Address in Reply

I am very pleased to make a few comments today in support of the Speech from the Throne. I start off by calling the House’s attention to the amendment to the Address in Reply. The amendment is in the name of the Hon Phil Goff, the current Leader of the Opposition. If people were to read the amendment, they would see that it does not state that the Opposition has no confidence in the Government. That is what Opposition parties normally do; they move an amendment to express no confidence in the Government. But Mr Goff has moved an amendment to add some words to the Address. I will not go through the words of the entire amendment, but I encourage people to read them and see whether my interpretation is correct. The amendment mentions many things that should be done, but, in effect, Mr Goff is asking the Government to fix up the mess left by the Labour Government when it left office. I ask subsequent Labour speakers whether they intend to support the confidence motion when it is voted on later in the week. Clearly, Labour members know they made an absolute pig’s ear of their last few years in Government, and this nice piece of prose on the front page of today’s Order Paper shows that it would like to see the National Government kindly fix that up. Indeed, that is our intention.

It is about 84 days since the National Government came to office, and those 84 days have seen a record of achievement, very much focused on the prosperity and well-being of New Zealanders. We have come into Government at a very difficult economic time. The whole world is experiencing difficulty, and everybody knows a great deal about those difficulties. But we have decided not to sit behind a cloud of doom. We have been very, very proactive in getting out there and making sure we do what is necessary and what is possible to ensure that New Zealanders are able to weather this difficult time as well as possible. I want to talk about a number of the things we have done. We have introduced a stimulus package for the economy, worth more than $9 billion, over the next 3 years. That is one of the biggest packages provided by any Government, anywhere in the world. It is designed to ensure that New Zealanders are, as much as possible, insulated from the worst effects of these economic downturns.

The first aspect that will be most notable to New Zealanders who are fortunate enough to still be in work, is the assurance of a support package for those who might be out of work on a temporary basis. From April this year there will be a tax cut. There will be another one in 2010, and another one in 2011. That will see more of the dollars that New Zealanders earn in their jobs every day, stay in their pockets and it will give them a great deal more choice. It is notable, too, that even though the Government has introduced this big fiscal stimulus package, interest rates have fallen and that will be making things a little easier for some households. It will also make things a little easier for some of our businesses. In this environment we have also seen a slight drop in our exchange rate, and although we do not want to see an unnecessary reduction in the purchasing power that New Zealanders have with their hard-earned dollars, it does help our exporters and we encourage that. The export receipts that we have seen so far are looking very, very good, considering the circumstances. We know that fluctuations in the dollar are not good but this is a time of tough trading, and we are encouraged that our exporters are doing what they can to get out into markets and are adapting very, very quickly to those difficult circumstances.

Last Wednesday the Prime Minister unveiled a package of measures for small to medium enterprises in New Zealand, and it was interesting to note that although, on the one hand, it was very much welcomed by people who understand what it is like to be in business—to worry about paying the wages, about staying inside the overdraft, about paying their suppliers—on the other hand, those commentators who largely have never had anything to do with a small to medium enterprise, were typically critical. This is a package of measures designed to assist the cash flow of small to medium enterprises, and anyone knows that cash flow is the arterial blood of those businesses and needs to be protected. That package focuses on cash flow. It has 11 different tax changes in it, and the cost of those will be some $480 million over the next 3 years. The interesting thing is that most of that cost was met by compliance. There was an unproductive amount of money being sucked out of businesses and we have said it is better placed back in the tills of those in business, and back in their bank accounts, where they can use it for the betterment of their business. The package sees a reduction in the amount of form-filling that is necessary: the easing of provisional tax returns and the calculations that go around those. That is the bread and butter that we need to put on the table to help small business and this Government has done that.

What is more, we note that a lot of those small-business operators are pretty much out there on their own. They might employ five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, or even 12 people, but, by and large, they carry the can themselves. They cannot always go to their bank manager to talk about their difficulties. They cannot always go to their accountant to talk about their difficulties. They cannot always talk to their workforce about what they might want to do inside the business. So we have expanded the mentoring service, and we have expanded the business health check service. Those people are able to ring up and get hold of someone who will understand what their position is and who will want to help them get through the worst of these times.

