General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Just over a week ago I had an occasion to visit Irwin Industrial Tools in a small town, Wellsford, just north of Auckland, where 120 out of a workforce of around 160 are being laid off. I witnessed firsthand the absolute trauma facing workers who were losing their jobs in a town where there are no other jobs to go to. Yesterday I went down to Sealord in Nelson. Again, we are seeing the loss of 160 jobs, which will have reverberations right across the Nelson economy—as Nick Smith will be aware. I talked to my son earlier in the week. He works as an electrician. He said that the two apprentices who have just come out of their time in his firm have been laid off. They have been laid off when they have completed 4 years of training and have yet to have the opportunity to utilise the skills that they have worked hard to gain.

These are just some of the human faces behind the Treasury estimate that we are currently losing more than 1,000 jobs a week in New Zealand. They are decent, hard-working New Zealanders. They are people who, when they lose the ability to earn a livelihood, also have in jeopardy their ability to meet the costs of their mortgages. Those two things combined have an impact on stress in family relationships, and we know that there is a direct relationship between those things and marriage break-ups.

This is undoubtedly a crisis, and it is a crisis that impacts unevenly on this country. Some people—those losing their jobs—are carrying the burden of the recession that New Zealand is now deeply into. There is urgency needed to address that problem, and for that reason the Labour Party supported the holding of the Job Summit last Friday. We did more than support it; I wrote to John Key and said that this issue transcends party politics and that we need to come together in this House to address and tackle those problems. I got the answer back from Mr Key—as he was entitled to do—that, no, this Government, which makes proud claims of being inclusive, did not want Labour or the Greens there. Forty percent of the New Zealand population represented in this House was excluded from the conference. I looked at the list. There were some very worthy people there—some very good minds. What I did not see were people who represented those with the most to lose. I initially did not see on the list members from the Pacific Island community. Nick Tuitasi used to work as a community constable in my electorate. He said in the New Zealand Herald that he was invited to the summit 2 days before it, obviously because the National Government had not given forethought to the Pacific Island community, which suffered a 17 percent rate of unemployment the last time that National was in office.

We continue to support the Job Summit, but it has to be more than a place where ideas are discussed. There has to be a concrete expression from that summit that will make a real difference in the lives of the people whom I have been talking to over the last couple of weeks. I hoped the Government would go to the summit, listen, and take on board the ideas that were expressed. I have great respect for Rob Fyfe, the chief executive officer of Air New Zealand. I have huge respect for Stephen Tindall. Those two prominent members of the summit said that there is one way that the Government can make a real difference in unemployment through stimulating the economy. It is not to take away the tax cuts; it is to refocus the tax cuts on those who are at the bottom of the heap—the low and middle income families and low-income workers—because they will spend that money. Bill English asked me in the House yesterday why Rob Fyfe was saying that. He said that giving money to people on higher incomes will help Air New Zealand because they will take overseas trips. What an answer! What an answer to give in this House! I say to the Government that it is no good putting up schemes of $50 million when we would have a pool of $4.5 billion if it were sent in tax cuts to those who need it most—those who are the key victims of the downturn. They will spend it, they will create jobs, and they will keep businesses going. The best economic minds at the summit told National that, yet it was deaf to those arguments.

Then there is infrastructure development. I ask whether there is a person in this House who does not think that the Labour-Green idea of spending $1 billion on giving people warm and dry houses would not only make them healthier, but would be a great job creator.

Nobody in this Parliament is more focused on the issue of jobs and employment than the Prime Minister, John Key, who organised the Job Summit last week. This morning I talked with one of the staff members who had lost his job at Sealord, which Phil Goff visited yesterday. Let me tell members what he asked me. He asked why, when he lost his job at Sealord Shellfish just 12 months ago, not a single Labour Minister showed his or her face, despite the fact that there were twice as many job losses then as there were at Sealord this week.

The Leader of the Opposition has become an ambulance chaser, rather than focusing on these solutions. In this House we all know that the key to job security is good economic management. Members opposite would have us believe the myth that they left this country’s finances in good shape, but I will talk about the cold hard facts that show the mess that Labour left behind.

Today I released the report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that the liabilities of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) have blown out to a massive $22 billion. That is an increase from $6 billion a decade ago. The Labour Government has left ACC in such a parlous state that the new Government has no choice but to hugely increase levies or to pull back on the entitlements that have been generously provided by the previous Government but not funded.

I am advised, for instance, that in the area of motor vehicle licences, to fully fund the scheme, the cost will have to go up by more than $150 for each car owner, which is over and above the $50 increase the previous Government put in place.

I am advised that over the next 5 years, employers’ levies will need to increase by 71 percent. What will that do for jobs? What will that do for businesses that are on the margin of being able to survive, when that reckless previous Government imposed potential costs that will destroy jobs in that area? For earners—and these are ordinary workers who are struggling with the recession—we are looking at increases of 186 percent.

