General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I acknowledge the valedictory speech of Helen Clark today. It can be fairly said that she is the author of New Zealand’s independent foreign policy and, by and large, that now has wide, wide support both within the community and within this Parliament. But one thing I have to ask is why she was not generous enough to acknowledge the new leader of the Labour Party. Does that mean she thinks he will fail, that he will not make it to the 2011 election, or that maybe she has even forgotten his name? It was, I thought, quite remarkable and it will have been observed by many people across this nation.

The speech by the leader of the Labour Party in relation to the Royal Commission on Auckland’s Governance just showed how out of touch he really is. The difference is this: this week the National-led Government—with ACT, in particular, because Rodney Hide is the Minister of Local Government—has made decisions.

Aucklanders expected us to make decisions, because there have been months of debate, intense discussion, and hearings by the royal commission. Every politician in this House from Auckland knows that full well. They have been following the debate and have been close to the communities that they represent. Every one of them is agreed that the existing structure is inadequate and that there should be a single city across the region. That is essential for this reason: we have one of the finest harbours in the world; we have simply failed to realise that potential. Anyone who goes to the waterfront will know its scruffy nature. It was not surprising to me that Mr Bob Harvey said that he, and other politicians in the Auckland region, owed New Zealand and Auckland an apology. They have failed Auckland through having a deficient structure to fix that up. I know that Maryan Street, who at least was previously from Auckland, knows the truth of that. It was essential to move on that issue, and I think there is wide consensus on the single city structure.

The debate essentially settled on the second tier. Let me also be clear about this: it is obvious from the royal commission, and from all the debate, that there should be only two tiers. There is no question of having more tiers than that.

Over the last week I have received hundreds of emails from across North Shore on the future of the community boards. On Monday night I went to the Devonport Community Board meeting. The voices of those at the meeting were absolutely clear that they wanted the retention of their community board. Why is that? It is because the residents of Devonport and Bayswater know that if they want an issue resolved in their particular region, it is the community board that deals with it. It is not the wider North Shore City Council but the community board.

I tell members that if I want to know something about Devonport that I may not personally know myself—although being resident in the area, I usually do—I immediately ring Mike Cohen, the chair of the board, and ask him what he thinks about an issue or what people are thinking about an issue, although by and large I will already have some sense of it. What I do not do is to ring the mayor, because he represents 220,000 people. It is that attachment to the community board that people value. That is the message I have been getting over many, many months, and it certainly came through very clearly over the last 10 days.

The Government has listened to that message. I know I have not been alone in hearing that message, I might add. Many other politicians have heard precisely the same message. Mr Maurice Williamson relayed to his colleagues very clearly and very explicitly the same message from his community. So did the Hon Judith Collins. She relayed exactly that same message. So did Pansy Wong. All of us have received the message that people want connectivity to their local community through representation. The Government has acted, because the consultation has been done.

What a totally hysterical, totally ungracious, and totally lacking in fact contribution to the House. In the past I would have expected better of Dr Mapp, but I know of his near-miss of getting into Cabinet—because it was a very, very, close call—his low ranking, and the portfolios that nobody else wanted so they thought they might as well be given to Dr Wayne Mapp. Since that time his total invisibility probably makes him a little bitter, even though he should not be bitter in that position. For that member to be so ungracious in respect of the valedictory speech of the Rt Hon Helen Clark is, I think, appalling. Every other member in this House, including his leader, John Key, and people like Rodney Hide, who had no reason at all to be gracious to anybody in the Labour Party, had the decency and common courtesy to offer her the respect that she most certainly deserves, because she has earned it. For that member to come into this House and attack her and Phil Goff is just a disgrace. I think the member should learn his basic manners before he takes a call in the House again. At this time in New Zealand most New Zealanders are saying: “It’s the economy, stupid!” and they are saying it with a lot of passion and a lot of feeling, frankly, to people like Dr Mapp. I know his colleagues certainly agree with the latter part of my comment, because those comments are frequently made to members on this side of the House in regard to that member—“It’s the economy, stupid!”.

The single thing that we expect from the Government is leadership; we expect strong leadership on the economic issues that are confronting not just our nation but also other nations around the globe, as well. But what we have had on these areas from the two leaders in National are completely conflicting statements—and I have to say that Phil Goff has highlighted this extraordinarily well over the last few days in questions in the House. John Key said one thing, Bill English said another, and neither of them look at each other any more. When we watch them from this side of the House, their body language is just fabulous. Nathan Guy knows that because he sits right behind them, and I am sure he is tempted to pour a glass of water over them so that he can cool the tension between them—

💬 Chris Hipkins: When he’s not coaching David Bennett.