We are not only doing things to help small business, we are not only doing things to ensure that New Zealanders adversely affected by job loss are supported, but we are also embarking on a very large infrastructure plan for New Zealand. The Prime Minister will be announcing the key elements of that plan in a speech tomorrow. But what should be remembered is that this country has a significant deficit of infrastructure. There has been a poor spend in that area for quite some time, and it is infrastructure that is the enabling aspect of business in this country. Not only does it help our quality of life but it also oils the wheels of the economy. The important thing is that this programme will see jobs created, it will see jobs stay in place, and it will see wages at least stabilise, if not grow, over the next few years. Most important, it will leave New Zealand in a position where, once the recovery comes—and it will come, and it will come for us much more quickly than for many other jurisdictions—we can take advantage of that, and see our economy grow once again at the sorts of levels that we would like, levels that will see the incomes of New Zealanders significantly rise.

Not only have we taken care of those economic matters that are very early on and very embryonic in the stage of life of this Government but we have also dealt with some of the social excesses that the last Government became so unpopular for. It was known for telling New Zealanders what they could do, when they could do it, and how they could do it. So we have in fact said to New Zealanders that they can choose the sort of light bulbs they want to put into their lights. We have said to New Zealanders that we are getting rid of the so-called food police out of school canteens. We have also said that many of those people who decide to go down to the gym and want to leave their kids in a little bit of care, will be able to, after we have dealt with those regulations very, very shortly. This has been 84 days of activity entirely focused on the betterment of New Zealanders—84 days focused on doing what a Government needs to do, to ensure that New Zealanders survive and prosper in difficult times. It is a privilege to be part of this. All of us who are in Government recognise and respect the fact that New Zealanders have great expectations of us; the first 84 days most certainly indicate that we are up to that challenge.

That contribution was from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Energy and Resources, who appears to have summered well. I would like to say to Mr Brownlee: “Please, please, do not attempt any more jawboning of petrol companies.”, because since the member told them to put their prices down, the prices have gone up every week.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document showing that oil companies put prices down 3c today.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Can he also please stop telling electricity companies to keep their prices down, because those prices have gone up, as well.

On 1 April this year the chief executive officer of Telecom will receive a $500 - plus-a-week tax cut. On 1 April a home-care worker looking after a sick and disabled person will receive a $12-a-week tax cut. The chief executive officer of Telecom earns $1.75 million a year, plus that amount again in incentive bonuses, cars, and so on; the home-care worker earns $26,000 a year, and uses his or her own car and petrol to provide the service. That worker will get $3.60 net a week in an increase in the minimum wage. On 1 April this year a pensioner will get less in his or her pension per week than the chief executive officer of Telecom will get in a tax cut. On 1 April this year a couple with two kids on a joint income of $48,000 will get $18 a week in a tax cut; the Prime Minister, John Key, will get $183 a week in a tax cut. So when it comes to real messages to New Zealand about the seriousness of the world economic situation, I have to say that I think that Fran O’Sullivan in the New Zealand Herald got it about right when she said that John Key should postpone the upcoming tax cuts on 1 April, and instead redirect the already budgeted funds to provide a fillip to our most cash-strapped consumers. I agree with her, and I say to John Key: “Don’t lecture low-income New Zealanders on the need to keep their wages as low as possible.”, as he did when he announced the rise in the minimum wage, while refusing to turn down the $183-a-week tax cut that he will get on 1 April. I say to Mr English: “Don’t lecture wage earners to keep their wages low when you are going to take $120 a week in a tax cut.” Where is the moral high ground in that? It makes a mockery of the freeze on MPs’ salaries that we have talked about in this House today.

What we are seeing is the real meaning of a fair society under a National Government. This is how it looks after the vulnerable. This is how it looks after the underclass, when it tries to keep those people out of poverty. This is that Government’s response to the economic crisis that we are facing as Kiwis, the like of which we have never seen before. The poorest in our society will carry the biggest load; they will be the victims of this depression. It will be low-income earners, it will be those who lose their jobs, and it will be those who care for families, for the sick, and for the disabled. It will be those who are on a fixed income and who are too old to work any more. If this Government truly cares for the people of New Zealand, as it claims to do, these are the people it should be taking care of. But, you see, the last 80 days of the 100 days of action promised by John Key have been about a long hot summer holiday. They have been about the surf, the sun, the seashore, and a fair bit of political posturing.

