General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday, amidst all of the important things Labour members could have been doing, they took an enormous amount of time to explain to the nation what their reshuffle meant, and what life was going to be like for the Labour Party beyond Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. The general result, from any analysis, is pretty darn dismal.

Here we are today, and on coming into the House what do we see? First of all, we see some sort of crazy double act between Darren Hughes, the nominal shadow Leader of the House, and the Hon Trevor Mallard, who tried to present himself in some sort of kaumātua-esque fashion, offering his opinions to the House on how the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings should be interpreted. We also saw quite an amazing double act between the candidate for future leadership David Cunliffe and the Hon David Parker from Dunedin. It is quite interesting that it appears that the Labour members are so impressed by Bill English’s stewardship of the economy at a difficult time that they have decided to put two people into that particular spokesperson’s role.

But one of the most interesting things to come out in recent days, on a quick perusal of the Labour Party website—it is something that I do not do, but this has been brought to my attention—is a thing called “Phil Goff’s diary of regional visits”. We hear all the time about the great success of these regional visits. There was the two-person, tickets bought, cancelled dinner in Rotorua. There have been cars roaming around provincial cities looking for phone boxes in order to hold meetings with local people. But most telling in the diary of Phil Goff’s regional visits is a little snippet that says “Coming Up”. These are events that the populace can look forward to, where Phil is out in the regions and meeting the people. Do members know what it says under “Coming Up”? It says “Phil will be spending some time in Auckland.” What that tells us is that in the Mt Albert by-election—after failing to put Phil Twyford in there, pushing him off to one side, and doing all the manipulating possible to get Phil Goff’s mate, the chap from the UN, put into place—the actual candidate for Labour in this by-election will be Mr Goff. “Phil will be spending some time in Auckland.”!

I think that one of the things we can look forward to is Mr Goff’s actually taking some responsibility for the work that he was part of for the last 9 years. In question time today we heard Mr Goff expressing outrage—outrage—that after only 6 months in office, the National-led Government has not moved on cigarette point-of-sale issues, for example. Well, Labour members had 9 years to do that sort of thing, and what is worse than that is that far from trying to highlight some of the good things they did during their time in Government, Mr Goff wants to pick on something totally obscure, totally off the radar screen, and totally irrelevant to the good fortunes of a great number of New Zealanders. That, I think, typifies the leadership that is currently coming out of the Labour Party. It is irrelevant, off the screen, and out of touch with most New Zealanders. When New Zealanders go to the website in the expectation that the Leader of the Opposition might grace their region, only to be greeted with the news: “Phil will be spending some time in Auckland.”, then I think that they know exactly what the Labour Party thinks of them and what it has to offer to New Zealanders.

I cannot remember a single visit to the West Coast being reported by as many different members as often as was the Labour members’ visit. We know that the reality is that people on the West Coast were barely tolerant of Labour members being on the Coast during that time. The classic was that when those members were having a meeting at some hall there and the lights went out, all Phil Goff could do was to come out and ask: “Where is Gerry Brownlee when you need him?”. Well, I say to Mr Goff that I would love to help him through the next couple of years, but I do not think that even I, with my considerable political talents and skills, could be of any great use to him whatsoever.

I suggest that people who are listening to this debate today should get hold of the weekly media diary for Ministers if they want to know what Gerry Brownlee is up to. It will not take long to read; there is not much to read. In fact, if we read the diary we will find a big, empty gap beside Gerry’s name. That is because he is up to only page 10 of his briefing papers, but when he gets through them all he does intend to appear in public somewhere.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a very nasty thing to say. The member knows full well that I am only up to page 10 because my crayons have run out.

What an honest man! All I can say to Mr Brownlee is that I hope that when he is thrown out of Government in 2 years and 7 months’ time, he will have made it to page 20.

The balloon has gone up, the starter gun has gone off, and the candidates for the Mt Albert by-election have been selected, so let the race begin. Now is the time for political parties to set out their policies for the by-election. It is now time to stop the shilly-shallying around the issues that the people of Mt Albert want to hear about. Now is the time for the candidates to tell the local people what policies they can expect from the parties, and what they can expect from the candidate who gets to represent that very good electorate. We know that the people of Mt Albert want a local representative who will be a strong voice for them in Parliament, and a strong voice locally. They want a person with integrity and experience, a representative who is committed to their area and who undertakes to serve them in the long term. They do not want a fly-by-nighter who is in Wellington today, Auckland tomorrow, and Christchurch the next day.

Mt Albert people want to have a clear look at the issues that concern them, and the No. 1 issue for them has to be the Waterview Connection—the completion of State Highway 20, or the western ring route. That is the No. 1 issue for those people; they have waited a long time to see the completion of that route. When Labour became the Government in 1999, not one part of the western ring route had been started. There is now only one part left to complete that route, and people want it completed.

But it is not just about completing that route, it is about how the route is completed. When we were in Government, we undertook consultation with the people of Auckland on how we should finish the Waterview Connection. They said to us strongly that they wanted a deep tunnel to go under the Waterview Connection, so that we did not disturb the people who lived in that area or the environment of that area, and so that we provided a good route through that area. But what did the National Government say when the people of Auckland said that that was what they wanted? The Government said it was just Helen Clark’s tunnel. Government members made fun of it, and they ridiculed the people of Mt Albert. But the truth is that it is not Helen Clark’s tunnel; it will be the tunnel for the people who live in Auckland. They know why they want that route completed, and why they want it done in that way.

