General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Six weeks ago at the start of the Mt Albert by-election campaign, the National Party said that winning Mt Albert was a big test for Labour—a big test for Labour. Halfway through the campaign National members subtly changed that to saying that winning the campaign really well would be a big test for Labour. But following Saturday night they are saying nothing at all. Labour did not simply win that by-election; Labour demolished National by a margin of 63 percent to 17 percent.

💬 Hon Member: How much?

By 63 percent to 17 percent. The National Party needs to ask itself some basic questions, and it has started to ask those questions. Around the backbenches some National members are talking about Jonathan Coleman. They have a new nickname for him. They call him “The Maestro”.

But, more seriously, I think that the way National has scapegoated Melissa Lee as being to blame for that defeat has been grossly unfair. I want to say something about Melissa Lee. On election night she was on her own—she was on her own without a leader, the very leader who had hand-picked her to be the candidate for Mt Albert. John Key had said that Ravi Musuku was just a token and that National would put him up while Helen Clark was there, but as soon as there was any chance of winning he would be gone—disrespecting both Ravi Musuku and the community he represented. Mr Key picked Melissa Lee personally for that position, but then she began by making an unfortunate mistake in the campaign. It could happen to anyone, but a good leader would have been there alongside his candidate, giving her the support she needed. That is what a good leader would have done. But, no—it was all Melissa’s fault. And it was a dreadful sight on election night; Melissa Lee was traumatised by that result, and clearly upset. But where was the Prime Minister? He was holidaying at Huka Lodge while his candidate was being humiliated on election night, and he did not have it in him to stand alongside her. I think that that is appalling. Melissa Lee, as somebody who had not stood for an electorate in a by-election campaign, deserved support; instead, John Key walked away from her and left her to hang out to dry. Some people said that just as he had done with Dr Worth, he washed his hands of her. And that has biblical implications. Melissa Lee deserved more than she got from the National Party.

I think it is important for National members that they learn the lesson from this campaign. Just 7 months ago National was elected to govern this country. It had a mandate. But within 7 months that National Government has become smug and arrogant. Members should just look at the look on Jonathan Coleman’s face—there it is, smug and arrogant—though that member has absolutely nothing to be smug and arrogant about. The difference between Labour and National was that Labour never took Mt Albert for granted. It engaged with the people and the communities of Mt Albert, and it listened to the people. It listened to people; National did not listen, and it is still not listening. There is a super-city proposal that the majority of people in Auckland have said they reject; 5:1 the people of Auckland have said they have not been consulted by this Government on the super-city. But what does John Key say? He says: “So what!”. He has the same smugness, the same arrogance, and the same refusal to consult and to listen. Aucklanders hate hypocrisy. Before the election, John Key in a member’s bill promised there would be a referendum, but now he has rammed through legislation preventing the right of people in Auckland to have their say.

Well, was not that a laughable contribution from the man who thinks he is the leader of the Labour Party! What did we learn from the Mt Albert by-election? All the public learnt from the Mt Albert by-election was that if Labour tries really, really hard, and has front-benchers out there standing on traffic islands and grinning like fools, it can actually hang on to the second-safest seat it has in the country. Phil Goff has plenty of time to wander around the country, trying to find people who actually want to talk to him, when in fact he has had only two things out of that by-election. The by-election has been a Trojan Horse for Phil Goff, because it has brought into Parliament the next leader of the Labour Party. I can tell members that David Cunliffe and Maryan Street are not too happy that Phil Goff has brought in the man who will take over from him.

The other problem he has now is that he has an albatross around his neck as a result of that: Phil Goff’s man has gone around Auckland saying that he would build a $3 billion tunnel through the middle of Mt Albert, and how that will be paid for at the next election is now something that Phil Goff has to explain. All the members have their heads down over there on the Labour side, but they know that that is a big, big problem for them. There is $3 billion, totally promised, of unfunded spending to add to the $2 billion a year they are putting into the Cullen fund.

I tell members that the public of New Zealand want sound economic management. They do not want someone like Phil Goff, who will say absolutely anything to get elected; they want someone who will actually get this country back on track. That is why one million New Zealanders voted for John Key at the 2008 election. They had completely lost faith in the Labour Party. They know that that party over there will not be on the Treasury benches for a long time—not until it focuses on what is wrong with the economy in New Zealand.

The Budget we have just had was a sensible, prudent response to one heck of a hospital pass that the Labour Government handed the incoming Government. Quite frankly, when one looks at the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update one can see that we were looking at a billion-dollar deficit. In December, a month after the election, it was $4 billion. It has gone absolutely bonkers and, quite frankly, if we did not have the prudent measures that were put in place in the Budget our international credit rating would have slipped completely.