Before Christmas the National Government rammed legislation through this House under urgency, without select committee scrutiny or any public input, and that has raised many concerns from commentators around New Zealand. They are saying that if the National Government, which was going to be so open, so transparent, and so consultative, starts its term of office like this, then that does not bode well for the next 2 years. I have to ask whether it was absolutely crucial that workers starting a new job now should have their rights removed for their first 90 days of employment. Was it absolutely crucial to do that before Christmas? Was it extraordinarily urgent for bail laws to be changed before Christmas, while legislation cracking down on gangs was ignored? Was it imperative that education standards that already existed had to be put into legislation and passed before Christmas, when legislation to address family violence was only talked about? You see, that is what I call political posturing. The legislation passed before Christmas did not make a blind bit of difference, and it did not make New Zealand a better place over the Christmas holidays. Did the man who was charged with violently beating up a small child over Christmas get bail? Yes, he did. Did the changes in education standards matter during the 6 to 8 weeks of the school holidays when nobody was at school? No, they did not. Did the murderers of Nia Glassie get longer sentences? No, they did not. What this Government should have been putting first, second, and third was this country’s response to the economic crisis that we face.

You see, National is failing New Zealanders by not treating the economic problems we have, and the looming problems we have, with any urgency, at all. I believe that we are living in a fool’s paradise. I hear it every day; people say “New Zealand will be OK. She’ll be right. It won’t happen here. Our businesses are different.” Why do we think that the whole world is facing an unprecedented crisis but New Zealand is immune? And that view, I have to say, is being fostered by the drip-feed, “no worries, mate” approach from the Government. It is fostering this complacency in New Zealand because it has not put any urgency into addressing this problem.

First of all, it has been a long summer holiday and Anne Tolley proudly proclaimed that she was Prime Minister for 1 week of it. Goodness me! Thank goodness the banks in New Zealand did not know that. Then there was the hastily called so-called Cabinet summit. Five Cabinet Ministers, without the Minister for Social Development and Employment, huddled around a table in a hastily called summit and said: “What will we do? What will we say? John’s just got back from Hawaii, and people are saying we’re doing nothing.” They called a meeting of five people a Cabinet summit. As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove said, what do they call a full Cabinet meeting? Is it a Nuremberg rally? Cabinet meetings of Ministers are held every day of the week, but what was interesting is that the Minister for Social Development and Employment herself was not even invited. That is how important National believes unemployment is in New Zealand. She did not even get the phone call or the invitation. Today in the House she blustered and flustered and said that the Government is doing lots. But did those Ministers invite her to sit around the Cabinet summit? No, they did not. She is not a player in the game. In fact, who is playing this game?

New Zealand has seen nothing from this Government so far. The Minister for Social Development and Employment has managed one press release on employment matters in the 3 months that she has been Minister. It is 3 months today. There has been one press release in 3 months, such is her concern about unemployed people in New Zealand. I ask the Government: why do we have to wait for a talkfest before we get some action out of it? After all, the Government does not believe in talkfests. It cancelled the talkfest for doctors and nurses. It cancelled a little conference that the Families Commission was going to hold. But the Government is going to hold a talkfest at the end of February. Nobody knows the cost. It will do nothing, and the Government has done nothing.

That was a most interesting speech from the temporary deputy leader of the Labour Party, Annette King. She failed to remind Parliament that she and Mr Goff were members of a Government that voted in 1987 to give Cabinet Ministers a tax reduction of $500 a week. Annette King voted to give herself a $500 tax cut in 1987—that is what she voted for, for herself—but she does not want to tell that to New Zealanders.

We are seeing the sad remnants of a once successful Government, and those Labour members do not know where they are going. The National Government has been working hard on the issues that matter. The Labour Party has been busy issuing press releases from the cafes of Western Europe berating the new Government. Do members recall Mr Goff’s press release from early January saying that the Government should be on the job, doing the business? Phil Goff said that from Adelaide, South Australia. Then, the next day, Helen Clark issued a press release saying: “The Government’s not on the job.” She was speaking from a European ski field. What we have at the moment from the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Annette King, is yet more of the ridiculous cant and slogans that sustained Labour members in Government for a few years, and she is now trying to get away with it in Opposition.

New Zealand is facing serious economic challenges. Fortunately, we now have a Government that is up to those challenges and is providing the leadership that New Zealand needs. As our Prime Minister told the House today, New Zealand has the third-largest economic stimulus package in the Western World, and that package is made up of tax cuts for hard-working New Zealanders, to give them every incentive to get ahead and to keep the money that they are earning at a time when they need it.