They know it will reduce congestion on the road. They know the route carries more than 90,000 vehicles a day, and that those vehicles need to move smoothly and swiftly through the area. They know that the route will reduce congestion on local roads. It will reduce overall congestion, improve opportunities for passenger transport in the area, and be a good solution. It is time that parties in this House that have candidates standing in the Mt Albert seat—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Front up!

—front up to what they will do in terms of the Waterview Connection. What have we heard from the National Government? The Government will not tell the truth about what it is going to do with the Waterview Connection. I predict that it will not announce its decision before the by-election. It will procrastinate and make excuses. It will talk about reviews and the need for more information and more reviews, but it will not tell the people of Mt Albert that it will commit to a deep tunnel.

As for the ACT Party, it is not too worried about a deep tunnel. ACT members say that we should bowl 500 houses. It says that we should not worry about the environment or the people of Mt Albert, just as long as the project does not cost much. It is all about cost for the ACT Party. And the Green Party says we should not have a road, at all.

Now we can see why the Labour Party had to have a reshuffle this week. Unfortunately, it did not reshuffle enough. The big winner out of this week’s reshuffle was George Hawkins. Members might ask why I say that. It is because George has been brought back to life and put in charge of local government. I have to say that that was an inspired, if somewhat unusual, choice. It was certainly out of left field. It was very strangely left field. Why was George Hawkins promoted? It is because he is about the only person in the Labour Party who is not actually vying for Phil Goff’s job.

The other reason the Labour Party had to have a reshuffle this week was to take the heat out of Mr Goff’s appalling treatment of Phil Twyford. Mr Twyford was Helen Clark’s protege for Mt Albert, and he was hand-picked by Miss Clark to succeed her in Mt Albert. He was good enough to be an MP under Miss Clark, but not good enough to have an electorate under Mr Goff. We will see just how insulting Mr Goff has been to Mr Twyford, and what he has done. Do members remember the Hon Judith Tizard? Does anyone remember her? Well, Ms Tizard was the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. But Ms Tizard was the National Party’s secret weapon: she guaranteed the Auckland vote to the National Party, and we want her back. We want Judith Tizard back, but if Mr Twyford had gone into Mt Albert, and if he had—strangely enough, and against the polls—won the electorate, Ms Tizard would have come into the House. And that was the one thing that Mr Goff could not let happen. Just to add insult to injury, what else did Mr Goff do? Well, he gave Mr Twyford Ms Tizard’s old portfolio of Auckland Issues. How insulting! He might as well have just given him the handbag, too, that Darren Hughes likes to hold. So that is the whole insult for Mr Twyford.

What do we have after this reshuffle, apart from George Hawkins moving up? We have a dam of dead wood that is being pushed along the river of Labour’s demise. We have the young Phil Goff, who has been there since 1981. Well, he is a Young Turk if ever I saw one! Then we have the Hon Annette King, and she has been there almost forever—since 1984. She will be pensioned off soon, because Darren Hughes will take her seat. Then we have David Cunliffe. Well, he has been there since 1999, but did anyone notice? Ruth Dyson has been there since 1993; she is obviously new in the Labour Party! Parekura Horomia has been there since 1999. People would never believe it, would they?

Clayton Cosgrove has been there since 1999. My goodness! We have seen today why Mike Moore is so disappointed in him. Has everyone noticed how Mike Moore is so disappointed now in Clayton Cosgrove? He was “Little Mike”; “Little Mike” was going to come along and stand up for the ordinary person. Clayton Cosgrove was Mike Moore’s mini-me, but unfortunately he does not know the ordinary person from Adam.

Who else do we have? We have Trevor Mallard, who has been brought back into that front row of lame ducks. Trevor Mallard is going to come back close to the action—well, close to Goff, anyway, just to keep an eye on him. Trevor Mallard has got back his precious Rugby World Cup portfolio that was taken away for his bad behaviour. He is the former Minister whom Helen Clark stripped of the education portfolio, the man who was closing schools up and down the country and costing Labour votes. He was the Minister who had to be taken out.

What has Labour done with Chris Carter? It has put Chris Carter in as foreign affairs spokesperson. How appropriate! The one thing Labour can do with Chris Carter is to send him overseas—that is the best thing to do—and to keep him there. That is certainly all Chris Carter is any good at. Anne Tolley has made toast out of that man. She has actually rubbed him into the ground and now he is the laughing stock of Parliament.

Then we have Damien O’Connor, who has come back. I would actually just like to welcome back Damien O’Connor. He is one of the ordinary people in Labour whom it never has these days, so I welcome back Damien O’Connor. But I do not think Damien O’Connor is really the fresh blood that Labour is looking for.

So what is wrong with all the fresh blood that was brought in? What has happened to Jacinda Ardern? What is wrong with her? What about Chris Hipkins, Moana Mackey, and Grant Robertson? Why were they not promoted? Why are they still languishing down there on the backbenches because of this dam that has been created by all the dead wood in Labour. What about them? Why have they not been promoted?