That is right. In fact, Nathan Guy has spent an awful lot of time in the House over the last little while, coaching poor old David Bennett from Hamilton, coaching Richard Worth, and, of recent times, persuading Nick Smith to go out a different door so that Steven Joyce does not give him another bollocking that we can all see out in the lobby. But Steven Joyce has been too quick for him. On a number of occasions we have seen that Steven Joyce is much faster than he looks. He does not look like Chris Hipkins; he does not look like a young, fit, athletic person—the sort of person who would do a marathon. [Interruption] I am not being insulting, at all, but he is not really, really young, and really, really trim and fit. But by crikey, he can move fast when he has a Minister in his sights. Maurice Williamson is looking a bit anxious. I have not heard yet that Mr Joyce has the Hon Maurice Williamson in his sights, but I tell Mr Joyce to be wary. I think the Hon Maurice Williamson would be able to out-sprint him. He certainly knows more about transport than Steven Joyce will ever know. That is very obvious from his contributions in the House.

We have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance completely at odds about the financial situation and where our economy is headed. On 22 March on Q+A on the TV John Key said “I think by the end of 2009, early 2010, or this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that [economic situation] and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively.” I am not quite sure what all that language means, but he was confident that we would come out of our recession reasonably aggressively by the end of this year or the beginning of next year. But just 2 weeks later, on exactly the same programme, Bill English said “I think one of the features of this recession is that we’re unlikely to aggressively grow out of it.” He was not just contradicting his leader, but also in a considered and thoughtful way, in my view, deliberately using the Prime Minister’s own language to contradict him.

If members on the Opposition side of the House want to hear something complimentary about Labour then I will say something. I think Labour needs a huge compliment paid to it for what it did in the late 1980s, with regard to local government reform. I think Michael Bassett, the Minister of Local Government in 1989, did one of the best things this country has seen, which is take 740 local authorities and bring down the number to 74. But if we are going to be critical of Michael Bassett—and I do not like to be—I have to say he did not go far enough. That was the problem. He left Auckland with seven local authorities.

The joke I used to crack in Auckland was that with all the local authorities—I think we had 34 of them, including the Mount Albert Borough Council, the Mount Eden Borough Council, and the Mount Roskill Borough Council—we are really lucky our roads join up. Then someone pointed out to me that there were some roads in Auckland that did not actually join up. There is a road called Burnley Terrace, just behind Eden Park. The Mount Eden side of the road comes in from one end, and the Mount Albert side comes in from the other end, and there is a little dogleg in the middle where they had to make the road join, because the authorities did not even talk to each other back then about where the roads were going to go. There is just example after example. Now, with seven local authorities, I can give members examples in my portfolio of building and construction where a house that was consented in Manukau City could not get consented in Waitakere. That is just nonsense.

I am sorry we spent four point something million dollars on a royal commission inquiry to advise us on one thing that my colleagues will tell members I have been banging the drum about for a long time with one sentence. I had just one sentence. I said: “I want the big things to go up, and the little things to go down.” In my electorate, I can tell members, it turned out that the people of Howick who felt incensed about local government amalgamation were not actually upset about being amalgamated into Manukau City or about even big things like wastewater, water, roading, and all of those big networks and major issues; they wanted to have more say about their library, swimming pool, whether there would be a disabled car park beside the supermarket, or whatever. It a really clear one-sentence rule. The big things should go up to one council, and the small things should go down to local communities, where they can have a say on the things that matter to them but it does not disturb things. In Wayne Mapp’s case, the people of Devonport should have a say over things that relate to Devonport. In my case, the people of Howick should have a say over things that relate to Howick. In Judith Collins’ case, the people of Papakura should have a say over things that relate to Papakura. But none of those people should have a say over the Auckland-wide things to any more degree than anyone else. That is what has come about from democracy.

When I hear members on the other side saying that this move is anti-democratic, I am simply gobsmacked, because I think this is one of the best things we could do for Auckland. First of all, there will be 20 elected councillors. Eight of them will be elected at large. To hear some members in this House who came here from a party list and did not even get voted for themselves—not one person voted for those list members because one cannot—saying that to be voted at large across Auckland is anti-democratic is the antithesis of democracy. I believe that it is a damn good idea to have some people across the city who are not elected parochially, who are not being elected to look after the Pakuranga area or the Manurewa area, but who are there for the better part of Auckland. There will be eight such people. Then we come to strengthening democracy at the next level. Twelve of the 20 councillors, besides the eight at large, will be down at ward level: three at Manukau, three at Auckland City, two at Waitakere, two at the North Shore, one at Franklin, and one at Rodney. They are all based on population. How can that not be democratic?

I say to my colleagues and friends in the Māori Party that I worry about the concern I heard last night, with people saying that Māori will not get a say. Actually, Māori will get a very good say. They will be able to vote and they will be able to vote for people at large. I think that if they organise themselves then they have a damn good chance of successfully getting two or three members in the at-large vote to be candidates. That is how this system has been set up. Then the next thing, which I thought the royal commission really failed on, were the six pseudo-councils lying underneath the proposed Auckland Council. I am really pleased to have been on the Cabinet committee that made the decision that that was ridiculous and that there was no local representation in that. The big request we are getting is to have local democracy and local government, so we have moved to 20 to 30 local boards. We are enhancing their functions and roles and we are strengthening them. They will have a lot of say over what goes on. But what I am really delighted about is that no longer will we have a building consent for this area, one for that area, and one for somewhere else.