These guys opposite would spend, spend, spend, but they have no plan to get us out of economic difficulty, and the public do not trust them. Phil Goff can crow all he likes, but he has lost his credibility with the public and with his party. The public and the press do not think he is up to it at all. Labour members, all sideshows aside, can wallow in the gutter and talk about irrelevancies, but the bottom line is that the public of New Zealand want sound economic management and that is why they are backing John Key. That is why John Key is the most popular Prime Minister in decades—in fact, probably in living memory. The public trusts John Key to get this country right. He is the man with the mandate for change and he is making the hard decisions that will get the country back on the economic track.

When we look at Labour’s record in health care and education, it had lost the way. In health care there was no plan to get New Zealanders greater access to services. In education, one in five kids was coming out of school not being able to read or write. It is all very well for Phil Goff to grasp at any photo opportunity he can possibly get, but the fact is that Phil Goff’s future as the Labour leader is a complete joke. He will not be there. He will never be a Labour Prime Minister.

Maryan Street can shake her head, but she is pretty happy. What she is really worried about is how she and her party can come up with that $3 billion. The public does not like politicians who lie to them, and when they find at the next election that Labour has no way of providing that $3 billion those guys will pay for it big time at the polls.

Mr Shearer is a man of integrity, but until Mr Shearer is in that front seat on the front bench Labour will really struggle. Mr Cunliffe is very, very unhappy to see Mr Shearer come into Parliament because he knows that he will take the position that he covets. That is the fact of things. That is absolutely what will happen. These guys on the backbench are waiting for Mr Shearer to come in because they have had enough of Phil Goff. He has not proved to be up to it. If all that Labour can take out of these things is the fact that it can hang on to a safe seat, the future of the Labour Party is very dismal, indeed.

Last weekend our co-leader Tariana Turia announced the establishment of a whānau ora task force headed by Professor Mason Durie. The aim of the task force is to focus on a new approach to whānau well-being—an approach that is singularly interested in outcomes for whānau. This is not about propping up bureaucracy with projects that never make a difference out in the real world; this is a focus in which whānau ora is the driver. Whānau well-being across health, education, and social development becomes the priority. We have had enough of projects limited by a focus on indicators only of disease and deficiencies. Although we know that many statutory agencies are charged with providing services directed at whānau, the supply is often fragmented. In the race for contestability of contracts, providers become distracted by the challenge of competition and are often distracted from the real goal in sight, which is the opportunity for whānau ora. In addition to all the conflicts, we are acutely aware that agencies from various sectors do not always coordinate activities, and on too many occasions are fixated on the means rather than the end. To top it off, the compliance costs of managing contracts, the overlapping and blurred boundaries between funder and provider, and the piecemeal approach to single issues and single individuals have created a mindset in which crisis management is the prevailing mode of operation.

Today we are breaking the mould. We have the ability to change the vision to suit today’s reality, and the Māori Party is proud to respond to the challenge. We need the innovation and the capacity to create solutions. The complicated and convoluted contracting practice of Government has stymied best practice. There has been a growth in the proliferation of providers and a limited and narrow focus has dominated. Instead of promoting a strategic view, funders concentrate on the minutiae, reducing their interest to all that can be included in the narrow objectives and indicators. For example, if we are treating nan or koro with a diabetes management plan, then we should be educating the whole whānau about lifestyle changes to prevent diabetes. We should be addressing budget management to invest in healthy eating. We should be taking a comprehensive approach to ensure a whānau focus drives any interventions put in place. I have some concerns that the front-end funders—say, district health boards—are retaining funding that is intended to be open for tender right across their rohe. Instead they may keep the funding back at their own level of operation.

It is time for a fundamental overhaul of existing funding and delivery policies. We want a new approach. We want to see an emphasis on relationships, investment in collaboration and cooperation, and support provided for whānau in a holistic way rather than for isolated individuals in a whānau. What better time to do that than in the spirit of Matariki? With much pleasure I announce that tomorrow I will be submitting to the ballot the Te Rā o Mātāriki Bill/Mātāriki Day Bill. As we welcome the advent of the new year and reflect on the year that has fallen, the Māori Party has chosen to put forward this bill as our contribution to Matariki, the Māori new year. Although this member’s bill has been in the Māori Party since 2006, this is the first opportunity in the forty-ninth Parliament to put it in the ballot. The bill proposes that Matariki must be observed as a public holiday throughout New Zealand on the day of the next new moon following the day in which the moon rises in the months of May or June.