Labour has found a lot of reasons over the years to disagree with the views of the Hon Bill English, but the one thing we do agree with Bill English on is the views he shared with the country about Judith Collins. We think Bill English was absolutely right when he said she believes too much of the stuff she puts out about herself. The main thing that every new MP must hope for is that his or her colleagues will say nicer things about them than that member’s colleagues say about her all around Parliament. The test of success in any caucus is not to be treated like Judith Collins is by her colleagues. The most interesting thing during that speech was that all the National MPs in the Chamber were too busy talking to each other to listen to a word that she had to say. I thought that that, in itself, actually showed how seriously she is being taken by them.

I will talk today about the Mt Albert by-election. Judith Collins had the audacity to mention the Labour candidate, David Shearer, a very fine man who will succeed the Rt Hon Helen Clark in providing a great level of service to the people of Mt Albert. But the National members were not very keen to talk about one name, which I will mention today: poor old Mr Ravi Musuku. Mr Ravi Musuku is the man who, year after year, has padded around the streets of Mt Albert to push the National Party banner around that electorate. Then, the first time he had the chance to actually stand in the seat when the National members themselves say they think they have a chance of winning it, they cut the legs from under him. So let us not hear from National members of their concern about how people are treated in any other political party, because National Musuku-ed him. National has made the name Musuku a term in the political lexicon now: when someone gets shoved out of the way, they have been Musuku-ed. I am sure that the Indian community in Auckland will be very interested to know that when a real chance comes up for the National Party, it leaps right away to its preferred political people—people like Melissa Lee, who will do whatever the leadership wants. I feel sorry for Ravi Musuku and for all the words that have been said about the Mt Albert by-election.

Labour has a candidate for Mt Albert who is not an MP right now. The people of Mt Albert have the chance to choose somebody who will join Parliament to push his or her cause, not one of the other candidates who are already sitting in here and drawing a salary, but who are now seeking to represent them.

What are some of the issues that confront that fine electorate? The Hon Annette King has already mentioned transport. We believe that the Waterview Connection and public transport are two of the critical issues that confront that electorate as we go forward into the by-election. The member Gerry Brownlee—who would not actually know what he said—was calling out when Annette King was speaking, or barking out in that energetic way that he does, “What happened under Labour?”. Under Labour, the western ring route was actually started, and under Labour it was almost completed. The one step that remained was the Waterview Connection, and we did all the work on that. We put everything into connection with that, so it could go ahead as a project. The Waterview Connection was all ready to go, and National came in and jettisoned that project.

First of all, in January, National decided it was going to get rid of the Waterview Connection project by saying a review had come up from the Ministry of Transport and Treasury, and it needed more time to do some work on the issues that had come up in the review. Then, of course, the Mt Albert by-election came along, and poor old Steven Joyce, who throws figures all around the paddock, said it would cost $2.77 billion for the twin tunnels for the Waterview Connection, which therefore meant that the project would be unaffordable. We know that those figures do not stand up to any form of scrutiny at all. In fact, we know that the National Government is so keen to jettison the Waterview tunnels for the people of Mt Albert and Mt Roskill that it is finding any project to add in to the cost of it in order to get to the figure of $2.77 billion. I would not be surprised if National has added in the cost of buying back Air New Zealand in 2002 to the cost of the Waterview tunnels—anything goes. We find out that the extension to State Highway 16 has been counted as part of the Waterview Connection. That has to be done anyway. There is no great magic about State Highway 16, but it is included anyway.

But the real thing that National is doing is adding in the financing costs of over half a billion dollars. Well, at least that is what Steven Joyce started off by saying.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: You should. You don’t have the money you had.

There is the man who wants to build a tunnel under the Waitematā Harbour, from the middle of Auckland to the North Shore. Wayne Mapp should keep his trap shut when it comes to transport projects. He did not give even one speech about that project and it would cost $5 billion, so let us not hear from him. We might as well include that tunnel in the Waterview Connection costs, given the way that National is going.

The Waterview Connection is a project that has been consulted on. It is the most consulted on project in New Zealand’s roading history. Hundred and hundreds of people in Mt Albert have said they are in favour of it. When people brought in their consultation submissions, we found that 75 percent of people were in favour of twin tunnels going through both communities. Labour will build those tunnels, and National should front up and tell us why it will not build them.

The boy the Hon Darren Hughes tries to step into the shoes of the man the Hon Michael Cullen. I am afraid that pair of shoes is too big for the Hon Darren Hughes. First of all, today we saw in the Chamber that the shadow Leader of the House is not allowed to take points of order on the Standing Orders. Guess who is trusted to do the job? It is the hard man the Hon Trevor Mallard. The Hon Michael Cullen gave up his seat in Dunedin and became a list MP, in contrast to the boy Darren Hughes, who was forced to give up his seat by our National senior whip, Nathan Guy. Darren Hughes got defeated. Lastly, the Hon Darren Hughes apparently is not good enough to go to the Business Committee in his capacity as the shadow Leader of the House. Once again, the hard man Trevor Mallard—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ignored large chunks of that speech—it was irrelevant—but to refer to the absence of a member from one of the most important committees Parliament has, the Business Committee, is out of order. I was at that meeting yesterday. You know that, Mr Speaker; you chaired it. In fact, I think you would be able to testify that I have never missed a meeting of that committee since you have been Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point sufficiently. This is the general debate, but the member speaking should not refer to the absence of members either from this House or select committees. We will not get into the matter of whether people are present.