One knows when a Minister is really in trouble; it is when the Prime Minister has to explain in very extravagant terms how very confident he is in him. According to John Key, Nick Smith has a brain the size of the South Island. But let us look at the facts: since becoming the Minister for ACC, Nick Smith has botched the sacking of Ross Wilson, has engaged in what senior actuaries and very respected commentators have labelled “irresponsible scaremongering” about the accident compensation scheme, and has gagged and bullied the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board. He then attempted to do the same to ACC’s chief executive officer, Dr Jan White, right in front of my eyes, by gatecrashing a select committee on ACC’s financial performance and actively trying to prevent her—in fact, interrupting her—from answering some questions.

That is just the start of it. Since Nick Smith took over the ACC portfolio we have seen the calculated manufacture of a non-existent crisis. We know that the ACC portfolio—some of us know this better than others—is complex and difficult, but it does not need breathless, irascible, panicky behaviour in its management. It does not need the kind of panicky approach the Minister for ACC has taken and demonstrated in the last few months; it needs a calm and measured approach.

Yes, in areas where costs are rising, we should ask what we can do about that. Well, let us take a deep breath and look at what the scheme offers, to see where costs might be curtailed. Why are they going up? In part, they are going up because of an ageing population and because an ageing population takes longer to rehabilitate. But, more than anything, if the kinds of approach to the scheme this National Government has taken in the past are taken again, we will see fewer visits to physiotherapists by order—in that one is allowed to have only five visits, or six, as I think it was in the 1990s. Then one had to jump through enormous hoops to get further treatment—that approach does not facilitate good rehabilitation.

The scheme requires a calm approach, a rational approach, and a considered approach. None of those approaches have been demonstrated by the Minister who has responsibility for one of the jewels in the crown of our social structures in New Zealand. The accident compensation scheme is the envy of the world. It is the envy of the world because of its comprehensive coverage, because of the low rates of levies, and because it protects its injured citizens from the trials and tribulations of litigation. That is one of its greatest features.

As part of his plan to manufacture a crisis that is non-existent, we have heard Nick Smith talk, in the general debate, about the accident compensation scheme and its solvency, and that the reality is that accident compensation is effectively insolvent. Yet a few days later on Morning Report, David Parker said to him that he had been calling the scheme insolvent, and that it was not. Nick Smith said he had not. This man cannot even agree with himself, let alone get the facts right about accident compensation. He cannot maintain a consistent line from one week to the next, because he has no comprehensive understanding yet. Although one hopes he might gain it in time, he clearly does not yet have an understanding of solvency as it relates to the scheme. If a scheme has liabilities of $22 billion and assets of $10 billion, there is an issue of solvency until we look at the period of time over which those liabilities are calculated. The liabilities are calculated over the lifetime of an injury.

Well, that was the previous Minister of Housing who presided over slum landlords, and the previous Minister for ACC who presided over a huge budget blowout of about half a billion dollars and did not declare all the figures in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. That member should hang her head in shame.

Today is a sad day for the Labour Party, is it not? It is a sad day because the Rt Hon Helen Clark has decided to step down and leave this place. We heard her valedictory speech today, as she moves off to her position in the UN in New York. Most New Zealanders and, indeed, the House will wish her well in that position, and in what she will do for New Zealand.

This is the end of an era for the Labour Party. Ms Clark was someone who held the Labour caucus extremely tightly. She really was very much a control freak. People in the Labour caucus were still confiding in Helen Clark, who was the heir to everyone in the Labour Party and, indeed, in the Labour caucus. She was someone who had sheer intellectual grunt and knowledge. She will be sorely missed in the Labour caucus. What will happen from hereon in, when Dr Cullen goes at the end of this month, is that the Labour caucus will lose two tremendous leaders. That is another two leaders gone from the Labour Party. We will watch from this side of the House as the party ruptures and haemorrhages, with those two strong leaders deciding to move on to better things. The House wishes them both well.

It is time to reflect on the positioning that will take place in the Labour caucus. It has already started. The chat has already started down the corridors and around the water coolers about who will be the successor to Phil Goff. It is an embarrassment that Phil Goff got 6 percent as the preferred Prime Minister in the latest poll. Today, Phil Goff will actually be feeling a little bit chipper. Do members know why? It is because he heard, like the whole of the House heard, during the Rt Hon Helen Clark’s valedictory speech this afternoon that when she started as the Labour Party leader her polling as preferred Prime Minister was 2 percent. So Phil Goff will be feeling very chipper that he is currently polling on 6 percent.