The Government has also announced a raft of measures to assist small and medium enterprises to weather the economic storms that are coming. One of those changes includes, in my own portfolio of State services, a requirement for Government departments to pay their bills on time, if not early, in order to assist the cash flow of small business. The Prime Minister also announced today that tomorrow there will be more announcements on infrastructure investment in New Zealand, spanning not only State housing but roading and other projects that will be of interest to New Zealanders. On top of that, this Government has a very strong focus on improving front-line services for New Zealanders. The response has been swift and clear. There are tax cuts, a business package for small and medium sized enterprises, investments in infrastructure, and a Government commitment to focusing on front-line services.

There are very difficult times ahead for this country, and it is fortunate that we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance who say that this is a problem that requires sensible, long-term solutions in order to assist New Zealand in the way forward. I think that is very important. I do not think New Zealanders should listen to the failed deputy leader of the Labour Party when she talks, as she does, about an agenda that is not relevant to ordinary New Zealanders. Ordinary New Zealanders are worried about the future. They are worried about their hospitals, they are worried about their schools, and they are pleased that they have a Government that will deal with it.

If we look at the problems that we have inherited in the New Zealand public health system, we realise that the previous Government should hang its head in shame. Not only have we inherited a massively worsening financial situation in our district health boards but we have deficits growing by the day. The previous Government said that hospitals would record deficits of $110 million. We now know that it is probably much closer to $160 million—a 50 percent increase on what it told the country—and that is indeed very serious.

But there is good news in the way that this Government is dealing with the health portfolio. Firstly, we have secured the additional $750 million put aside for Vote Health, despite the deteriorating financial conditions. Our health service is in a privileged position in that we have that money coming forward, and it is our responsibility to make sure that it is spent in the best and most effective way in order to help New Zealanders with their front-line services.

Secondly, we have appointed a high-powered ministerial group, which has been established with some of New Zealand’s best health and financial people, that is aiming to assist the Government in its agenda of expanding the role of clinical leadership in the New Zealand public health system and giving a much greater say to doctors and nurses in the running of the New Zealand public health service, and also in the role that they can play in assisting us to provide better, quicker, and more convenient care for New Zealanders. The ministerial group is also looking at areas of poor-quality spending on the bureaucracy that can be moved into providing additional front-line services.

We have put a cap on the health bureaucracy, and we have delivered on our pre-election commitments in order to ensure that publicly funded Herceptin is available to the women of New Zealand. As recently as last week I met with the chief executives from the three Auckland district health boards, and we are rapidly commencing progress on building Auckland’s first elective surgery super-theatre complex to help the Government address the shortfall in elective surgery around the country.

We have inherited an incredible number of vulnerable health services. Yesterday I met with representatives from the Royal New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I was alerted by them to the large number of rural and regional hospital services that are vulnerable because of the staffing crisis that the previous Government ignored. This Government is determined to deal with those issues in order to make sure that we have an opportunity to ensure that New Zealand’s public health services are maintained and improved.

The Government’s focus on improving front-line services is also a part of the important work that other Ministers have been doing. The Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, in setting that cracking pace in bringing in legislated national standards in schools, is providing the leadership that New Zealand parents are looking for. The Minister wants to ensure that we do have those national standards in our schools, and doing this will send a strong message to the education sector and to parents that the Government gives strong priority to that policy.

The Government has also moved rapidly to advance its agenda in the law and order area. It has made changes to legislation brought before the previous Parliament, and those changes will be made in the next few weeks as we advance through the rest of our legislative programme. These are things that matter to New Zealanders, and they are the priorities of the new Government.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Thank goodness!

Thank goodness, because the previous Government had lost its way and its focus. In fact, it was so fixated on winning the election that there were all sorts of things that it did not tell New Zealanders about. We already know that there were burgeoning deficits in the health system that the previous Government did not talk about. We know about the huge number of vulnerable services and workforce shortages that the previous Government did not want to talk about.

As Mrs Wong has said, the previous Government did not want to talk about the billion-dollar Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) liability that it kept covered up and did not tell New Zealanders about. We know that there is an investigation into how the Public Service and the previous Government dealt with that knowledge about the ACC liability, and I think New Zealanders will be interested to see how the Public Finance Act was respected—or not—in the way that that was dealt with.

I am proud to stand up in this House and support what the Prime Minister has been saying. I think he is providing New Zealanders with the leadership that they need at this difficult time. As Ms Bennett so appropriately said during question time today, the Government cannot turn away the storm clouds of the economic crisis that are travelling towards our country and washing over our shores. However, we can certainly blunt some of the worst impacts of that crisis for New Zealanders and their families. That is part of the package that the Government has been working on and will continue to deliver for New Zealanders and their families.