Tonight in honour of Matariki a Matariki lantern parade will be taking place at the top of Te Tau Ihu in my home town of Nelson. Further south in Te Tai Tonga there is a star-weaving event in my new home town of Linwood, Christchurch. Tukutuku panels are being woven in New Brighton, while here in Whanganui-ā-Tara, where my children and grandchildren live, any one of us can go down to Kura Gallery and visit the exhibition Matariki - The Navigator. It is a beautiful exhibition by seven Māori women artists that celebrates the significance of Matariki. We too in this House can do something to celebrate Matariki, and that is to give widespread support to my bill when it is drawn from the ballot.

A man who cannot manage his own caucus cannot manage the country, and what we have seen in the Mt Albert by-election is a man who cannot manage his own caucus. How does a leader manage a caucus? A leader manages a caucus by demanding and giving loyalty. That is something New Zealanders understand. They understand that loyalty is a two-way effort. It is something that cuts both ways. If one expects loyalty, one gives loyalty.

New Zealanders do not expect team members to desert their own team members when they run into difficulty. So where was Mr Key? Where were Paula Bennett, Judith Collins, Steven Joyce, Tim Groser, Wayne Mapp, and Murray McCully? I mention only National’s Auckland members. Where was Maurice Williamson? Where were the members of the Government’s executive who reside in Auckland? I mentioned only the Auckland-based ones. Where were they when Melissa Lee was subjected to that debacle and defeat on Saturday night? My heart went out to her because that is not what one should expect of one’s leader. As far as one could see, the only senior members who were there were Pansy Wong and Jonathan Coleman. There were no senior Ministers present to support Melissa Lee. Where was Bill English? If the leader could not be there because he was on holiday, why could the deputy leader not be there? Where was the party president? I have been through a difficult by-election as party president, and it was absolutely imperative for me to be there at the time with our candidate to show loyalty and support, and to give back some of what she gave us by standing in an unwinnable seat. That is no more and no less than should be expected of the leaders of a party.

Steven Joyce, for example, refused to visit the electorate after previously promising TV3 that he would. Why did he not just simply pick up the phone and tell Melissa Lee—even if he was not going to tell Jonathan Coleman, who should have read the Cabinet paper anyway—about the Waterview Connection, instead of allowing her to walk blindfolded into the valley of Death, as it turned out to be for her. What about some of the other Auckland members? Where were Jackie Blue, Tau Henare, Paul Hutchison, or Allan Peachey? They are old-timers; some of them are second-termers, but some of them are old-timers as well. Where were they? Were they in support of Melissa Lee? Where was Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga on the night? Perhaps he could not be there; perhaps he was at a council meeting. Where was Kanwaljit Bakshi? Was he there? Was Nikki Kaye there on the night?

💬 Nikki Kaye: Yes, I was there!

If she was, then I commend her for that. But I say to Nikki Kaye that I am sorry; that is not good enough. Her party’s leaders should have been there. It is not good enough. Paula Bennett prides herself on representing the battlers from “Struggle Street”—a description of National’s candidate if ever I heard one. Where was she? Why was she not there providing some support?

In the end, Melissa Lee was hand-picked by John Key. She was chosen to begin the maiden speeches of the new cohort of 2008. When she started to stumble, his support evaporated. It goes to the question of political management and the competence of the Prime Minister. Melissa Lee went into the by-election full of confidence, but she discovered the hard way that politics is harder than she thought it looked. Comparably, John Key has gone into the job of Prime Minister full of confidence, but he is discovering daily that it is harder than it looked. The great gaps in his knowledge, his ability, and his instincts cannot be glossed over with a smile. I tell Mr Key that it takes more than a smile to run a country. The debacle of the loss—the profound drubbing—in Mt Albert that has been served up to National is a complete reflection on the leadership of the party.

I would like to change the subject. I would like to talk about what the Government is doing while Labour is languishing in lassitude and collapse. The economy is the important aspect, and with National the economy is in a very safe pair of hands. I will go further: it is more than safe. As is demonstrated daily during question time, the economy is in the hands of a set of splendid, superb, excellent, and exceptional minds. This Government is made up of magnificent men and wonderful women whose collective business experience is substantial.

Years at the coalface of industry enable National’s political team, the Government’s team, to be well-equipped to manage the economy and navigate the turbulent waters in order to survive these difficult times. They have the kind of skill and acumen that Captain James Cook exhibited during his first two voyages to New Zealand when he not only had to stay afloat but also had to unflinchingly ride the waves into new and uncharted territories. He had to provide new and original solutions to difficult problems. That is what we have to do now, and that is what the Government’s leaders are doing during the difficult weeks and months we are living through. The economy is the Endeavour, and after the previous Government ran it aground we are in the process of repairing the ship and setting it on course for bigger and better things.