I am not referring to his absence. He is not even a member; that is the point.

Yesterday the youthful leader of the Labour Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff, announced a reshuffle. Now the Labour front bench has become a political rest home where yesterday’s politicians go to see out their twilight years. It is very strange, because every time there is a reshuffle it is meant to be fresh-faced, younger members coming in, but not for Labour. That is actually not surprising, because their leader is the most youthful member of this House! He has been here since 1981. In fact, he probably could be named the grandfather of the House.

This Labour Opposition is fast becoming the washing machine of politics because its members are wishy-washy on almost every topic. Their leader, the Hon Phil Goff, seems to be stuck on the spin cycle. This youthful leader, who claims to have revitalised his party, cannot even keep in sync with his own caucus, particularly his front-bench members. He seems to be at odds with every one of them. Let me demonstrate. He attacks the unitary Auckland council set-up, but his fresh, new local government spokesman, the Hon George Hawkins, sent out a press release to say what a good idea it was. He will work with the National Government to make it happen. Mr Goff attacks National’s education policy, while the “rebel without a cause”, Trevor Mallard, says he wants to work with National, where he can see good policy, and there is plenty of good education policy from our very capable Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley.

Apparently, the hard man the Hon Trevor Mallard has now returned to the front bench, after 18 months in the so-called sin bin. He has been announced as Labour’s spokesman for the Rugby World Cup, which is ironic because we all thought his career had been kicked into touch a long time ago. It just shows us that there is a recycled second life within the Labour Party, when it runs out of options. He has also been given the shadow portfolio of education. Here I am. I can perhaps educate the Hon Trevor Mallard to keep the receipts of the anger management classes that he has been attending. I think he should keep the receipts to demand a refund because the classes are not working. After attending all those anger management classes, they are not working. I say to Trevor Mallard to keep his receipts and get a refund.

The Hon Clayton Cosgrove is another prime example of Labour’s wishy-washy attitude towards politics. That member failed to get tough. After 9 years of the Labour Government he failed to get tough on crime and law and order.

My colleagues Kennedy Graham and Kevin Hague have described the inability of the old politics of right and left to address the unique challenges that face us in the 21st century. My task today, in the third of these four statements to the House, is to outline how Green politics can respond to those key challenges.

Nineteen years ago our charter set out the principle of ecological wisdom. It recognised that if we fail to live within the limits of our planet’s natural resources, then we will simply fail to live. Wisdom is greater than knowledge. It implies understanding and an ability to see consequences and adapt. Ecological wisdom tells us that there is no “away” to throw things to, that as in nature our wastes must be the raw materials for another process, and that when one species outgrows its food supply or fouls its habitat, it will crash. It suggests that our economy will thrive only if it mimics the cycles of nature that have sustained life on this planet for millions of years. If resources like fresh water, land, fisheries, and the rate of solar input are limited—and surely there is no one in this House now who believes otherwise—then we cannot deal with poverty by just expanding the size of the economy.

Trickle down never did work anyway, but the social democratic bargain between capital and labour pretended that it did. Labour would allow the capitalist system to maximise resource use and production, provided a share of it was passed to workers. The gap between rich and poor continued to grow, but it was disguised by rising living standards for everyone, and that is no longer possible. Even in the last 9 years Labour has allowed the gap between the poorest 10 percent and the richest to continue to grow.

The Greens’ principle of social justice recognises that if the economy cannot continue to get bigger, as it always has, then we must share our wealth more equitably. People seem to find sharing really hard, yet even by the age of 3 my grandson had grasped the principle and he managed to live by it most of the time. What is it that happens to us after kindergarten that makes it so much harder? Why do we encourage our small children to share their toys, but teach them later that self-interested win-lose competition brings the greatest good? Sharing, of course, is a bad idea if we believe that happiness can be attained only by getting more stuff.

What we value is at the heart of any economic system. If we value only what can be priced, then of course we will pursue economic growth right to the point where the collapse of our life support system destroys us all. If we, instead, value our families, our friends, our community, our human relationships, our natural environment, and the time to enjoy them—quality rather than quantity—we will measure our success with a genuine progress indicator, rather than by the sheer size of economic output. New Zealand ranked sixth in a recent OECD survey on people’s satisfaction with their lives, despite our GDP per capita being towards the low end of the OECD. People generally get richer over their lifetime, but the evidence is that they do not get happier.

We also, in the Greens, have a different view of what it is to be a global citizen. We support a healthy globalisation, founded on democratic political governance and the rule of law, which is compatible with the interests of every human being on the planet, not just the elite that currently govern most countries. We recognise that fair trade can bring benefits to all countries, but that trading patterns today are often at the price of unsustainable use of fossil fuels and unjust exploitation of workers and the natural environment.

Michael Cullen, in his valedictory speech, concluded belatedly but correctly that ecological sustainability is about our survival. Yet he said that the Greens should loosen up. Our caucus and our lives are full of laughter and fun. We take pleasure in living more simply and minimising our impact on the Earth. We offer New Zealand a satisfying and a joyful way of life, but we will also sound the alarm honestly and clearly, and with no apologies, about the fate that our society will face if we do not change. If that makes people feel uncomfortable, then perhaps it is because there is genuine cause for alarm.