That was very interesting. The first speaker this afternoon, Gerry Brownlee, said a whole lot of platitudes about how great things are going to happen for this nation. There has been a lot of blame when looking back on the previous Government. Let us remind ourselves what Dr Cullen left the current Government. He left a stable economy and an advancing regional economy that was consistent with profit over 7 successive years, and those who milk cows have done very, very well. A lot of the big businesses in this country continually maintained profits and sizable margins.

💬 Hon John Carter: Dear old Parekura!

I tell John Carter—“Hone” Carter—that there were sizable margins, especially north of Auckland. It was one of the highest-performing regions and was driven by the previous Government’s stimulus package, which was more than what that member could do in his time.

It is amazing when we listen to half of the stuff that comes out of those members’ mouths over there. Mr Brownlee said that the Government is heading to a great place and that it is talking about infrastructure. Some of that infrastructure was so bad when the previous National Government left office—after it sold a whole lot of the State houses; do members remember that?—that infrastructure has taken a long time to recover. We have to ask where this Government is leading us. Will it create jobs and businesses? When we listen to the Minister of Labour, who sits at the back there, we can already tell that she has been sucked in by the framework of long-tooth bureaucrats who talk about the labour market. All of a sudden she pops up and says that 75,000 people have to be made unemployed because of this, just in case the minimum wage is lifted up.

Let us look at some of the facts about this great package that the Prime Minister announced today. There were some simple things. If a person is earning $750,000 a year—and a lot of those members’ mates are—that person will gain $260 a week under National’s plan, but all that the families on the average wage of $45,000 a year will gain is an extra two bucks a week. The $20 figure being touted by the Prime Minister is a real con. It is outrageous. On $45,000 a year, families barely break even. And what was the edict of the Labour Government that was driven by Dr Cullen? It was about Working for Families. It was about early childcare support. It was about all those issues that were relevant and how a Government can balance progress in the economy with ensuring that those in need get help, rather than those with heaps of money and pockets full of greed. That is what has happened.

National members were so serious about things. One of the first things that happened when they became the Government was they knocked the 4 percent minimum KiwiSaver contribution to 2 percent. What is that all about? It tells us that they are scrambling. I suspect that there are a whole lot of late-night photocopying sessions going on. They are talking about these programmes, but when we test them on the detail they do not know what the programmes mean. They are photocopying what this Opposition left for them when it was in Government. They have had a cakewalk since they came into Government. It was recognised by the OECD; we were third out of countries that have a recognised, stabilised economy. I fear for the fate of this country with those members handling the books, as they do not even understand the basic assumptions relating to the CPI. It is more that just hourly rates of pay—and here we go again. If we go back to the last time the National Party came into Government, what did it do in its first year? It talked up the recession. I am not denying that there was a global recession, but the Government talked it up big time. And who did its members attack? The workers of this country.

What do Māori get out of this package? What do the average workers of New Zealand get out of it? Government members talk about the ordinary people. I am trying to define what they mean by “ordinary people”. Is it those people who funded their last election run? Is it other people? It is the working-class people Labour cares about? As a Christmas present, the Government dished out a hire and fire bill that deprives workers of their rights. It is one of the most sanctimonious, evil bits of legislation that this country has seen for a long, long time. A person can work for 3 months with no rights whatsoever. Where else in this Government’s legislation can we recall that happening? That bill was about undermining people’s rights.

Today, the Minister for Social Development and Employment said that Labour did nothing. When we previously came into Government, the unemployment rate for Māori was at 21 to 22 percent, and we got it down to 6 percent. The general unemployment rate was 18 percent, and we took it down to 4 percent. That is real action. We ensured that income-related rents survived. What are those members saying? It is important that we support businesses, but the other thing those members did along with stripping down KiwiSaver was to remove the research and development fund. There has been a heck of a lot of pontification about keeping the export market up and keeping businesses global—all of those aspects. But the Government’s members are just picking and choosing what matters more for their friends. The Minister of Education amazed me, because I was at the function where she said that she had been Prime Minister for a week, and that it was very difficult. I was the Prime Minister for 6 days one year, and I ran the Government from the beach in Tolaga Bay. That was how quiet it was, so I am not too sure what she was up to.

