa there are places for only 36 percent of local preschoolers, compared with the national average of 64 percent. In Randwick Park, the site of the liquor store murder, there are early childhood places for only 20 percent of preschoolers there. As I asked the Prime Minister yesterday, what commitment is there from the Government to working as fast as possible to remedy these gaps?

At the same time, we have Government policies that on the income side of things deliberately discriminate against the children of the poor by giving a special extra in-work payment to families where at least one parent is in paid work, but denying that payment to beneficiary families. I cannot fathom why politicians and political parties do not seem to understand the unmistakable connections between ongoing poverty and alienation, and one of its key outcomes, violence. We would have a much happier and more personally secure society for all of us if we had a whole lot more equity—if we shared what we had on a much fairer basis than we do at present. To put it simply, children who grow up in financially secure households, with access to quality education from preschool onwards, are a lot less likely to go out randomly killing people when they reach adulthood. There is a lot more that could be said about the causes of recent events, and about solutions, and I do not want to pretend that the answers are simple, but the Green Party would welcome a far more thoughtful debate on this, as we go into the election, than the one that is currently taking place.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.