If Labour had won the last election, the economy would be more like the Titanic. The economy would sink under Labour. The Labour Government’s last quarter had New Zealand in a technical recession. We heard about that. They ask the questions—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who wrote this rubbish?

I wrote this rubbish—and it is not rubbish. Well, it is, because at the moment I am talking about what the Labour Government did, and that was a load of rubbish. We will soon get out of the rubbish and on to the good stuff.

The previous Government squandered the golden years and failed to put in place measures that would set up our economy to weather the bad times and to take advantage of the good times. In the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update we were looking at a deficit of a billion dollars. By December it had deteriorated into a debilitating and dreadful $4 billion, dangling the putrid prospect of a decade of deficits. That is the rubbish that we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Labour left a legacy of a languishing and lamentable economy, and now, instead of facing up to the fact that this country has some difficult policy decisions to make, Labour continues to think that lavish spending on excessive extravagances is the answer. Those members’ attitudes are of continuing and increasing concern to commercial interests. How do we describe the Labour Party’s approach to the economy?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Tell us!

Would members like me to tell them? We say that Labour’s approach is a “Whack-it-on-the-bill-Phil-osophy”, which has permeated past protective practices. Labour’s answer is to spend more, and the “Whack-it-on-the-bill-Phil-osophy” would massively increase debt and impose an irresponsible, irredeemable, and irreversible burden, and those members know it. The next two generations of New Zealanders—

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Who are you?

If the member asking that question listens carefully, all his questions will be answered.

Under Labour, each household would be beholden to somehow return to the Government thousands of dollars just to take the country out of the red. The other side of the House would like to spend billions of dollars on maintaining the superannuation fund contributions—borrowing to invest it, at a loss—and billions of taxpayers’ dollars on the Waterview Connection. In fact, it would spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars on just about anything at the economic cost of future generations. Quite frankly, it is a fundamentally flawed philosophy. We had 9 years of plenty, but nothing was done to protect, promote, or preserve productivity.

This Government, on the other hand, has taken the necessary steps to help get the books in order, but at the same time we still have announced initiatives that will benefit the economy and the public. We are sensibly investing in front-line emergency services, maternity services, roads, home insulation, and the police. We are improving the Resource Management Act in order to reduce compliance costs and encourage growth. Ultimately, we are doing everything we can to set New Zealand on a path of prosperity and productivity.

While we specialise in the economy, all the other side of the House specialises in is an unhealthy discredit by innuendo. The road to recovery is through trimming bureaucracy and expenditure and promoting positive new policies.

I was proud to campaign for David Shearer and Labour in the Mt Albert electorate. I knocked on a lot of doors and talked to a lot of people during the campaign, and I was at the Labour Party’s headquarters on Saturday night to show my support for our candidate. It was a real privilege to be there with Labour supporters, and anyone in the room would have seen what I saw: a resurgent Labour Party full of energy and drive, well led, and ready for the challenges of the next 2 years that lie ahead until the next general election campaign. What a victory it was for David Shearer. Although the final results have yet to be declared, the election night results are significant: 63 percent of the vote to Labour—as Phil Goff said—17 percent to National, 12 percent to the Greens, and 5 percent to ACT.

But those results would have been no surprise to anybody who was knocking on doors in Mt Albert during the campaign, because the same four themes came up time and time again on people’s doorsteps. First, people were really proud of a legacy of excellent representation by fine Labour MPs, most latterly Helen Clark and Warren Freer. There is no doubt that David Shearer was the beneficiary of that proud legacy. The second theme was transport issues, including the incredibly arrogant decision not to proceed with the State Highway 20 tunnel. The third theme was another arrogant decision, after 18 days’ consultation, to bulldoze ahead with a super-city model that differs significantly from that advocated by the royal commission, without any thought of giving Aucklanders a referendum to enable them to have their say on the proposal. And the fourth theme was a further example of arrogance in the refusal of the Prime Minister to say why he lost confidence in one of his Ministers, Dr Worth.

I believe that John Key’s decision not to tell the public why he lost confidence in Dr Worth not only is the height of arrogance but to claim that his refusal is on public interest grounds and then decline to set out those grounds raises serious constitutional issues. Earlier today in question time the Prime Minister continued his confused and unsatisfactory series of answers on this issue. I believe that it is time he fronted up to the House and to the public and told us why he lost confidence in Dr Worth and explain the inconsistencies. John Key is refusing to tell the public why he lost confidence in Dr Worth, but the public are entitled to answers and accountability from the Prime Minister for his decisions. Dr Worth was paid more than $100,000 over his time as a Minister, but the Prime Minister is refusing to say why he lost confidence in him. At question time on 16 June the Prime Minister said: “As I said, I will not go into specifics, but it is fair to say that I lost confidence in Dr Worth, and, on that basis, he could not remain a Minister.” But the Prime Minister told the media 2 weeks ago that the reason he was silent was that he did not want to contaminate any criminal investigation. The Prime Minister’s words were “I do not think it would be appropriate for me to contaminate that investigation by making loose comments.” This raises some serious questions. Why did John Key say he was not commenting because of legal contamination when the reason he lost confidence in Dr Worth supposedly was not related to that, at all? What is the new standard of behaviour for Ministers? And why does the Prime Minister think there is no public interest in his decisions of this nature as Prime Minister?