I must say that if that is the Greens’ definition of fun, then obviously we need a new definition. Let me get back to the issue on the floor of the House, which is Labour’s reshuffle. The first thing I want to talk about is the fact that in the statement of announcement yesterday the Hon Phil Goff said that both Michael and Helen made huge contributions to the party and to New Zealand but that now the time has come to move forward.

What a backhanded compliment to Helen and Michael! It is saying, obviously, that when they were in charge, everything was going backwards, which, of course, is true—that is why they were so soundly defeated. But it is mind-boggling to suggest now that the Opposition, without mum and dad leading it, is going forward. I hate to say this, but I really have to draw an analogy between 1999 and 2000, and us and them as they are right now. National went through a difficult time after it was defeated in 1999, but compared with the line-up that Labour has just put up, National at least looked like a bright hope for the future, whereas these guys look like no hope and no future. That is the issue that is important.

Let me turn to Phil Twyford for a minute. That guy has come in here bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and obviously everybody is thinking: “Wow, we’ll make a go of this.” Then a vacancy occurs in the Mt Albert electorate. So Phil says: “Hey, I’ll have a go at this. I’ll put my hand up. My union is going to back me. I’ll be right in there. I’ll run the case for you. Leave it up to me.” And what happened? He was hit right between the eyes—blown out of the water. He was not wanted, and he was sent to the backbenches. In fact, where is he on the list? Let me just check. I have the list here. Goodness gracious me! He is so far back that he is No. 58 and there are only 42 of them. Goodness gracious me! How bad is that? I bet he goes on strike shortly. That is the way these things go. That will be what happens.

You know, that is the problem with the Labour Party—it is so disorganised that it cannot even get its line-up right. I saw Trevor Mallard sitting on the front bench, so I went through the list and I saw him listed—

💬 Hon Member: New leader!

I am coming to the leader in a minute. I went through the list and—hello, hang on a minute—I saw that Trevor Mallard is still at No. 12. How can someone be on the front bench and be at No. 12? He is actually behind Shane Jones. That is an interesting thing, when I think about it.

Members should have a look at what is happening over there. Right now the deputy leader, Annette King, is sitting in her seat. Who is sitting beside her? It is Labour’s bright hope for the future—the guy who blushes every time he stands up and talks—the shadow Leader of the House. I was talking to somebody about him the other day. I said: “Do you know who the shadow Leader of the House is? It is Darren Hughes.” Do you know what that person said? He said “Hughes that?”. Well, bless my soul!

Who was sitting in that seat just before Darren? Funnily enough, Shane Jones was. Well, there we go—Shane Jones was sitting in that seat. But I tell members to look at whom he is sitting beside now. He is starting to do his numbers already. He is sitting there with Stuart Nash, saying “Look, Stuart, I tell you what we’ll do. I’ll put you on the front bench in a year or two; you back me for leader. I’ll be there. Mind you, we might have to wait until Mr Cunliffe has had a shot at it, but it will come around. Just hang on in there, Stuart; it will be OK. Shane will look after you in due course as he gets the leadership.”

You know, it is a funny thing, but the more we start looking at this line-up, the more disappointed we have to be. It just goes to show that it is a reflection of what happens when a party goes into Opposition and starts going down the gurgler.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Well, you would know. How many leaders did you lose when you were senior whip?

Well, absolutely. But, funnily enough, I lost none during my time, unlike that member—he has had members disappear, and he has been a senior whip for only 2 minutes. He has already seen leaders go. When I look at this line-up—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Are they your junior? Who is this junior Minister?

He does even have the courtesy to know what the rules of the House are. He is addressing the Speaker in the wrong manner.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In terms of knowing the rules of the House, that member has been a senior Government whip, and he ought to know that we cannot address members by their first names only.

I did not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to be a little careful. The member raising the point is quite right. When the member was speaking he did refer to another member by his first name, and a number of interjectors have been saying “You did this.” and “You did that.” I remind members that every time they interject with the word “you”, they are referring to the Speaker. Will both sides be a little more careful in their debates, please.

I will do my best to remember the names.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time, though, has expired.

I want Hansard to record how gratified and touched I am to be the subject of so much attention from the benches opposite and such high-quality contributions to parliamentary debate. The member from Northland, fresh from 21 years in the House, has finally been made a Minister outside Cabinet; it is really great—it is fantastic—to have an aspiration, to have a role model, and I want members to know how much it means to me.

This Mt Albert by-election will focus very much on the subject of transport, and public transport. The voters of Mt Albert are concluding, as we speak, that the National Government’s sole aim in the area of transport over the last 6 months has been to stuff up Auckland’s transport plans. It has abolished the regional fuel tax, and has thrown into question an array of local transport projects, including integrated ticketing, and countless railway stations across Auckland. The regional fuel tax was going to be one of the key sources of funding for the Waterview Connection. But what we have seen is National members defaulting to their traditional mode of working hand in glove with the roads lobby. We can smell the bitumen on their breath. And $420 million was shifted in the dead of night out of non - State highway classes—for that we can read “public transport”—straight into the State highway network. This will not escape the attention of the voters of Mt Albert.