I also want the House to know that when Phil Goff came to Rotorua recently to talk to the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce, the Prime Minister had already been in a few weeks before, and 350 people had turned up to the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce luncheon. When the leader of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, decided to turn up in Rotorua, do members know what happened?

💬 Aaron Gilmore: What?

Four people registered. Do members know who one of those people was? It was the previous member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, so three people turned up to listen to Phil Goff. In fact, that Chamber of Commerce lunch had to be turned down. We will watch with interest, with the two leaders who are in the process of leaving the Labour caucus, just what will happen, and who might be the aspirants lining up behind Phil Goff. Will it be the Hon Ruth Dyson? Will it be the member who spoke before me, the Hon Maryan Street? Will it the Hon Dr—do they have a doctor left? Will it be David Cunliffe, or will it be someone like Clayton Cosgrove? It will be very, very interesting to watch, as I believe the Labour Party will now start haemorrhaging. The knives will start getting sharpened, and we will watch from this side of the House with great interest.

There was very positive news, though, this week and, indeed, today, with the National Government’s understanding of MMP and its reaching out to the Green Party by signing a memorandum of understanding on home insulation, energy efficiency, and natural health products. On this side of the House, the National Government understands MMP and how it works. Members opposite are the true Opposition. There we have 43 members of the haemorrhaging Labour Party, and one from the Progressive party. So there are 44 members opposite, against the balance of members in the House. It will be interesting to see how we progress forward, and the way the National Government under John Key is realising how MMP works.

At the present time New Zealand is suffering from its worst economic downturn in more than 50 years. Over the last 3 months of 2008 our economy contracted by around 1 percent, and for the first 3 months of this year it has probably contracted by more than 1 percent. A net 47 percent of firms have said that activity worsened during that period.

It is obvious that part of the reason for this downturn and the recession has been the financial crisis that has hit the world, but, more importantly, the problems that New Zealand face have largely been of our own making. In fact, if we look at the Government administration over the last 12 years, we see that it is has probably been the worst period of Government in at least 70 years. I was part of the Kirk-Rowling Government, and I cannot say that we were a particularly good Government; nor was the Muldoon Government of 1978-84. But the last 12 years have been the worst that I have ever seen, and the previous Labour Government should be ashamed of its performance over the last 9 years.

Why do I say this? That Government allowed Government expenditure to get out of control. In the 12 years between 1984 and 1996 Government spending in 2009-dollar terms actually went down. In that period, Government expenditure in this country, per head of population, went down by $305 per year. In other words, it was $305 lower in 1996 than it had been in 1984. But the reverse happened under a National Government between 1996 and 1999, and again under the Labour Governments that followed. In 2009, Government expenditure per head is $7,567 more than it was in 1996, so a family of four is paying over $30,000 in extra taxes to the Government—that is, $587.07 a week, to be precise. My question to the Labour Party is what do people get for that $587? Imagine how much better off people would be if they had that $587. [Interruption]

Those members do not like it, do they? They robbed the people they claim to represent. They took $30,000 off them, and flushed it down the toilet on family commissions and all sorts of other things.

Not only that, the consequences of transferring the $30 billion from the private sector to the public sector in that period, which certainly included 3 years of National Government, were a loss of productivity and a loss of output that probably cost New Zealand 2 percent a year, or around 25 to 30 percent in productivity and wages.

That has been the worst period of Government in living memory. Those previous Labour Government members should be ashamed of themselves. There was an increase for a family of four of $30,000 in taxation. I ask the next speaker from Labour to tell me how much better it would have been for average families, the people they claim to represent and whom I used to represent in Ōtara, if they had had an additional $30,000 in their pockets.

My strong instinct is to spend the next 10 minutes refuting the falsehoods of the gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He believes that if he repeats something that is wrong often enough, he will turn it into something that is right. But I have other things to do. I have to list the mistakes of the Hon Dr Richard Worth, and that will take all of the time I have available to me. I will go through them one by one and see how far I get.

I think that going to India as a private individual and then, after getting there, making a big noise about being a Government Minister was probably Dr Worth’s first mistake, and it was highlighted in particular by one newspaper with the largest circulation in northern India, which described him as a senior Minister. I think that shows poor judgment, and I think that is gilding the lily.

But the second mistake was having a shareholding and a directorship in New Zealand Aviation, which was going into a joint venture with the Southern Institute of Technology to train Indian aviation pilots in New Zealand. Indeed, that was one purpose of the gentleman’s trip. He claimed that New Zealand Aviation was non-trading—true—but he went to India to try to correct that inactivity. He claimed that he would not be part of the joint venture, which I think is sophistry because the joint venture would have had as its underlying ownership New Zealand Aviation, of which the gentleman was a shareholder and director.

Dr Worth’s third mistake was that he forgot to tell the Prime Minister. He embarrassed the Prime Minister. Dr Worth told him that he was going to India on a general trade mission. He did not tell the Prime Minister about his shareholding in that company, and therefore, having caused the Prime Minister embarrassment, he was labelled by the Prime Minister as “unwise and stupid”, and he received a bollocking. He then arrived in Parliament, duly bollocked, and made a mess of question time. The first Tuesday, the next Thursday, the day after that, today—this guy cannot answer questions straight in Parliament, and that, I think, is his fourth mistake.