We have tax legislation that was rammed through Parliament, which proves that National does not care about tens of thousands of Kiwi battlers. I remember someone from that side of the House reciting about a block of cheese. Do members remember that? The members said “Ha, ha! A block of cheese!”. The hourly rate is so miserable that people cannot even afford one of those slices in the packs. This is disgraceful; it really is. You know, it is just unfair and it is really interesting to see what Hone Harawira said in the House tonight. The Prime Minister, John Key, said that he did not really consult with the Māori Party on the minimum wage. I commend Hone Harawira, because he was musing about why his party is connected with a party that has a totally different position from where his people want to be. He was talking about maintaining the issue of $15. It will be very interesting to see where that will get to. Let us talk about the minimum wage. When National left Government last time and we came in, the minimum wage was $7. National increased it by 86c in the 9 years it was in Government. This is what we have to watch with this Government—what is it really going to deliver to the working people? In 9 years National took the minimum wage up by 86c. When we came into Government it was $7. We took it up every year for 9 years, to $12. We also took the youth minimum wage up to $9—

💬 Chris Tremain: Every year?

—I say to Mr Tremain, and a lot of those people in Hawke’s Bay would have benefited from what we did.

💬 Chris Tremain: 50c in 84 days isn’t too bad.

No, the truth is that it is $2, not $20. That is what those members have to hang their heads on. Despite all the rhetoric, this is back to the 1990s. You know, leopards cannot change their spots, and if we look at this front bench, we see that it is the same front bench that did all of that stuff. Those members are reciting and enticing the public to suggest that they have the answers. Mr Tremain knows that they do not have the answers. Even though the Māori Party is there in partnership—86 days, Mr Brownlee says—the honeymoon is heading for a crash. The bridal suite is closed, the posy has been thrown over the shoulder, and they are starting to make up reasons for why they are doing supposedly great things for New Zealand.

I believe that the next 3 years will be some of the worst years for this country, not just because of the global recession but because of the return of these people who wounded the working class in this country. They are at it again. The member Tony Ryall was talking about the improvement in health. What did he leave us with? This is the same person who was talking about people lying on beds in the corridors. He closed down a whole lot of the hospitals. The other thing that seems to be happening is the blaming of two lots of people: the Public Service and the governance—“If they don’t agree with us, we’ll sack them.” That is one thing this Labour Party can say it would never get involved with. Like one of our great leaders here has said—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I regret to advise the member that his time has expired.

I had the good fortune in the course of the Waitangi weekend to go to an Indian Sikh temple in South Auckland for a number of hours. The message from that temple to those who were there to listen was a very simple one, and it was contrary to what the previous speaker, Parekura Horomia, said: the legacy that Labour has left is a legacy of distrust, discontent, and waste. What were the issues confronting that community then, and what will they be in the next 3 years? I think it is very easy to articulate them. These are ordinary New Zealanders. These are the types of people whom Parekura Horomia has spoken about. These are the types of people like him, like myself, who have aspirations for New Zealand to do well, and for our families to do well. These three issues that were so significant for them, as they are significant for us, can be encapsulated, I would say, in perhaps three short phrases: the first is the strength of the economy, the second relates to issues around family values, and the third relates to issues around law and order.

I think it is with real sadness that members—certainly the ones on this side of the House—contemplate the legacy that Labour has left us. It was a time when there were opportunities to be seized. It was a time when there could be substantial spending, because of surpluses that the Government made, in infrastructure and in health. Sadly, those investments were not made, and those opportunities were squandered.

If I look at the issue of family values for a moment, I just reflect that to a number of people family values will have a range of responsive feelings. I look at the inclusiveness of Waitangi Day, when multi-ethnic New Zealand is gathered together in what is, I think, a startling and committed display of support. We saw that at Waitangi with the Prime Minister. Members on both sides of the House have been to those Waitangi ceremonies for many years; in my case I have gone for some 12 years. We have seen the disturbances. What did we see this time? We saw, I would say, inclusive goodwill. We saw this not only at Waitangi but also in Auckland, where there were other such displays from the Indian and Chinese communities. That is why I think it is time to start reflecting again on this issue of family values and on how we can strengthen relationships not only within whānau and smaller family groupings but, more widely, within the diverse ethnic community that is now our heritage and our treasure. So I touch on that.