Let me say plainly what these reports mean for homeowners. Under current policy and legislation, in the next 5 years the average homeowner will have to pay an extra $2,400 a year in ACC levies. For the average worker it is an extra $1,400 per year. Can we allow those sorts of costs to be imposed on New Zealanders when they are facing all the impacts of the recession?

A further question I ask members opposite is where the moral authority of Maryan Street and Michael Cullen was when they knew about these huge problems in ACC. When they sat and watched the news during the election campaign they knew that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update was dishonest and a breach of the Public Finance Act, yet they sat by silently. That is a disgrace.

The biggest issue of the election campaign was the affordability of policies. The very least that the public of New Zealand deserved was honesty from members opposite and compliance with the law in respect of the problems that had burst out within ACC and its various accounts. The reality is that ACC is effectively insolvent. With ACC’s $22 billion worth of liabilities, and its investments obviously performing very poorly, there are some very difficult choices for the new Government to make. This new Government is committed to a 24/7 accident insurance scheme, but change is needed to ensure its survival.

Today marks an extremely important milestone in the life of this Parliament—a watershed moment, a line in the sand. Today is the day to heal the nation of the unrest that has stirred in the hearts of New Zealanders since 23 June 2003, the day that the previous Prime Minister and Attorney-General both publicly asserted that the foreshore and seabed was owned by the Crown. That assertion was an impetuous and ill-conceived reaction to the finding by the Court of Appeal that the iwi of Te Tau Ihu were entitled to go to the Māori Land Court with their claim for customary title over areas of foreshore and seabed in the Marlborough Sounds and extending to the limits of New Zealand’s territorial sea as defined in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

That reaction and the subsequent Foreshore and Seabed Bill caused considerable angst amongst iwi but also further afield. The Waitangi Tribunal found that the bill was inconsistent with the text and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination requested that the Government respond to allegations that the bill racially discriminated.

With the announcement of the terms of reference for the review, today is an opportunity to have a good look at this whole situation. The issue was never about the fictional crisis that New Zealanders would not be able to go to the beach this Christmas. Tangata whenua have never denied others access. It is not part of our philosophy. Today it is time to redress the anguish that erupted in the wake of the Labour Government’s retrograde legislation to extinguish the customary rights of tangata whenua—the infamous Foreshore and Seabed Act.

The fifth of May 2004 will be forever etched in my memory as the day that New Zealanders stood together to fight for the right simply to have our day in court and the right to due access before the law. We came together right across Aotearoa for the cause of access, for the cause of justice, and for the cause of nationhood. I remember that day vividly. Our entire law centre closed down so that we could march. We had five German law students interning with us, and they marched, as well. To a person they were aghast at this breach of human rights.

It is not up to the Crown to legislate to change due process to suit the Government of the day. We never conceded consent to the Crown for the foreshore and seabed, in the same way that we never conceded our hapū sovereignty. The Crown can never bestow mana on Māori. Iwi themselves hold that authority as mana whenua. It is their right to hold their authority over their seas, their lands, and their rohe.

So it is that we have, as of midday today, set about a course to right the wrongs. This course of action is to review whether the current legislation enhances mana whenua and public interests in the takutai moana. It was a course of action we signed up to on 16 November 2008 in the relationship and in the confidence and supply agreement signed between the Māori Party and the National Party. In that agreement, we made the commitment together to undertake a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. We believe that there is no apparent reason for treating Māori differently under the law in terms of the protection of their property rights.

Effectively, the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act enables the nation to take a deep breath, and to ascertain the nature and extent of both mana whenua and public interests in the foreshore and seabed prior to the Attorney-General’s action in 2003. It means embracing a situation that enables Māori access to the due process of law—nothing more, nothing less. It is time for a good look at whether the Foreshore and Seabed Act is able to recognise and provide for customary and aboriginal title and for public interests, and, in doing so, to work out such interests as demonstrated by Māori, local government, and business in the coastal marine area.

As I said at the start of this speech, today is a watershed moment in New Zealand history. My final word is to mihi to the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu, who decided at a hui at Ōmaka Marae in Blenheim in 1997 to take the action that was always about opening up the door to allow their voices to be heard. We welcome at last the chance to have the kōrero, to open up the opportunity for New Zealanders to truly share in their aspirations for our nationhood. It is a chance that we must be brave enough to take up with open hearts and willing minds. Kia ora.

I acknowledge the member Rahui Katene, who has just resumed her seat, and I say that the Labour Party stands ready to participate in good faith in a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. We wish her and the National Government luck, recognising that the Māori Party voted against the original legislation for principled reasons, and that the National Party voted against it for principled reasons, just different ones. National thought that the legislation gave too many rights to tangata whenua; the Māori Party thought that it did not give enough. So I say good luck with the review. We will be happy to participate in it.