It is also not clear when John Key lost confidence in Dr Worth. The Prime Minister has specified no fewer than three different dates as the time when he lost confidence in Dr Worth. The Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday afternoon that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on 26 May, he told Leighton Smith that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on 29 or 30 May, and he told Native Affairs that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on Sunday, 31 May. Those dates are from the answers he gave those three different sources. This raises some further serious questions. Just when did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Dr Worth? Was it on the Tuesday, as he told Parliament? Or has there been a misleading of the House? Why are John Key’s stories on when he lost confidence in Dr Worth so inconsistent and all over the place? Is the Prime Minister trying to hide his own poor judgment on the issue? And what is the status of all the decisions made by Dr Worth after John Key had lost confidence in him? Dr Worth was in office for a week after John Key lost confidence in him, so whom did Dr Worth, as Minister, appoint, what decisions did he make without the confidence of the Prime Minister, and how arrogant is it for the Prime Minister to ask the public to just trust him when he has let a Minister of the Crown in whom he has lost confidence make serious decisions affecting the lives of ordinary Kiwis? Finally, how is it satisfactory for John Key to simply assert that there is no public interest in the answers to these questions?

The Opposition has learnt absolutely nothing since the general election. All it knows how to do is attack the Prime Minister and spend. This Government is focused on helping people. It is really tough out there for people at the moment. People are trying to live on less money as New Zealanders spend less and tighten their belts. All that the Opposition is interested in is attacking the Prime Minister and, in my view, advocating people to spend money they do not have. Some of the people who are being hardest hit by the recession are the hundreds and thousands of self-employed people who do not have the security of regular salaries but rely on the customers they get. They are the people who are battling out there. They are the taxi drivers of central Auckland and Wellington, the dairy owners and people who own a small business in the food industry, and the self-employed builders around New Zealand who are finding it tougher as people do not have the cash to pay their mortgage, let alone spend a bit on DIY.

The reason our Budget was so well-received is that New Zealanders understand this very simple fact: if New Zealanders are having to tighten their belts because of having less cash, then so should the Government. The Budget has been very well-received around New Zealand, both on the streets of Auckland Central and in other members’ electorates. Members of the public, businesses, and commentators have acknowledged that the Budget is well balanced, sensible, and prudent for these tough economic times. In fact, Westpac said “Budget 2009 strikes a reasonable balance between delivering support in the economy’s hour of need and being responsible about long term expenses and debt.”

The fact is that times are tough, but they would be much tougher if Labour were in power. Labour, rather than showing fiscal restraint, in an understanding of the situation that hard-working New Zealanders are facing, wants to spend more—not just a little bit more; it wants to spend $5 billion more. Labour’s fantasy commitments include promises to restore KiwiSaver, $947 million; research and development tax credits, $221 million; and the Fast Forward fund, $650 million. The list goes on: more overseas aid, $65 million. Let us talk about Mount Albert. Labour wants to spend an extra $1.5 billion on 4 kilometres of Waterview tunnel. That must be the most expensive 4 kilometres in New Zealand.

We are in a recession, and Labour wants to talk about attacking the Prime Minister and spending more; not just a little bit more but $5 billion more. Members opposite have been referred to as the “credit card Opposition”, but I am not aware of a credit card that has a $5 billion limit. Are other members aware of such a credit card? Labour’s approach is irresponsible and puts at risk our economy in the future. The next generation of New Zealanders would be faced with an albatross of debt around their necks.

The other thing New Zealanders understand, which Labour does not seem to have grasped, is the dramatic change in our economic position. When we were elected last year the economy had already started to decline, and the world economy has been fast deteriorating since. In the 2008 Budget we faced a $1 billion surplus. By the time of the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update just before the election it had turned to a $1 billion deficit. In fact, Labour has left us with a decade of deficits. The current situation shows falling economic growth, rising unemployment, high inflation at 3.4 percent, and a rising current account deficit of $16.1 billion. Times are tough, and we have delivered a Budget that reflects the change in our economic situation but also reflects what the many New Zealanders out there understand and are doing. They are tightening their belts, not going on a giant spend-up, as Labour would have New Zealand do—a $5 billion spend-up that there is no money for.