Dr Worth’s fifth mistake was made on Monday of last week, when he told the Prime Minister he would immediately get out of his shareholdings, and on Tuesday of last week, when he told the media he had already done so. He was wrong; he had not.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He was building up to April Fool’s Day.

It was not an April Fool’s Day joke. He meant it. He said he meant it, and he was on the front page of the New Zealand Herald on Wednesday, saying he was out. But he was not. He still had a shareholding in companies—Indian-focused companies. By Thursday he still had shareholdings in WSD Global Markets and the Indian Overseas Group. Therefore he got another bollocking.

Dr Worth’s sixth mistake was that he told the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology last September that he would get himself out of his interests in New Zealand Aviation, and then, when she reported that in the Southland Times, he said she must have misunderstood him. Well, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, you and I both know the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology, and she is not someone who easily misunderstands people.

Dr Worth’s seventh mistake was that he told Radio New Zealand, including on yesterday morning, that he had dropped his directorship of WSD Global Markets because he learnt that it was going to be listed. That is wrong, again. WSD Global Markets has been going to be listed for months. If one asks anyone in Tasman Capital, one will be told it has been an ongoing feature of that company, yet Dr Worth first became a director of it only a few months ago.

So he must have known, when he did his due diligence at the time of becoming a director, that the company was going to be listed, but on Radio New Zealand he gave as his excuse for stopping being a director the reason that the company was going to be listed. The real reason he got out of the job as a director and shifted his shares from a personal holding into a family trust was that he knew that WSD Global Markets had come to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office. In fact, he was told that over a cocktail party in Auckland in September by an Auckland business person.

Mistake No. 8 was that Dr Worth helped himself to facilitation services at Auckland Airport that he was not entitled to. One of his travelling companions could not stop bragging that he was facilitated, too, although in more recent days that travelling companion now denies it.

Dr Worth fiddled his own Wikipedia entry—this is interesting—was caught, and was told off by Wikipedia. That was done instead of doing proper housework, like going to the Brookers website for the nation’s law directory and correcting his own entry, which even today says Dr Worth is a consultant for Simpson Grierson—as he holds the job of a Minister of the Crown!

A tenth mistake is that Dr Worth claims to have met all his own costs on that trip to India but will not table his receipts, instead demanding to be taken at his word.

I acknowledge Helen Clark’s valedictory speech today, and I wish her well in her new role at the UN.

In the first few months of this Government National has kept its word on law and order. We have new legislation on parole, new legislation on bail, new legislation on DNA sampling, new legislation on victims’ rights, and, just last week, urgent measures dealing with sex offenders. We have kept our promise to the electorate and we are doing what we said we would do.

Four Fridays ago I joined Hēnare O’Keefe at Flaxmere Skate Bowl. Hēnare is the gentleman who ran the “Enough is Enough” march against crime. Hēnare, Des Rātima, and a group of dedicated supporters have been initiating projects to address crime in Hawke’s Bay. On this particular night we were out with the marae’s recently acquired new barbecue, “Tunutunu”, talking to the kids at the skate bowl. These kids, aged from just 8 years, were bored, had only 16-year-old gang aspirants as their leaders, and largely had parents who did not give a damn that they were out roaming the streets at midnight. From watching and talking to these kids as they ate at the barbecue, it became pretty clear that lifting the sentencing bar again and again will not address the issues that these kids face. National is cognisant that continually lifting the level of sentencing will not address the drivers of crime on its own. As a result, I was proud to see Simon Power recognise this fact by way of his Drivers of Crime forum last Friday. I congratulate Minister Power and Pita Sharples, who worked together on that initiative.

Hawke’s Bay has been at the centre of addressing the drivers of crime and seeking alternative solutions for decades. Now that we have addressed some of the inadequacies in bail, parole, and victims’ rights here in the House, it is my opinion that we must focus on top-of-the-cliff solutions if we are to deliver better outcomes in the crime debate.

Just last weekend I attended Wairoa’s CACTUS youth programme graduation day. Dubbed “The Longest Day”, last Saturday represented the graduation of the fourth group of Wairoa youth to complete the programme. “The Longest Day” started at 6 a.m. and finished at 12 p.m., combining a series of physical challenges and finishing with pulling a 17-tonne fire truck down the main street of Wairoa. It brought together an 8-week programme aimed at teaching the teenagers discipline, goal setting, and leadership. It was an amazing day and an amazing programme, and the impact on the kids was clear to see. CACTUS was recently awarded the top award at the nationwide TrustPower Community Awards. I congratulate Detective Sergeant Mick Lander, Mayor Les Probert, and the Wairoa College principal, Brian Simpson, who together with many others pulled this amazing project together. The upshot of this initiative is that a number of communities around New Zealand are now trialling the programme. CACTUS is just one example of many programmes being initiated for youth in Hawke’s Bay and also around New Zealand.