I want to talk about the Job Summit, which has been widely heralded. “The future of Key’s Government hangs on the summit delivering outcomes. Concrete practical proposals …”, stated Jenni McManus in Business Day. Labour also welcomes any process that will get good ideas on the table for real New Zealanders. We think that the problems of the international recession are bigger than all of us, and, as we have said many times on previous occasions, we are prepared to take a bipartisan approach to finding solutions. We would have been happy to be in the room contributing ideas, but the Government has put politics ahead of policy in order to keep us out. But that does not stop us now from taking the ideas that many good-hearted New Zealanders have provided and working with the Government to see whether we can make some sense of them. I will mention just a couple of them.

But before I do that, let us just reflect on the fact that those who were at the Job Summit represented not all, but a section, of the New Zealand community. Vast swathes were excluded, including Pasifika. One participant reflected to me that it was kind of like the Remuera tennis club moving down the road to the Manukau TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre, and that most of the 160 captains of industry—who were all boys, and many of them King’s College old boys—were from a particular section of society. Actually, that does not matter, because it is the quality of the ideas that matter.

Let us see what these people have come up with. The 9-day fortnight is a very interesting idea. As I understand, and as the media were told, it was an idea that would surface before the summit was even held. It was an idea that was developed by the Government, and was, if you like, planted in the summit. Yet we have been told today by the Prime Minister that he still has no idea who will pay for the last day and that it is too early to say. I do not know whether the worker will pay, the Government will pay, or the employer will pay.

💬 Hon Annette King: It will be the worker, I bet.

I suspect it will be the workers, but let us wait and see. But if this is the lynchpin—the top idea from the top summit that will turn round the economy—then I think that members opposite are dreaming if they think this idea will do the trick.

Intranational migration to remove barriers between employers is a good idea, and we have been doing that. Keeping people in education—yes; that is what Schools Plus was about. Redundancy and transition support is a very good idea, because it means that workers will not bear the full brunt of redundancy. Enhancing the use of Māori iwi assets is a good idea—Māori are an important asset-holder. But how?

A freeze on rule-making by Government agencies has been suggested. Really? If we have no more rules on any subject, will that turn the economy round? It sounds good—politically sexy, perhaps—but really, really silly if one is running an economy or running a Government.

Boosting tourist traffic would be nice, but how will we do it? Accelerating energy initiatives and environmental and water initiatives sounds wonderful, but this is the same Government that is asking itself whether climate change even exists. Perhaps it had better make up its mind before it tries to sound green.

Streamlining regulatory approval for major projects might have some potential. Levelling the playing field for New Zealand firms for local and central government procurement sounds good, too—Swazi Apparel comes to mind. That measure was something the previous Government worked on.

These ideas are not bad. The question is whether they can be formed into useful policy and whether, taken together, they will be enough in the light of the so-called rolling maul of dribs and drabs that is the antithesis of a strategic approach to a crisis that is the greatest in a generation.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What would you do? Tell us what you would do.

What would we do? We would have a programme that sets out the boundaries of where we would go, that said the total amount of stimulus that we needed, and that said how we would get the most use out of it.

The first thing we would not do is take tax cuts designed for working New Zealanders who desperately needed relief and give them to upper-income New Zealanders, who will save a great deal of that money rather than spend it. Tax cuts for upper-income earners are the last thing that one does if one is trying to get stimulus in the economy. The second thing one would do is to give New Zealanders, including New Zealand businesses, a sense of where the long-term direction is, rather than just short-term stabilisation.

The most interesting point that could be observed about that speech was the interesting dynamics between Shane Jones and Mr Cunliffe as the speech was under way. I am pleased to be able to take a call in the general debate in order to add my concern to the revelations from the Minister for ACC today that not only have New Zealanders had to put up with a deceitful previous Government hiding the facts regarding the true state of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) but also the books have got so bad—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you heard the National member on his feet refer to a group of members in this Chamber in a way that is not consistent with the Standing Orders. I think he should be asked to withdraw and apologise for doing that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If I heard the member correctly, he referred to a Government being deceitful.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: In the Standing Orders it is clear that unparliamentary comments about a member or a group of members—in other words their party, which is clearly what the member meant—is out of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a matter of public record that the Public Finance Act was breached and that two Ministers in the previous Government—namely, Maryan Street and Michael Cullen—knew of the blowout and did not include it in the pre-election fiscal update. So I think it is perfectly proper for my colleague to make reference to that very important breach of the Public Finance Act.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have now heard sufficient on the matter, and I accept the original point of order raised by the Hon Darren Hughes that using unparliamentary language about a Government is the same as using unparliamentary language about an individual member. Therefore, I ask the honourable Minister to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. A previous Government was less than open and frank with the public about the information it held. It was absolutely clear that Dr Cullen knew and that he did not tell anybody about what was going on—that we are aware of. Did he tell the rest of Cabinet about the debt? No, not a word.