It is quite clear, is it not, that New Zealand faces a difficult and uncertain period in the context of what is going on globally. It seems to me that 2009 will be a year that will be difficult for many. It will be a year when many will hunker down. It will be a time when, in the context of businesses such as retail and hospitality, there will be particular challenges. But I think that we are well placed, because of our resilience as a people, to come through that period in a reasonable way. For some it will be hurtful. For most of us it will be very challenging. But we do have some particular advantages, and one of those advantages must surely be our self-sufficiency in food. That is why, to date, the Government has released, and plans to further announce, a whole step of measures that should strengthen our small to medium sized enterprises, which contribute to the wealth of the nation. Ninety-five percent of all business entities in New Zealand are reflected in the small to medium sized enterprise sector, ranging across small unincorporated businesses, partnerships, and, of course, companies themselves.

The final thing I would like to talk about, which was brought home so strongly by that Indian community in South Auckland, is the issue of law and order. Under the previous Labour Government we tolerated a circumstance where law and order was not given the focus and commitment that it should have been given. Sure, it was a significant talking point, and it was very much a talking point in this House. But so often that is where it stopped.

We can look at a whole raft of law and order issues, and organised crime would be a good illustration. We have seen a very determined advance by organised crime into areas of activity where traditionally it was not an entrant. It starts with drugs and goes on to a whole lot of racketeering being committed.

💬 Moana Mackey: All talk, no action!

To respond to the interjector opposite, I say that is why we plan to launch a whole lot of initiatives that start with issues like DNA testing of those convicted of serious offences. These initiatives go on to deal in a determined way with abuses in the parole system, and to provide effective targeting of young people who are in trouble. There are a whole lot of initiatives that I feel certain—and I know my colleagues do—will produce significant gains to the community.

💬 Moana Mackey: When will we see the legislation that is being debated today?

The legislation will be available for debate today. It will go to select committees for review, for refinement, and for report back. So these catcalls that are coming across the House towards me are empty, because there will be an opportunity for public participation and for debate in this Chamber on the merits of that law. Why those opposite should contend otherwise, I do not understand.

Those are three issues that this Government is absolutely committed to dealing with—issues around the economy, issues around the family, and issues around law and order. Surely if those issues are robustly and properly addressed, the first term of this Government—and I hope it will be the first of many terms—will be characterised by robustness, by advance, and by benefit.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could the Green Party split this call, with me speaking first and Sue Kedgley speaking second?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is agreed.

I begin my speech by complimenting the director of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, Dr Warren Tucker, on the new spirit of openness that he has conveyed since he took over in the position a year or so ago. It is very good that he is allowing, under the Privacy Act, people like me—and others who have been involved in various progressive movements—to look at their files. What those files show are some very bad practices in the history of the Security Intelligence Service in respect of targeting dissenters. My file was concerned with my involvement in the anti - Viet Nam War movement, the antinuclear movement, the anti-apartheid movement, and movements for human rights in Latin America, the Philippines, and elsewhere.

The horrific thing about that file is that it shows that the Security Intelligence Service had infiltrators pretending to be fellow campaigners. Those infiltrators reported on everyone who was present at the meetings—public and private—and they reported on who was doing what, who was carrying the banners, and who was going out. They even reported on trivial details such as the fact that at 0900 hours a person went out to buy a Sunday newspaper. It was very detailed stuff. My own file detailed my movements around the country and around the world, what car I was driving, and my romantic attachments. All of this was completely unjustified in terms of the law of the Security Intelligence Service and in terms of any concept of fair play. In my case the record goes from when I was aged 11 in 1955. This file has been updated and continued since I have been in Parliament not only with newspaper clippings but also with the monitoring of my private conversations with constituents in the Tamil community of Sri Lanka back in 2003, before I went off on a peace-monitoring trip to Sri Lanka.

It is good that the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa and other groups have also obtained their files. Those files show a similar pattern over the years of the Security Intelligence Service not upholding the new legislation. It should have been watching only people involved in treason, espionage, and terrorism, but, in the interests of the Government of the day, it has been countering the activities of campaigners. In my case, that countering meant trying to stop me from getting jobs and conspiring directly with employers. It was recorded and reported back to the Security Intelligence Service that I supported someone who was applying for permanent residence in New Zealand. The fact that I had a personal Security Intelligence Service file probably stopped that person from getting permanent residence. So having such a file had concrete effects. It was not just about being watched; it hindered my career and probably the careers of many, many others.