Let us look at what the members on the other side of the House have focused on today. They have not focused on the economy. They have not talked about the hard-working New Zealanders who are struggling out there. They have talked about the Mt Albert by-election. Well, I will tell you one thing right now: if you do not start to focus on what matters, if you do not start to focus on how to help those New Zealanders who are really struggling at the moment, then you will be staying on the opposite side of the House for a very long time.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Come on!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member does not comment when another member has raised a point of order.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think I let the first four references to “you” go, but at the next two I interjected on the member to try to help her. I think it was on the seventh reference that I thought it was probably time to say something. She is an experienced member around here, Mr Speaker, and she should be able to stop bringing you into the debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. I remind members that they must use the third person, and that when they refer to “you”, they are referring to the Speaker. They must not bring the Speaker into the debate. It is for good reason that we use the third person. It is less personal and leads to less disorder.

You always know that you are giving a good speech when Trevor Mallard interrupts you. The Budget has been very well-received because New Zealanders are realistic and they know—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really hoped that the member would be able to get two words out without breaching the Speaker’s ruling that has just been made. She is an intelligent member, and she is generally a likeable member, but she has to learn how to speak in the Chamber.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point. The member speaking must not use the word “you” in any circumstance, because it always refers to the Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to Mr Mallard. The Budget has been very well-received because New Zealanders are realistic and they know the challenges ahead. It was so well-received that we improved our credit rating.

I welcome the applauding member, Cam Calder, to the House. I hope he has a good career here—not too good, of course, but I hope he has a good time.

Only one person in the land had the control needed to manufacture his own double-booking on the evening of Saturday 13 June, and that person was the Prime Minister. Only he knew that he had a private engagement at Huka Lodge that Saturday, and only he had the authority to pick 13 June as by-election day. He did not pick 6 June, 20 June, or any other Saturday in June. He picked 13 June so that he would not need to be there. If National had won the Mt Albert by-election last Saturday, Mr Key’s longstanding private engagement at Huka Lodge would have been rescheduled on the spot, and a ring would have been put around that date. He would have been there; there is no doubt about that. I ask the members which engagement was decided first. Was the by-election day of 13 June decided first, or was the so-called longstanding private engagement at Huka Lodge settled in the Prime Minister’s diary first? One can play it either way.

My guess is that the longstanding private engagement at the exclusive Huka Lodge in Taupō was put together in a hurry only a few weeks ago. That would be my guess, because 8 weeks ago the Prime Minister was speaking confidently of the distinct possibility of victory with his personally chosen candidate, Melissa Lee. So I reckon the date of the by-election was settled first and the longstanding private engagement at the exclusive Huka Lodge came later, probably about 3 or 4 weeks ago when the Prime Minister thought that he and his party would get done over, and that it would be a dog’s dinner. He thought he needed to get out of Auckland, where he lives, because it would be best not to be around when the drubbing came. He realised he could not go to Hawaii, because that would seem a little bit too far, a little bit exclusive, and a little bit eyebrow-raising.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to go to Huka Lodge!

Yeah! He could not go to Wellington or Christchurch because there would be too many television cameras there—they have networks, you know. He thought it would be better to go to Taupō where there are not so many cameras. What is more, he could go to the exclusive Huka Lodge and therefore be excluded. So the Prime Minister was over and out for the night of 13 June. I think that is what the Prime Minister did. His personal management was to get the hell out of there, become excluded, and stay away from media coverage.

His management of Cabinet was no better. His strategy was every man for himself and Melissa Lee for herself. There was no support, no loyalty, no lines, no tactics—nothing. It was a case of getting out of there and waiting until the by-election passed. The Deputy Prime Minister was not around. He was no doubt off on urgent public business in Dipton. There was no member from the front bench, Aucklander or otherwise. As far as I can work out, only two members of the executive turned up. That means that 26 members did not turn up, including, as Maryan Street said, a bunch of folk from Auckland. The president of the National Party was not there, and when she was asked where she was on the night, she squealed that she was told by Jonathan Hunt that there was heaps of support—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Coleman!

Jonathan Coleman; I apologise to both men.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Jonathan Hunt is twice the man he is!

That is quite true. Anyway, Jonathan Coleman told the president of the National Party, Judy Kirk, that there was heaps of support around, and “heaps”, as far as I can work out, meant him and Pansy Wong. Jenny Kirk was less than supportive in her own remarks. Let me read them to the members. Jenny Kirk said—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Judy Kirk! Jenny was one of yours.