Nick Smith was able to reveal today that the previous Government’s mismanagement of the accident compensation scheme will cost the average New Zealand family $2,400 a year—$46 a week—unless the Government takes action to stop New Zealanders from being lumbered with that liability. What has happened is that those members opposite, when in Government, failed to keep the costs under control, so the burden will be visited upon hard-working New Zealanders through the increased taxes and levies they will have to pay towards accident compensation. As Minister Smith has said, people are looking at paying a significant increase in the motor vehicle levy. A motor vehicle registration will cost $510 if action is not taken. There will be a charge of $510 in motor vehicle levies for an average household with two vehicles. There will be a $938 increase in the earners levy. These big amounts of money will affect hard-working New Zealanders, and it is because of the previous Government’s mismanagement of the accident compensation system.

Labour’s mismanagement goes beyond the numbers. One of the most important roles of ACC is to help workers get back into work and to become independent again as quickly as possible. It is a fundamental responsibility of ACC. We know that if people stay on accident compensation or on benefits for a longer time than is appropriate, it is not good for them and it is not good for their families. That is why workers have always said that they want a strong focus on rehabilitation and on getting back to work and becoming independent.

What is stunning, appalling, and dreadful, if we look at page 6 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, is the fact that ACC is failing big time in helping accident victims rehabilitate and get back into work. One of the corporation’s fundamental responsibilities is to help workers get back into work and become independent. It is actually what Labour members used to go on about before they got comfortable after 9 years in Government and forgot about working people. They really forgot about working people in their 9 years in Government.

If Labour members were really concerned about what was going on in ACC, then why were they not dealing with the fact that workers were not getting quality rehabilitation and the chance to get back into work and independence quickly? There was not a word from Labour about what ACC should have been doing. Instead, Labour was letting the costs get out of control, making New Zealanders confront the fact that they might have to pay an extra $46 a week for accident compensation, but there was not a word about the failing efforts of ACC to get workers back into work and independence. It is quite clear from this report from PricewaterhouseCoopers that the cost of not getting workers back to independence and back into their jobs, which is where they want to be, is substantial, not only financially—it is estimated to cost about $700 million a year—but also in terms of the confidence and independence of those families, which is more important.

This Government says that the priority for ACC must be controlling its costs, reducing the burden on hard-working families, and providing decent support and rehabilitation for accident victims. What about getting them back into work and independence? I ask why that situation got worse during the best of times. That is what members opposite had when they were in Government.

That failed Government had the best of times. That Government had 9 of the best years in New Zealand, and if it could not get workers into work and back to independence after an accident, then that is a shocking indictment on its performance. Labour members used to stand up and say that we need to focus on rehabilitation, on services for accident victims, and on getting people into jobs. But this PricewaterhouseCoopers report shows that that party opposite failed the people whom it purports to represent.

There is nothing like rewriting history, and if there is one member who gets his twink out all over political history in New Zealand to try to cover up what National did in the 1990s and the great work that happened in the 2000s under Labour then it is the Hon Tony Ryall. He is one of a small group of Ministers who we are looking forward to watching. He is so full of his own self-confidence and his own belief that he is going to be able to make the changes he whinged and complained about for 9 years. When he falls flat on his face, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will be here to point it out—as well as a few of his own colleagues. We know that he is not one of the most popular members of Cabinet, and quite a few of those frustrated backbenchers know he is going to be a Minister who falls over.

It is amazing that Mr Ryall considers the previous Government to be a failure. Why then did National members adopt most of the Labour Government’s policies before they got within cooee of the Treasury benches? When National campaigned on a more right-wing agenda—which some of its members were much more keen on—it could not get within cooee of the Treasury benches, and its members sit there now because they have adopted so many of Labour’s policies.

National’s members are letting all the spin wash over everything. All of a sudden the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is the great big monkey on their shoulders that they are going on about. They say that they so are worried about it, they have had to contact Harcourts to put the “For Sale” sign out the front as a way of justifying the privatisation of that asset. The report that came out yesterday showed the truth. It exonerated Dr Cullen and Maryan Street, and not one single bit of nonsense from the Opposition that is being repeated, and repeated, and repeated will ever make it anything other than the truth that I have said.

The Government opposite talks about the failed record of the Labour Government on the economy. Labour resisted the temptation of the here and now when, year after year, National said: “Give away the surplus.” Every year, when the Budget surplus was repeated, National speakers would get up one after the other and say: “Give away the surplus; spend it!”. The Labour Government put it away into the superannuation fund for the future and used it to pay down debt. The only reason that National Government is able to pursue what small, timid little ideas it had in its manifesto is because its ability to borrow is stronger than it would have been if Labour had not paid down debt year after year. So we are not going to brook any criticism of the economic record of the Labour Government. New Zealand is well positioned for this terrible worldwide recession because of the actions that Labour took in Government. We will have a little bit more consistency with the facts when it comes to National trying to argue its way ahead.