I wish to bring one problem to the attention of the House, and it goes to the heart of the matter. It is the glue that holds these programmes together. Normally the glue would be a family, a whānau, that reinforces the values, the skills, and the goals taught on these programmes. Unfortunately, in many families these lessons are not reinforced when the kids return home, and old habits come back very quickly. Regrettably, this means that many very good programmes often have only short-term benefits. My challenge to the House is to come up with a long-term solution that offers effective competition to the gangs from an age when children are first being prospected by those gangs.

The issue is boredom and parents who do not give a damn. I think that one answer lies in the many urban maraes that are flourishing around this nation. No one will ever replace the family, and we should not try to replace it. But somehow we need to provide an ongoing alternative for kids who are bored, whose parents do not give a damn, and whose only role models are the 16-year-olds who are prospecting to be the next generation of gang members. I think that maraes can provide ongoing home and youth programmes that address the issues I have just spoken about. In Hawke’s Bay Hēnare O’Keefe and his team will be working to trial just such a programme over the next year. I look forward to updating the House on this project as we in the Hawke’s Bay look to progress a brighter future for our kids. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy.

I rise to initiate a series of four statements to be advanced by the Green Party over the next month. It is our intention to put forward for public consideration a general statement addressing four themes: the problems we face in today’s world, the inadequacy of traditional politics to meet the challenge, the Green political philosophy for the 21st century, and the Green economic programme for the next decade.

Humankind is entering the age of reckoning. In earlier times Earth’s erratic climate precluded sedentary agriculture, and thus any ordered society. For the past 10 millennia a stable climate has allowed us to tame nature in a relatively empty world where resources were abundant and our numbers sparse. Through technological ingenuity we went forth and multiplied, in the belief we were inheriting the Earth. Over the past two centuries the human population has grown from 1 billion to 7 billion, and our terrestrial inn is full. In the past half-century the global population has doubled, yet global GDP has grown fivefold in global trade and twentyfold in volume. The world economy, driven by the classical economic precepts of resource, exploitation, and unlimited growth, has overheated. In the past century each human’s Earth share has shrunk to less than half what it was—from 5 hectares to 2. Yet as our Earth share has shrunk, our ecological footprint has expanded, recorded now at 2.7 hectares per person. With greater numbers and a larger footprint, we now record an ecological overshoot of 25 percent beyond the planet’s carrying capacity. We are today colliding with the limits of Earth’s finite resources—limits that are elastic, but that can snap. Economic hubris precedes ecological collapse.

As part of that overshoot, this generation is bequeathing severe global environmental problems to the next, leaving behind us an impoverished planet. We have engaged in extensive deforestation and desertification of the land surface, and have damaged some 20 percent of the coral reefs. We have created an ozone hole in the atmosphere that is injurious both to agriculture and to human health. We are causing climate change of unprecedented magnitude, and we face the catastrophic potential of global warming with storms and droughts, ensuing crop failure, and debilitating sea level rise. We are on the way to a human-induced mass extinction of Earth’s species—at our own hands. In the worst-case scenario, over the next century human civilisation itself will be under severe strain.

To compound matters, in the past two decades we have engaged in a frenzy of unlicensed financial adventurism, giving vent to individual and corporate greed of shameful immorality. The resulting financial meltdown has caused a global recession of proportions not experienced for many generations. Last century repressive communism imploded and a necrotic mindset withered away. This decade predatory capitalism has exploded and that voracious mindset is undergoing death throes of a character all its own.

From the wreckage of such ideological excesses we search for a rational and balanced way of life, but the short-term financial emergency obscures a clear view of the long-term ecological crisis. We in New Zealand believe ourselves to be insulated from the worst of both crises. Our banking system has been more responsible than elsewhere. Because of our rich national resource base and sparse population, we run an ecological surplus. Yet we are an integral part of the rest of the world. The global fate is our fate. Any nation that believes it can survive the global ecological crisis and prosper with positive good fortune is not only self-centred but self-deluded.

There is no choice. We must change our mindset, our way of life, our governmental management, and our political direction or we shall experience ecological collapse. This goes for New Zealand as assuredly as it does for the rest of the global community. Traditional politics of the kind embraced by National and Labour in this country will fail us in our time of need. The Green Party, with its new and positive philosophy, offers the answer to these problems, as my colleagues will explain in subsequent statements.

I seek leave to table a document called Prosperity Without Growth? The transition to a sustainable economy. It is by the Sustainable Development Commission of the United Kingdom.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member is seeking leave to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.