Judy Kirk said this about her own candidate: “She is emotional. I have seen that on a couple of occasions when she has gone to speak and it may be her culture,”. Who needs friends like that? If I were Melissa Lee, I would be unimpressed by that comment. Melissa Lee was hung out to dry.

Charles Chauvel has taken up the cudgel of what the Prime Minister failed to do in that week, not to do with the by-election, but to do with Dr Richard Worth. He has gone through that story very, very well.

I will save the member opposite from any confusion by introducing myself—I am Jonathan Young. I think it would be a great time right now to remind the people of New Zealand, the members of the Opposition, who tend to forget, and my colleagues on the Government benches, that on 8 November 2008 New Zealand chose a different plan forward. They chose a plan for a better New Zealand than that proposed by the previous Labour Government. It is a bitter pill for Labour to swallow, no doubt. We hear bombastic skiting about recent polls, but right now in the electorate of New Plymouth, and perhaps in electorates all around the country, the Labour Party is actively asking what it did wrong. That is the question that people in New Plymouth are being asked.

Two issues struck deep at the heart of New Zealanders, and they are issues that still deeply concern them. The first issue concerns being able to afford to live in times—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Never thought I’d hear them say “Bring back Harry!”.

—I say to Mr Mallard that I am sorry but I cannot hear him—that are increasingly becoming difficult because of the international recession. The economy was the No. 1 issue concerning New Zealanders. Following that, personal safety was the second issue that New Zealanders were concerned about, and they remain concerned about that. One year ago the previous Labour Government presented in its 2008 Budget a surplus of $1 billion. As we have heard, within 5 short months that surplus had turned into a $1 billion deficit. By the end of last year the hole had mushroomed to four times the size in as many months. There was a $4 billion deficit, and before anything regarding a world recession was hitting our shores we were already in trouble under Labour. We had falling economic growth and rising unemployment. We had higher inflation, which Treasury informed us was contributed to by the $4 billion spend-up, over Budget, last year. We had a rising current account deficit. New Zealand was quickly getting into trouble, so when this Government took the benches in November last year, it received a hospital pass. Then, of course, the game got a lot rougher with the global downturn.

But one thing New Zealanders are feeling, up and down this country, is that we have not dropped the ball; we have caught the ball by relentlessly concentrating on things that matter to them. We have a safe pair of hands. Right throughout our Government we are staying focused on making sure we deliver where it counts for all New Zealanders. Productivity is the key for our future success. This is a story that we need to understand. We were elected on a platform of unclogging the country’s economic arteries. We were sick economically, but Mr English’s Budget is an important step in the right direction. We have seen an increased investment in good-quality, productive infrastructure that can boost productivity, unlock economic potential, and lift growth.

One of the things that the Opposition has criticised us for in recent days—

💬 Hon Member: Just the one?

Well, it has criticised many things, of course. But its opposition and criticism have largely come over National’s decision not to continue payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund through the fund set up by Michael Cullen. We need to constantly remind the Opposition, and New Zealand, that the fund was set up to have surpluses invested into it. That means money left over. Given the climbing indebtedness we inherited at the end of last year—going from a $1 billion surplus to a $7.7 billion deficit within 12 months—we ask where the common sense is in continuing to borrow in order to lend to others on the world stock market, during a time of the greatest level of uncertainty since 1930. The Cullen fund lost 25 percent of its value in just a few months. We are still in incredibly uncertain times. We could borrow $2 million to lose more than that, and then have to pay the principal back, plus the interest. Setting up the Cullen fund for saving surpluses made good sense, but when the Labour Opposition continues to criticise us for not borrowing in order to save in a shaky market, it confirms to all New Zealanders why a change of Government was desperately needed. Labour asks where they went wrong; we have a better legacy to leave our children than that sort of recklessness.

If I learnt one major lesson during last year’s election campaign for the seat of Dunedin South, it was to never assume—not to take for granted that I would win because it was a safe Labour seat. I felt I had to earn the position and prove that I was worthy of getting people’s votes, and I did. I also know that I have to prove that I am worthy of keeping those votes. None of us are elected as of right. We do not have an entitlement. We are here because we are expected to represent the people of New Zealand. Last year the National Party earned the votes of enough New Zealanders to become the Government. It was a tough campaign, hard fought on both sides. National deserves credit for its win, and Labour needed to learn from its loss. That is what we have been doing for the last 7 months: listening to people, taking stock, doing things a bit differently, being committed to reconnecting with people and groups, and seeking out new groups to engage with.

Members might not have seen it, but there is a really good example of this. It is called Red Alert and it is a Labour MPs’ blog. Members can Google it and have a look. The blog is the voices of Labour MPs on issues that we care about. It is new, it is different, and it is about actively engaging with people. We are also committed to solid grassroots campaigning, and we demonstrated that last Saturday.