It is good that John Key has responded by asking the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor, to look at the way in which files are set up, maintained, and closed. It is good that John Key says that I—and, hopefully, others whose files show a similar pattern—can cooperate with the inspector-general to really get to the bottom of this issue. We need a much broader inquiry, but that is a good start.

The surveillance—or what might be called oversight or accountability measures—of the Security Intelligence Service is very weak. In Parliament today my colleague Kennedy Graham tabled what he received from official sources as being the current membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It still lists the members of the previous Parliament, including Winston Peters. No new committee has been set up over the past few months of this Parliament. When I have put forward written questions in the past, I have found that the committee meets for only about an hour a year, which is enough time to hear a little report from the director of intelligence, and perhaps have a cup of coffee. It is not an oversight body, and that is why, over the years, the Security Intelligence Service has effectively been able to be a law unto itself—even spying on members of Parliament.

This MMP Parliament represents a much wider range of views than was the case when we had a Labour-National monopoly. The Green Party, in particular, represents movements outside Parliament. It represents people fighting for social change, environmental issues, and international social justice issues like the ones I have been involved in. The twisted logic is that if organisations are spying on these movements for social change and international solidarity, they are also spying on MPs. This practice is an offence to democracy in this country—particularly parliamentary democracy—and it is an offence to Parliament’s independence from the executive. That is why it must be opposed. Thank you.

Last week, when the Secretary-General of the United Nations was calling for a green new deal, he observed that if we are to emerge from the present global financial crisis we must break the tyranny of short-term thinking, in favour of long-term solutions. Short-term thinking, he pointed out, got us into the present crisis; only long-term thinking will get us out of it. Surely that is the challenge before our Parliament and this Government—long-term thinking and long-term solutions.

But last Friday we had a stunning example of short-term thinking, and in my view incredibly stupid thinking, when the Minister of Education announced that she was removing the requirement for schools to sell healthy food in school tuck shops. That move has, effectively, scrapped the school food guidelines, which have been developed over 3 years and were working well in schools around the country. I believe this is an extraordinarily short-sighted and stupid move when we consider that New Zealand, like most of the Western World, is facing a long-term epidemic in obesity-related diseases, and poor nutrition is the leading cause, by miles, of death and premature disease in New Zealand. The Ministry of Health estimates that obesity costs $500 million in direct health costs, and that one-third of our children are overweight or obese. Experts are warning that unless we radically improve the diets and eating habits of young New Zealanders, our health system will shortly be overwhelmed in coping with the epidemics of type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and so forth, and that the damage will be irreversible.

Most people are aware of these looming long-term epidemics, and most New Zealanders therefore accept that we must improve the eating habits and diets of young New Zealanders. That is why the school food guidelines were introduced, and why the previous Government passed a regulation requiring schools to sell healthy food. Sure, a couple of principals bleated about it, but most schools and most parents have been right behind the idea of providing a food environment that promotes better learning and behaviour in pupils. The principal of Wellington East Girls’ College said in the media a few days ago that she had been sceptical when the guidelines were brought in, but they were having a very positive effect. A Wellington College pupil said he was quite gutted when lollies were removed from the tuck shop last year, but now he thinks that is a great idea. He says it is, actually, good to have the temptation taken away.

I could quote many other examples of the overwhelming support for getting junk food out of schools and for promoting healthy eating. It is well established that diet affects children’s behaviour and also their ability to concentrate and learn in class. It is well accepted that children who are loaded with sugar and caffeine struggle to concentrate, and that when they eat healthy food they are better able to concentrate in class, better able to learn, and better behaved. It is also well established that eating high-sugar food contributes to dental disease; we have a major problem of that in New Zealand.

So all of that begs the question of why, just as real progress is being made in changing the food environment in our schools, the Government would ditch that very positive initiative. Why would the Minister ditch it, and remove any obligation to sell healthy food in tuck shops, so that there is now no standard and no expectation that schools have to sell healthy food? That is an astonishingly stupid and short-sighted policy.

I now seek an amendment to the amendment to the motion for the Address in Reply, in the name of Sue Kedgley. I seek to move an amendment to the amendment in Phil Goff’s name, to insert, before the words “and expects”, the words “and commits to a green new deal to simultaneously combat the economic crisis and the climate crisis in a way which is fair to all New Zealanders, to give our environment the greater protection it desperately needs and on which our economy entirely depends, and to conduct politics in a way which is honest, open, and democratic; and supports the continued representation in this House of the true diversity of voices in Aotearoa New Zealand;”. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.