On top of this, the Minister has called into question the Waterview Connection. In fact, Steven Joyce has been cooking the books. He has inflated the financing costs, which have never been included in any of the calculations so far on the Waterview Connection. He has thrown into the pot new road connections for the project that were never in the original design, and he has decided arbitrarily that there needs to be three-lane tunnels instead of two-lane tunnels. What is clearly going on here is that he is softening up the voters of Mt Albert to a vastly inferior solution for the Waterview Connection. He is rejecting the tunnel option of two lanes each, which would thus affect fewer homes. It would have meant that only about half the number of homes would have to be demolished—sorry, I find the silence opposite a bit unnerving. The tunnel option would have saved Oakley Creek, a beautiful creek that winds its way through Oakley park, which has the largest waterfall on the Auckland isthmus.

I want to read to members some very lucid commentary from this morning’s New Zealand Herald: “If the Government comes out with an el cheapo, neighbourhood-ruining, overland solution for the Waterview Connection … it will suggest National’s market research shows they haven’t a chance of winning the Mt Albert byelection. And that being so, then a plague on this Labour-voting backwater, we’ll give them the motorway from hell and divert the money to more National-friendly places. Perhaps to build dams for more biddable Canterbury farmers, as demanded back in February by the Minister of Finance Bill English’s kid brother Conor, in his guise as chief executive of Federated Farmers.”

It is very clear, when we look at the story of the Waterview Connection, that National is simply not listening. As my colleague Darren Hughes pointed out, the Waterview Connection is the most consulted project in New Zealand history. Thousands of people have been consulted, and let me tell members what they have told the Government. In the second half of 2008, in the final stage of consultation, there were 747 responses from the public and 25 from local authorities. Of all those responses, 76 percent supported the twin-tunnel option. But does National care? Does it care what the people of Mt Albert think? No, it does not.

I feel sorry for the Labour Party. I feel very sorry for it because National has been exposing the obvious weaknesses in its line-up. But then one of the bright new lights—those Labour members whom Phil Goff is giving a year to prove themselves—stood up and performed like that. It is no wonder Phil Twyford could not even get a nomination for Mt Albert, and no wonder he will not go further. It is no wonder that Phil Goff has to rely on the old boys in the front row. He will not promote young women. He will not promote people into the front row who could actually deliver for the Labour Party. No, he has to go back to the old and tried ones he knows.

Do members know why? Because Phil is worried. There is a strategy behind what Phil has done. He is worried. He knows that Trevor Mallard has never wanted to be leader, so he will put him up there. But he will not look after the people who really want his leadership position. Where is Shane Jones in this promotion? Why is Shane Jones not taking on a decent position? If Shane Jones is to be the next leader of the Labour Party, he should have a decent portfolio like education. They should not put him out on the side and just leave him there. Phil Goff put up Trevor Mallard because he knows that he can rely on Trevor not to want to take his job. That is what Phil Goff was thinking when he drew up this list. He was not thinking of what makes the Labour Party look good—

💬 Amy Adams: Nothing would!

Well, he was not thinking of that. He knows that his second-tier MPs who came in at the 2008 election will not help him out, so he needed to have somebody whom he could control. Phil Goff moved Trevor Mallard to the front benches because he can control him.

What has happened to Shane Jones? Where has Shane Jones been since the election? Shane Jones has not asked questions in this House. He has been distinctly absent. The reason is because Shane is waiting. Shane does not want to do anything he does not have to do, because he knows that Phil is going to make mistakes. That is because Phil has nobody he can rely on.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is interesting to hear what interventions are made and what are not, but that member has, on about four occasions, referred to members by their first names. You were very quick to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point. I apologise that I did not pick that up. The member should not refer in this House to his colleagues by their first names.

The strategy of the Leader of the Opposition is very much to keep down the people he thinks will be his competition after the next election. He knows that after the next election he will have big problems, and Shane Jones is the one who would be next in line. So he is keeping him well back, down the track.

Members may ask about David Cunliffe, who is sitting there. David Cunliffe has gone out and fired all his bullets. He has tried to be the big attack man for the—

💬 Hon John Carter: He didn’t have any.

He was shooting blanks, did the member say? But he tried to fire those bullets and they did not work. Bill English withstood David Cunliffe’s attack and beat him off—

💬 Hon Member: That wasn’t very hard.

I know, it was not very hard. That leaves David Cunliffe in a very difficult position because he tried and failed. Phil Goff knows that David Cunliffe tried and failed in the finance area, so he will leave him there. He will leave him there to stew for the next 2 years, knowing that his career prospects will get worse because he has failed in his portfolio. Shane Jones has been much smarter than David Cunliffe in accepting his position at the back. All Phil Goff is doing is surrounding himself with people he knows he can trust in the sense that they will not want to take his job off him. That is the front bench of Labour. I ask members to look at those members on the front bench. Have they got any integrity in going for leadership of the party? No. Of the ones that have, David Cunliffe has been shown to be a failure in finance, and the one who wants to be leader—Shane Jones—has not even moved to a position where he can prove himself. That is the whole strategy behind the realignment of the Labour members.

The difficulty for Labour is that that consigns it to one place: to a loss at the next election. The only way Labour can even put up a fight at the next election is to have fresh faces, to have a new-look Labour Party, and it cannot do that with a Phil Goff - led team of people he knows will not take him on. That is the problem with Labour, and that is how Phil Goff’s strategy is going to unfold in the next 3 years. The new members of Labour sitting in those back seats must be thinking to themselves that this is not good enough, because they are going to lose what position they have in the House. The Phil Twyfords of this world who had a chance to stand in a seat, having had that opportunity—

The people of New Zealand need to be very, very worried indeed if that is the best that the Government can do in a general debate, when there are huge issues facing the people of Auckland and the people of New Zealand. My colleagues here today have raised some very important points about what is going on in Auckland, and about an arrogant Government—a Government that is not listening to what Aucklanders want. They have given examples: the Waterview tunnel, improved and integrated public transport, and improved Auckland governance.