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

I also acknowledge the valedictory speech made by the Rt Hon Helen Clark, and wish her well for the future. I am sure she will do New Zealand proud.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to take a call tonight. My congratulations go to the National Government for its quick response and its common-sense analysis of the royal commission’s report on Auckland governance. The royal commission spent 20 months consulting, talking to groups, and considering numerous submissions. It is very clear that for far too long Auckland has struggled under multiple bureaucratic layers. The commission’s report, although comprehensive, unfortunately blurred some of the lines of authority, and did not really address the local community’s need for representation and a strong voice. The Government has corrected these oversights in the report that has been tabled. The Government has digested the royal commission’s report and has moved quickly and decisively.

The Government has retained the one unitary authority, called the Auckland Council. This authority will be able to provide leadership and effectively deliver core services such as transport, water, and waste. The Auckland Council will have the responsibility of managing all the $28 billion of community assets, and for planning and managing the region’s infrastructure. For far too long the Auckland region has suffered from inaction. Ninety-six territorial local authorities is 95 too many. Competing interests and infighting have resulted in a region that has stagnated. The Government’s decision—to have one council, 20 to 30 community boards with 125 to 150 members, one regional mayor with governance powers, 20 councillors, one long-term council community plan, one district plan, one waterfront agency, one rates bill, one rating system, and so on—will provide the basis for Auckland to move ahead.

For far too long the community has not had a voice. Rejecting the royal commission’s plan to have a local community council as the second tier and instead having 20 to 30 community boards with much more say over their communities will at last give communities the voice they have long sought. The changes the Government proposes will give Auckland communities the voice that they need and that has been stripped away in the past.

The Government is determined that communities will have their say.

The community of Mt Roskill, where I am a list MP, has been demanding a greater say in how it functions. People have had a growing concern over the effect that alcohol has, and they have wanted a say. That was clearly evident last year when the Mount Roskill South community came together to oppose the imminent opening of a liquor outlet only 100 metres away from two schools, a kindergarten, and a church. If the proposal had been successful, there would have been 10 liquor outlets in the Mount Roskill South area. The community was very concerned about the growing issue of youth crime and alcohol. There was concern that alcohol would fuel that trend, and that if there were more liquor outlets there would be a downward spiral. The community was concerned that the current legislation had no teeth, and it was particularly concerned that the community had no say over where liquor outlets should be. So people came together, and I was heartened by that—I was really heartened by that. They met on two occasions last year and proposed activities, and they were going to go all the way back to the council to oppose the outlet. Fortunately, common sense prevailed: the outlet did not open up and the community had a win. It was a victory for the community.

It is really pleasing that under the new governance structure communities in Auckland will finally have a voice. They will have a voice about where alcohol outlets can be placed, where they want their local parks, how they want their libraries to function, and what their concerns are over graffiti. They have not had a voice for many, many years and this governance structure will bring back that voice. Most important, the local community boards under the new governance structure will be permanent. The permanent functions are yet to be decided, but they will be permanent; they will not be there at the whim, and at the beck and call, of local councils, as is the case currently.

The new governance structure is all about democracy and it is all about good governance. In 2010 Aucklanders will vote in the most important local body elections ever held in New Zealand. There will be one city, one council, and one mayor. People can vote for a mayor with real power to make a difference. They can vote for councillors to be accountable for all of Auckland.

I would like to talk today about leadership. I will begin by paying tribute to two extraordinary New Zealand leaders: Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. In particular, I pay tribute to Helen Clark, who made her valedictory speech today.

During their time in Parliament we have seen huge transformation in New Zealand. We have become a nuclear-free and independent country in terms of our foreign policy. There has been massive change to the size and role of Government, and significant constitutional evolution. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen led New Zealand with distinction for 9 years, and were ably supported by competent Ministers like Phil Goff and Annette King. That was the first leadership team to really master MMP. It is worth remembering that the Labour Government, in the entire 9 years it was leading New Zealand, never had a majority, either independently or in coalition. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had to put together each deal, one at a time, and they did it masterfully. They understood MMP and the importance of cross-party negotiations. I think a really important thing to remember is that their leadership style allowed them to do that.

Now, of course, National is starting to get used to MMP, as its relationship with the Māori Party shows. It applauds the Māori Party while sticking the knife into its front! It applauds it while it does that. The sad thing is that when National members did that today, Pita Sharples fell for it. He fell for it. He is so happy having cups of tea with John Key—having little cups of tea and riding around in the BMWs—that he has been sucked in and has fallen for the applause, and he has forgotten the people who put him there.

But there is another thing that National has forgotten, and has not caught up on. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had very high standards for the Ministers in their Cabinet; John Key clearly does not. He has demonstrated in the last few weeks that he has no standards when it comes to the performance and conduct of his Ministers, and no case illustrates that more than the case of Dr Richard Worth. John Key has given the Minister of Internal Affairs three final warnings. This begs the question: what is a final warning if someone gets three of them? How many more warnings will come?