Today, the Labour Opposition is making the point that not enough is happening to combat the recession and to protect jobs in this economy. In fact, the only jobs the Government’s members are concerned about are their own ones. The only jobs they are moving to protect are their own ones, and that is because they have the great spin machine going with their “rolling maul” of initiatives. They are proud of that. They are proud that they are doing very little once a week to get in the media in New Zealand, and that will suit their political purposes for 2009—I have no doubt of that, whatsoever. But it does not suit the purposes of the economy. The economy needs a positive signal from Government members that they are serious about the issues that confront this country, and that they have a proper comprehensive plan for doing something about it. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the transport area, where the Government asked to be congratulated on bringing forward the Kōpū Bridge by 3 months at the grand cost of nothing. There is one good thing about this: Maurice Williamson wanted to toll the bridge, but it is not going to be tolled, in reflection of the recession. So I guess that is one positive to come out of it. But other than that, there is nothing about transport that this Government can point to that is actually going to help the economy.

I look at rail. In the rail announcements today, the majority of the money that Bill English was talking about—the $40 million for new locomotives—was money already voted by Parliament under the previous Government. We hear members talk about underfunded commitments. Bill English could only talk about those trains today because they were funded by the previous Government.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, they weren’t!

Nick Smith needs to check the books, because that is where the money came from. It just shows that someone can be a front-bench Cabinet Minister and not know that that $40 million came from money already appropriated. I am worried that that man holds a warrant. Actually, to be fair, I was worried about it before he said that.

We in Labour say that rail has a positive future and a positive vision for being part of the economic stimulus. It is good for the environment, good for jobs, and good for the efficiency of our transport network. National is letting that go at every single level.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was a dopey deal.

He calls it a dopey deal. Nick Smith calls rail a dopey deal for the New Zealand economy. That shows the limitation of the Government.

We want to see more trains carrying more passengers and more freight around New Zealand, because that is the way we are going to get more jobs into our economy and open up regional and rural New Zealand. Those Government members from rural and regional seats who do not speak one word to defend regional and rural rail lines have to answer to their constituents about that, because today the Minister of Finance did not guarantee any single one of the rail lines—they will have to front up and do that.

I think the way Darren Hughes MP carries on explains why he lost his seat, and he has forgotten why Labour lost last year, on 8 November. Labour, according to him, was doing such a fantastic job, and he is now trying to tell New Zealanders that the voters out there made a mistake, which is why Labour lost the election and he lost his seat. He is in total denial, as are the previous Minister of Finance, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, and the previous Minister for ACC, the Hon Maryan Street. They live in denial.

Labour members forgot that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen also put his signature on the pre-election fiscal update that failed to disclose there was a $300 million anomaly and a billion-dollar blowout in the non-earners account of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for the next 3 years. They chose not to tell the New Zealand voters. The Leader of the Opposition stood up and said he was really sad to have visited the people who lost their jobs at Sealord and that $1 billion should be spent on housing improvements. But we know what happened with the billion-dollar blowout in ACC.

The National-led Government has been forced to take a hard look at the accident compensation schemes, but that is nothing new. We voted against the amendment bill that was brought to the House last year, as we knew that Labour continued to live in denial. It was very obvious that Labour members were ruining the accident compensation scheme, which was set up as an insurance scheme. They were using it as a de facto funding mechanism for whatever they saw fit. That is nothing short of being reckless.

Let me use some examples. There was a letter written by the previous Minister for ACC, the Hon Maryan Street, to the chair of the board of ACC, Ross Wilson, asking him to use the ACC contract for service providers of home care to force the providers to go into a collective agreement and collective bargaining. Labour members were running the unions’ agenda, putting the unions’ wishes ahead of accident compensation claimants and the affordability of the scheme. That is nothing short of reckless.

It gets worse than that. Last year, among all the changes that the Labour Government brought into the insurance scheme, it endorsed people committing suicide by allowing an entitlement to compensation in such cases. In the accident compensation scheme there has been a longstanding provision that compensation would be paid to those surviving suicide only in cases where the attempted suicide that caused the injury was due to mental illness. The Labour Government removed that provision so that there would be an entitlement to compensation in the case of anybody who attempted suicide. Anybody else who does that is actually committing a criminal offence.

Those are only two examples of the reckless behaviour of the previous Labour Government, and those members will remain members of the previous Labour Government for a very, very long time. All Labour did was to shift the boundary for claimants and to defer expenditure so that people pay higher levies in the future. The two reports, the inquiry report and the latest PricewaterhouseCoopers report, show that the time is up for the investment return to disguise the incompetence and the cost blowout in the accident compensation scheme. If the National-led Government does not address those issues, in 4 years’ time we will be looking at households having to pay over $2,000 overall in levies for accident compensation coverage.

I rise to address what may be—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to pay some courtesy to a new member. Thank you.