I want to consider some of the transport announcements and general hedging by this Government, and by the Minister of Transport, who has created huge uncertainty in Auckland and who is delaying the completion of major projects. What does the Minister say about the Waterview tunnel, which is strongly supported and the most widely consulted-on roading project in our history? The Minister will not commit. The Minister is overestimating costs, the Minister is refusing to accept engineers’ advice, and the Minister is ignoring all of the work done by the previous Government on securing sustainable funding solutions for the Waterview tunnel. Completion of that tunnel must also be complemented by a comprehensive public transport system in Auckland, but this Government has now got rid of options for funding public transport; they have been sidelined in favour of funding roads.

On 16 March this year Steven Joyce announced almost $1 billion of additional investment in State highway networks. Of that additional funding, $420 million of it was reallocated from non - State highway classes. In other words, money was taken from public transport and put into roads. There is now no firm funding commitments to a number of key projects in Auckland: railway stations, ferry stations, and integrated ticketing. There is now a significant shortfall in the money available to complete that important public transport. We have gone from an agreed plan for Auckland transport, with funding secured for all aspects of that plan via a regional fuel levy, to a situation that means key changes to public transport are now under threat: railway stations—including the railway stations in Onehunga where I am based—integrated ticketing; and ferry terminals.

The Minister will provide no reassurance to those who are waiting for those changes. It is disingenuous and disrespectful to Aucklanders to say that the changes may be funded—may be funded—by the Auckland Regional Council, or they may be funded by the New Zealand Transport Authority. The MP for Maungakiekie indicates that the funding is not secure, and that maybe railway stations in Onehunga could be funded through a contestable fund. Well, that is reassuring! That is what he said 2 weeks ago to the local community board. But Onehunga is seen as an important area of growth for Auckland City and I know that the residents of that part of Auckland will be extremely angry if the funding for this important piece of infrastructure falls over.

The Minister will not provide clear commitments to the people of Auckland. Twenty-two days ago—22 days ago—I asked the Minister to guarantee the funding for railway stations in Onehunga. I asked whether he could confirm it, whether it was secure, who would provide it, and would there be any delays. What is the response that he has given to me? I asked him 22 days ago, but there has been no response. That is arrogant, and it is unhelpful to the people of Auckland. Like the people of Mt Albert, the people of Maungakiekie are having their needs and concerns ignored by an arrogant Government and a Minister who refuses to provide answers.

The same Government is failing to provide a sustainable transport solution for Auckland—a sustainable solution with fully funded public transport that provides a logical and viable future alternative for roads in Auckland. The real tragedy of this is that the people of Auckland are committed to using public transport; they want to use public transport. In fact, this Government is doing them a huge disservice by not funding and getting on with important infrastructure, like the project to get the railway through to Onehunga. I urge the Minister to stand up and respond to the people. Likewise, I urge him to answer the people of Mt Albert about the Waterview tunnel.

There was big news this week from the Labour camp, with the big media scrum finally making its way into the Leader of the Opposition’s office—he must have enjoyed it; it has been a long time between drinks in that regard—and what was the big news? It was the big rebuild. Phil Goff was finally getting to make his mark. He was finally rebuilding the party in the image that he wanted. This was it. This was the big news.

What was the overwhelming response from everyone else? It was, to borrow a phrase from the Flight of the Conchords: “Is that it?”. Is that all the Labour Party has to offer? It is Labour’s fresh new look. It looks like a Tui billboard—“Yeah, right!”. What we have now on the Labour benches is a combination of dead wood and those who are going nowhere fast.

If the Labour Party thinks that the members on its front bench, who have been in Parliament for a combined 155 years—

💬 Paul Quinn: Oh, so last year!

That is what it is. They have spent a combined 155 years on the front bench. None of them can make it down to the Chamber this afternoon, it seems. But if those members think that the fresh new look will appeal and make them more attractive to the voters of New Zealand, then I suggest they are still suffering from the “out of touch-itis” that cost them the last election.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Where did you borrow that from?

I do not borrow my quotes; I come up with my own.

I have to say that on coming into Parliament as a new member, I could not help but notice the sense of entitlement that Labour MPs seem to have. It seeps out of every pore. They have a sense of entitlement to the Government benches. It is palpable.

As a new member I want to know, and my colleagues may help me out, whether Labour members were always as angry and bitter as this. Have they always been as angry and bitter as this, or have they not yet dealt with the fact that the country summarily rejected them last November? Perhaps they were always as angry and bitter as this; it is hard to know.

In all fairness, though, I do feel a bit sorry for the Labour Party. It is languishing in the polls, its leader barely registers in most of the polls, and what is worse—

💬 Paul Quinn: Who is their leader at the moment?

No one really knows. “Phil-in”, “Phil-out”; who knows. This week I think it is Phil Goff, next week “watch this space”.

It must have been really galling for Labour members over the past 6 months to vote in favour of the vast majority of the bills the Government has put up.