First of all, let us run through the history of the matter. On 30 March, Dr Worth was caught out travelling to India as a Minister and talking up aviation training in New Zealand, all the while operating as a director of New Zealand Aviation Ltd, and holding shares in, and a directorship of, the Indian Overseas Group. So what did John Key say about that? He said it was “stupid” and “unwise”, that he had given the Minister a “bollocking”, and that he did not expect to see the behaviour repeated. A few days later, on 2 April, it was revealed that Dr Richard Worth continued to hold shares in WSD Global Markets, an Indian-focused trade company, and the J P Morgan Indian Investment Trust, despite assurances that he had resigned from “absolutely everything”. What did John Key say on 6 April, when he was asked whether Dr Richard Worth had no more chances and no more lifelines? John Key said “Yeah.” Then, on the following day, 7 April, what did John Key say when Richard Worth failed to disclose that he was a director of WSD Global Markets, when its associated company in the Cook Islands, WSBC Bank, was being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office? John Key said he had had an “extensive discussion” with Richard Worth. So his third warning was an “extensive discussion”.

So, first of all, John Key said Dr Worth was stupid and unwise, gave him a bollocking, and said the behaviour was not to be repeated. Then, when asked whether Richard Worth had no more chances and no more lifelines, John Key simply said “Yeah.” Then he said he had had an extensive discussion with Mr Worth. Where is the leadership? How many transgressions does it take before John Key will show some leadership and do something about it? John Key’s credibility is now at stake; why will he not take action against Richard Worth?

There is more than just a conflict of interest here. Richard Worth should not be a Minister, because he has done absolutely nothing. I went through Richard Worth’s media statements and written questions to try to find out what he has been busy working on since he has been a Minister. I found that he has done nothing. Apart from going to India and creating a whole host of problems for the Government, Richard Worth has done nothing. So I put a whole bunch of written parliamentary questions to him, but he did not answer them.

What a shame it is to hear such barrel-scraping and desperate tactics from a Labour Opposition that is desperately searching for relevance in the current political climate. Today has been such a positive day, and this week is such a historic week, so I say to the Opposition: “Move on!”. They are words those members have heard many times from somebody they are going to miss—“Move on!”. I tell them to take a leaf out of this Government’s positive book.

As I have mentioned, today is a very historic day. It was an honour to be present in the House earlier this evening—in a packed and respectful House, I might add—for the valedictory speech of the Rt Hon Helen Clark. The previous Prime Minister, of course, grew up in the Waikato town of Te Pahu, just west of my electorate, and we wish her well as she moves to New York to take up her role as administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. I will long remember being present today, as she bade farewell and received such a warm tribute from all members, regardless of their political allegiances. As a former history student of the University of Otago, I am also looking forward to the valedictory address of my former lecturer, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, as he takes his leave at the end of this month. And will not the Labour Party miss them both!

Today is also historic, as our senior whip noted earlier, for the agreement that has been reached between the National Party and the Green Party. I have little doubt that our two parties will continue to find much to disagree about, especially on social issues, but—and it is a big but—I am delighted by this development as I was by the confidence and supply agreement that our party reached last year with the Māori Party, as both of those parties have significant pockets of support in the wider electorate, and both bring an important perspective to this House. I say “Kia kaha, and thank you to both parties for your confidence and your courage in the steps you have taken.”

As an enthusiastic member of National’s Bluegreens policy group, I have long hoped to see greater consensus in our Parliament over crucial environmental concerns, and with today’s memorandum of understanding I think we have taken a very significant step in that direction.

It is another sign of the responsiveness and wide focus of the John Key - led Government that such an arrangement is possible. I am pleased that the Greens have adopted the positive stance that we can, and should, work together on environmental matters where we have common goals and compatible policies.

The immediate focus of that memorandum of understanding will be the pursuit of important measures to improve home insulation, and to promote and achieve greater energy efficiency, and the fair and appropriate regulation of natural health products. These are significant matters. I look forward to the constructive approach of our two parties and our support parties in Government leading to vital steps forward as we tackle some major challenges of our time.

I acknowledge the important challenge that councils, iwi, farmers, and other interested parties, including the Government, have committed to in cleaning up a taonga of my region—the Waikato River. It is vital work; it is a challenge that we must accept. I acknowledge the wonderful achievement of Hamilton Boys High School in taming a small part of that river as they stormed to victory for a third consecutive year last Saturday in the Maadi Cup—the feature race of the New Zealand Secondary School Rowing Association. It is a great pleasure to be able to put Hamilton Boys High School on the map in this House tonight. It was tremendous to be present on the bank on Saturday with thousands of others to cheer them on, and I know that there were some other MPs who shared my delight that Hamilton triumphed once again.

I point out that we are in a really positive time—it is a historic time. Let us not be sidetracked by the negativity and the barracking—although, quite pleasingly, the members have gone silent in the last couple of minutes on the other side. Let us look at the fact that we have a Government that is rising to the challenges, and is working as constructively as we can and as widely as we can in the best interests of the country—long may that continue. I am very proud to be a part of it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.