I rise to address what may be the most urgent issue to come before the House in its entire history. The spectre of climate change grows more severe with every passing year. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projected a global temperature increase of some 3 degrees over this century, with a consequent sea level rise of perhaps half a metre. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that even the most serious scenarios involving ice melt and the thawing of the northern tundra were not included, because the relevant studies had not been peer reviewed. Since then the scientific community has confirmed that this scenario is already occurring. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-chair has just stated that we are looking now at a future climate beyond anything seriously considered before. The possible sea level rise may be anything from 2 to 17 metres over the next 50 years.

The effects of severe climate disturbance, involving frequent and devastating storms, flooding, and drought, combined with crop failure, will put unprecedented strain on human civilisation. The probability of this occurring cannot be assessed with accuracy, but the precautionary principle accepted by the international community in 1992 makes it imperative that humanity acts now, given what is at stake. That year we undertook to achieve climate stabilisation in time for ecosystems to adapt naturally to ensure that food production is not threatened. That vital global objective is not being achieved. The only mechanism to that end—the Kyoto Protocol—took 16 years to become operative. They were critical years while the world steadily increased emissions. The Kyoto Protocol itself is palpably inadequate. Even if fully implemented it would do little to curb the full effect of climate change, shaving perhaps 0.2 degrees off the projected 3-degree increase. Let us be realistic; the full achievement of Kyoto is not about to occur. Only a Green New Deal, genuinely applied around the world and here at home, can turn round this situation.

Meanwhile, as we fail our modest preliminary goal, we bicker within the international community over burden sharing for the next goal. The North refuses to accept any further cuts until the South accepts binding obligations, yet the North emits four times more per capita emissions than the South. The principle of humanity requires us in the North to reduce our per capita emissions while those in the South maintain theirs. A framework for contraction and convergence is the only equitable way for the global community of peoples to proceed and the only legitimate way of resolving the global crisis. It is not clear that the international community of States is up to the task.

We have this year—2009—to reach a binding global agreement. This is our moment of truth. Failure to reach agreement on at least 30 percent cuts by 2020 will spell catastrophe for humanity. If we engage in a lingering denial or inconclusive argumentation, we fail our citizens morally, intellectually, and politically. At Poznan the Minister said climate change was one of the greatest challenges of our age and that New Zealand was determined to play a positive role. At home another Minister remains sceptical of alarmist claims over climate change. At Poznan the Minister said his Government fully understands and accepts its longstanding international obligations under Kyoto. At home his ministerial colleague continues to hope the emissions trading scheme will be rescinded. With cognitive dissonance of such breathtaking proportion, who needs enemies in our collective fight against climate change?

I will read from the Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ account. When the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update was published on 6 October 2008 it included an assessment of the total outstanding claims liability of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), based on the 30 June 2008 data prepared for ACC by PricewaterhouseCoopers Actuarial. What was not included in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update was any information on the implications of changes in this liability for the Crown’s funding of the non-earners account. The previous Government knew all about it.

I now refer to a letter—and I will also read from the report—from the previous Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street to the previous Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, dated 22 October 2008, which was 1 month before the general election. The letter advises the then Minister of Finance of the then Minister for ACC’s intention to seek an additional appropriation for 2008-09 and future years, through Cabinet, following the election. The letter informs the then Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, that ACC has advised the then Minister for ACC that an increase of $297 million is necessary for 2008-09—and similar amounts in future years.

The previous Labour Government knew all about the blowout in ACC before the 2008 general election. The previous Government knew about the blowout and chose not to disclose it to the people of New Zealand. The previous Government knew about this funding shortfall and hid it. Both the previous Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street and the previous Minister of Finance Michael Cullen knew all about this funding blowout in time for it to be disclosed.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Rubbish!

The Opposition members are denying it but they cannot deny the facts, because the facts are in this report.

💬 Hon David Carter: No one believes them.

As my colleague the Minister of Agriculture points out, nobody believes the Opposition anyway.

Michael Cullen knew in time for this to be disclosed as a fiscal risk in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. He did not disclose it. It is no wonder the public of New Zealand chose a National Government. The actions of the previous Labour Government are irresponsible and have serious and ongoing impacts for the people of this country.

Let us look at the facts of this report, because I think the facts speak for themselves. During the previous Government’s term there was a $15.6 billion increase in ACC liabilities. The PricewaterhouseCoopers valuation, which was based on 31 December 2008 data, shows that ACC’s liabilities had blown out to $21.9 billion. That is a deterioration of $2.6 billion—taxpayers’ dollars—from 6 months earlier, and $3.9 billion of taxpayers’ money over the last year. I would say that those damning facts put the lie well and truly to the Labour Government’s claims to have left the books in good financial heart.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the member’s speech but she used an unparliamentary word in the context of the speech she is reading out. She might not be aware of it, but it is unparliamentary and it should be withdrawn from the record.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member is correct. To accuse an individual of telling a lie is the same as accusing a party or a Government. I ask the member to withdraw the comment and continue.