💬 Hon Members: That’s because they were our bills.

Oh, I knew they would go there! What have we heard from them over those 6 months was “We thought of it.” and “It was our idea.” I say to them: “Guess what, we are doing it.” That is the difference between the National Government and the previous Labour Government. We get things done. Labour introduced those bills and talked about them, but did not get things done. We have been in Parliament for 6 months and we have passed those bills introduced by the previous Government.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: These bills were on the Order Paper before the election.

They might have been on the Order Paper, but we are passing them through the House, I say to Mr Hughes. Labour did not manage that. The country will remember which Government delivered.

Members opposite have had to vote for those bills because they know that New Zealand wants what National is offering. Labour members know that and do not want to go on the record as opposing this stuff, because it makes sense. That is a hard pill to swallow, but that is the reality.

Labour members, despite their deep distrust of anything that helps the economy, know that New Zealand wants a stronger economy. They know that New Zealand wants an economy that will recover well from this recession. They know that New Zealand wants a better future for its children and an education system that does not underperform. They know that New Zealand wants safer communities. This Government is providing those things and that is why it is doing well. That is why this Government is strong in the polls and why John Key is so well respected, whereas Labour’s leader barely manages any showing in the polls, at all.

I ask members to look across the Chamber at the bright young things in Labour’s 2008 intake. They have been much talked about, but when push came to shove what did Phil Goff do with his bright young intake? He did nothing. [Interruption] Jacinda Ardern made her intentions clear when she came into the Chamber and sat in her leader’s chair, within the first couple of months. Well, I am sorry to say she will have to wait a little longer.

I was delighted to come into the Chamber this afternoon and hear the Hon Darren Hughes talking about the Mt Albert by-election, because I am very proud to represent the ACT Party in the Mt Albert by-election. I am also very proud that I have a family connection to the Mt Albert electorate that goes back for over a century. My great-grandfather Hugh Boscawen was aide-de-camp to five Governors-General and he was a surveyor in the Department of Lands and Survey. He surveyed early Auckland, and Boscawen Street in Point Chevalier is named after my great-grandfather.

I believe that the greatest challenges that face the voters in Mt Albert, and, in fact, face all New Zealanders, are our declining living standards, our rising debt, and our declining productivity. Those are the challenges that face Mt Albert residents. Those are the challenges and biggest concerns for all New Zealanders. I came into this House to try to raise New Zealand’s living standards. The problems that we have are man-made; we have created them and we can fix them. The standard of our social services and the standard of the health system are a measure of our productivity and our wealth. Over the last 10 years we have had declining living standards. The Labour Government was elected into this Parliament with a promise to raise our living standards and lift our place on the OECD ladder. The exact reverse happened. Those levels have fallen. Over the last 13 years, since 1997 at the time of the Winston Peters - Jim Bolger Government we have experienced a massive growth in Government spending. In real terms Government spending has gone from $11,000 to $18,000 for every man, woman, and child. People might think that is normal but it is not normal. In the 10 previous years, from 1985 to 1995, total Government spending actually decreased.

I will be saying to the people of Mt Albert that we need to stop wasting Government money. There is so much waste, and the time has come when we can no longer afford to have “buy-elections”. We cannot afford politicians who go out and use taxpayers’ money to try to buy their way into Parliament. We saw that happen in the last 12 months when the previous Labour Government went out and purchased the railways. That business cost $680 million and will lose $150 million this year. That is a billion-dollar cost. Think of the cost—that is $500 for every man, woman, and child in the country. There will not be a change of Government, following this by-election. Following the election we will still have a National Government, and this by-election represents an opportunity for the people of Mt Albert to send the politicians in this Chamber a message. It is an opportunity to send a message that the time has come to stop wasting taxpayers’ money; the time has come to stop reversing our living standards.

How interesting to hear Darren Hughes talk about completing the north-western motorway. That is a link that desperately needs to be completed, but he did not tell the House that the 4.5 kilometre link between Onehunga and Mount Roskill cost $250 million and opens in 10 days’ time. The previous Government baited the people of Mt Albert with a pipedream. It said it would build them a tunnel and would spend 10 times that amount. So for a piece of motorway, the same length as the other, it said it would spend 10 times that amount—not $250 million but $3 billion. Not only that but it said it would put 1 kilometre of that tunnel under a creek—the Oakley Creek. That would cost $1 billion. If New Zealand were a rich Arab emirate we might be able to afford that cost, but in reality the decisions made in this House by politicians on both sides have added to our declining living standards. The time has come for that to stop.

It was interesting to hear Carol Beaumont’s comment that the best the National speakers could put up was criticism of the Labour front bench. I have to agree with Carol Beaumont, because at a time when living standards and productivity are falling and debt levels are rising, that sort of situation has to change. I think the Labour Opposition deserves more than it heard today. I believe that the electors of Mt Albert, and the people of New Zealand, deserve more. I am going to go out and campaign hard for the ACT Party in Mt Albert and I will be saying to the electors that they deserve better, that there is a real choice in this election campaign. I will tell them that I will be very proud to be the MP for Mt Albert and will work very hard to represent the people. I will bring some honesty to this campaign, because Helen Clark was MP for Mt Albert for 9 years, and if anyone could build a $3 billion tunnel it was that member, but she did not do it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.