I withdraw and apologise. These damning facts well and truly point out that the previous Labour Government has failed utterly to leave the books in good condition, in good financial heart. Mismanagement of the accident compensation scheme under Labour has contributed to this blowout, and I will outline some of those areas. The first is physiotherapy.

I want to start by acknowledging the Government for the recent Job Summit and for the hard work of those who participated. I note that the summit included people like leading unionist Andrew Little, whom a Government Minister described as a “loony leftie”. I also note many key people were left out of that summit. In respect of the contribution earlier from the Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Hon Pansy Wong, I note that only 35 of the 200 participants were women—just 35! How can that be so when women will be disproportionately represented by those damaged by this economic crisis. I ask the Minister why she failed to turn up recently to the Pacific Allied (Women’s) Council Inspires Faith Ideals Concerning All (P.A.C.I.F.I.C.A.) annual general meeting. What is she doing as Minister of Women’s Affairs, I wonder. The real test for all of us now is to see there is real action arising from the Job Summit and for the Government to implement practical measures that make a real difference for people. We are ready and willing to work with the Government in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders.

One area that needs a great deal more attention is support for investment that will not only provide jobs and improve infrastructure but also lift the skills of our workforce. I am sure nobody can disagree with that statement. Rising unemployment—tragically for hundreds of people daily—will disproportionately affect those New Zealanders with low skill levels or very narrowly focused skills. Prior to the current economic crisis there had been a great deal of focus on the skills needs of New Zealand and New Zealanders, and there is no doubt of the need for lifting our skill levels and creating a culture of lifelong learning for individuals, families, workplaces, communities, and our country as a whole. There will be undoubted improvements in productivity, improvements in employment security for workers, improvements in wages, and improvements in people’s ability to participate in their community. Unions, business, the Industry Training Federation, and the previous Labour Government worked very constructively to agree on the New Zealand Skills Strategy. That is a comprehensive plan that the Government seems to know very little about. It is a plan that looks at issues like the link between skills and productivity, the need to address literacy, and building the capability of firms to support workers and managers in lifting skills. Again, the Government seems not to have knowledge of this. Members opposite should all take the time to have a look at the strategy and then implement it.

The Job Summit itself had two key areas that focused on upskilling. The first is to retain and upskill people—the 9-day working fortnight idea. The second is to keep people in education and to create jobs through training and education. But the worry seems to be the significant back-peddling by the Government on the issue. I noticed on Morning Report today Bill English was back-peddling from the idea of providing any support for workers for the 10th day of a 9-day working fortnight. It seems like the burden will be carried solely by workers. That is extremely disappointing, because low-paid workers especially are most in need of upskilling and they cannot be expected to bear the cost of doing this work by themselves. They are willing to play their part but so too must employers and so too must the Government.

This response to the terrible economic situation we are facing is not only a necessary short-term response but is an investment that will position this country for a future that would have social and economic prosperity arising from higher skills and a more skilled workforce. The Government would be negligent not to grab the opportunity to invest heavily in skills; the benefits from that investment will flow to us all. I urge it to consider picking up the skills strategy, and to look at the idea—promoted by the Labour Government prior to the election—of a retraining allowance. That allowance had a very positive initiative to ensure that those who were made redundant could retrain.

I am concerned about the health of the previous member for Ōtaki, Darren Hughes; I fear that one day in this House he will utter so many words without taking a breath that he will fall in a hypoxic heap on the ground. So it is a good thing that we have a couple of doctors and the odd nurse in here to resuscitate the gasping member. I guess their enthusiasm for doing so would be a little higher if what was coming out of his mouth was anything like common sense. Instead we continue to hear the same old rhetoric: the previous Government did a wonderful job, everything was well until 8 November, and it is all dark now. Frankly, no one believes that.

I had to check the Oxford Dictionary definition of “unfunded”. I even took the dictionary from the Noes lobby just in case it was different from the one in the Ayes lobby. “Unfunded” means “the absence of a stock of money”. That is what we had from the Labour Government—promise after promise but with no funding. A billion dollars was promised for home insulation, but it just happened to be the same billion dollars that was committed, from dividends, for renewable energy sources. There was $750 million committed for a universal student allowance. We heard this morning that $3 million was promised to upgrade the train stock. And on and on it goes.

That promised funding does not account for the biggest rort—that is, the concerning revelations around the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). We now know that the previous Minister of Finance and the previous Minister for ACC knew about that issue but did not include it in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. That was a breach of the Public Finance Act. The numbers we are hearing just beggar belief: an increase in levies of $2,400 per family per year, due to a $15.6 billion increase in ACC’s liabilities. Back when we moved to full funding the liability was $4 billion and, despite employers pouring billions and billions of dollars through levies into the residual claims account, the figure has increased to around $10 billion, which nearly matches the Cullen fund. Why? There are very good reasons. The interest rates have changed, which has increased the unfunded liability, but the fact is it should never have been as high as it was.

The real reasons include the management of the scheme. We have seen the steady creep in the criteria for the acceptance of claims and the level of entitlements paid to those claimants. For example, when the changes to medical misadventure—now known as treatment injury—were introduced in 2004, treatment providers warned the Minister that she was opening a financial Pandora’s box; the estimate of costs, nevertheless, was a paltry $8.7 million a year. What do we have now? The cost is about $84 million a year and climbing. We heard David Parker talk about the unfunded liability as a percentage of the total scheme cost. Well, the fact is that levy payers do not pay in percentages; they pay in dollars—$2,400 per family per year. Would this levy increase be any good if claim performance had improved? Absolutely, but what have we seen? Year on year in every fund claims have increased by around 4 to 5 percent per annum. Scheme duration has been slowly dropping, so that there are increases in the number of people on long-term claims.

The fact is this cannot continue. The boundaries around ACC have to be reduced. I look forward to working with a Government that gets real about the financial costs of the policies that are set, sets the boundaries around them, and acts prudently and responsibly. Thank you.

My Labour colleagues have made the point well that when we came into office in 1999 the unfunded liability we inherited was far greater than that inherited by the members opposite when they came into office just last year, and that is a very important point.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the valuation of the outstanding liabilities claim of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), which shows that the figure when Labour came to Government was $6.3 billion, not the $22 billion that it is today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There being no objection, the document can be tabled.

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

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ rulings make it clear that points of order should be used in the middle of somebody’s speech only if the point relates to order and to the speaker who is on his or her feet. There was nothing to stop Dr Nick Smith doing that at the end of the speech made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. To break up her speech like that invites Labour members to use the same mechanism with National members. We have not done that in this debate this afternoon. There is no need to table a document in the middle of a speech. I do not believe that it was an appropriate thing for the member to do—it was just needless.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member, and the point is well made. I remind the Hon Dr Nick Smith that the order of this House requires courtesy on behalf of everybody. The member has made the point well that the document could have been tabled at the end of the speech. It was not a point of order—there was no order about it at all; it was simply a matter of process. I invite members to consider that and make points of order that are about process at the end of a speech, not during it. I think it shows some discourtesy to the speaker at the time.

As a matter of clarification, my colleague Lianne Dalziel makes the point that the unfunded liability was proportionately far greater when National last left office than when it came into office this time. The real point of this is that when we look at the Māori constituencies, we see that not enough Māori and Pacific Island people take up accident compensation, and that is a concern. It was an ongoing concern when National was last in office and when we were in office, and more must be done on that front.

Regarding the Job Summit, some people may have thought it was uninspiring, unambitious, and very vague on the detail, but I think it was a good opportunity to bring people together. Some good people were represented, but I am concerned about who was not there. When we think about the workers who will be affected, when we think about women—and already they are quite concerned about the cutting of the pay equity report that would restore income levels between the genders—when we think about the young people who will be the future workforce for New Zealand that will look after the baby boomers, and when we think of Pacific and Māori people, we see that they were not represented in the ways we would have wanted them to be represented. To me that highlights a significant gap in some of the solutions that may be sought by the Government on a very important and serious issue.

That point has to be made, because when we look at the virtues of the 100 days of progress that the National Government has paraded throughout the country, we see that the things it has introduced have hurt those same groups that were not represented at the Job Summit, in very, very dire ways. Will people who are affected by the 90-day fire-at-will bill be eligible for the ReStart package that was announced by the Minister for Social Development and Employment? Members should think about that. They should think about how it will look on the CV of employees who are employed on an 89-day employment cycle, when no reason whatsoever is given on their CVs as to why they were released. After a while, with the employee having had three or four jobs in fewer than 3 months, an employer who looks at that track record will find the employee cannot give any reason why he or she was released from employment, except that the previous employer did not want him or her. Members should think about what that will do to prospective workers’ employment opportunities in the months ahead. That is a very real consideration when one looks at how difficult the job market will be in the 2 to 3 years to come.

Then there are the tax cuts. The tax cuts will do nothing for those who earn under $44,000 a year, many of whom are Māori or Pacific people, or are young workers who may have left school with very few or no qualifications. Members should think about that and ask what that will do to those in the workforce who are most vulnerable. We have to come back to the communities who will feel the effects of the very real issue of there being no jobs, or who will be pushed from pillar to post in a way that could be exploited under the 90-day bill.

It is a very, very difficult situation. I am not saying that the Government should have all the solutions right here, right now, but it certainly should have a plan for those in the workforce who are the most vulnerable—more particularly, from my point of view, Māori and Pacific people, young people, and women. If that cannot be articulated well, then I look to the jobs that have been lost in Matamata, I look to some of the jobs that have been lost—

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

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.