Labour does something else well, and that is solidarity: standing together and standing by each other. That is why we won the Mt Albert seat. In this debate I do not want to talk about why Labour won Mt Albert, but rather why National lost, and lost so badly, and what the lessons are for National. John Key must take responsibility for Melissa Lee’s defeat last Saturday. Why did he not show up to support her? Labour does not abandon a candidate because he or she has made a mistake. We do not abandon a campaign because it is clearly not getting traction and is not going to win. We know how to show real leadership.

We do something else well: Labour’s leader does not run away and hide when there is a failure; he sticks around, stands up for us, and takes responsibility. That is what a leader does. That is the mark of good leadership. When I look across the House, as I have done every sitting week for the last 7 months, three things stand out for me: arrogance, incompetence, and an agenda. Now there is another one: cowardice. The arrogance is palpable. Of course, all parties, and probably all politicians, are guilty of arrogance at times, and Labour is not immune from such criticism. But crikey, not on this scale! It is the sense of entitlement that gets me. The public do not get to see the naked display, but it is there all the time in this House. John Key and his Government are arrogant after only 7 months in Government. They are arrogant by their refusal to allow Aucklanders to have their say on the Auckland super-city proposal—incredibly arrogant. John Key is also being arrogant and cagey in terms of the Richard Worth saga by not telling the public why he lost confidence in Worth as a Minister.

Incompetence—we see it every day in the House, and we are seeing it with the mismanagement of political issues. We are seeing it with the debacle of the Mt Albert campaign, the debacle of the super-city, and the debacle of the Richard Worth saga. Then there is the agenda—the real agenda or, as I prefer to call it, National’s rhetoric versus the reality. It says one thing and does another. There were lies about tax cuts. John Key lacked the courage to front up to New Zealanders before the election, and when the legislation was pushed through under urgency to admit that the tax cuts were fiscally untenable. He made a pledge to the New Zealand people to never touch their superannuation. But what did his Government do? It slid around that promise and stopped contributions to the Superannuation Fund, pushing this huge problem into the future for another generation of Kiwis to deal with. He and his Government are also pushing a radical deregulation agenda that is designed to reduce compliance costs for business by trading off Kiwis’ democratic rights and laws that protect the environment and the public interest.

Then there is courage, or lack of it. It was most blatantly on display last Saturday, when neither John Key nor any other senior officials or leaders—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have, frankly, listened to enough abuse and lies, but one thing we will not take is that last point. You know as Assistant Speaker that one cannot accuse a member of that. These members know that, and I ask that member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member does not help himself by putting lots of strong language in his point of order, regardless of how he feels. I accept the member’s point of order that he is objecting to the use of the phrase “lack of courage” as unparliamentary. The member is correct in that. Clare Curran will withdraw the phrase and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the words used in the point of order by Dr Coleman. You have reprimanded him, but I ask that they be withdrawn and apologised for as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member is correct. The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I withdraw and apologise.

It was most blatantly on display last Saturday when neither John Key nor any senior officials or the leader of the National Party would front up and be counted. I feel sorry for Melissa Lee—not too sorry, but sorry that her leader and her colleagues have not stood beside her. I do not like much of what she has to say. I found a number of things in her maiden speech offensive. But at least she says what she thinks. My message today to Mr Key and his National Government is that despite the Mr Nice Guy thing, and despite the rhetoric and the spin, the people see through it, and they will see through it.

Tēna koe e te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i te Whare tēnā tātou katoa. I am proud to stand today and participate in the debate from this side of the House, and to be part of a National-led Government that is looking forward and is focused on the needs of New Zealanders into the future, unlike the Opposition, which spends the whole time looking backwards while occupying an alternative reality of amnesia and equivocation. The Opposition spends all its time dwelling in the past and digging up irrelevancies and distractions without getting on with the jobs that confront New Zealanders today and in the future.

What did we inherit when we became the Government? We inherited falling economic growth of 0.2 percent, rising unemployment of 4.6 percent, high inflation of 3.4 percent, and a rising current account. Labour members seem to be continuing to labour under the misapprehension that they left the economy in good shape. They did not; they left the economy on the brink of collapse. This Government inherited not only that situation but the challenges of the world’s economic recession. This Government has set about trying to answer those challenges.

What has been the alternative answer served up to the public of New Zealand by the Opposition? Spend more. Most recently, the promises being made on the Waterview tunnel are symptomatic of the approach the Opposition takes. The Opposition’s approach is that it does not matter whether the country can afford it; let us have credit card economics and let us do what we try to counsel New Zealanders not to do and live in debt. The Opposition personifies exactly what we are trying to encourage New Zealanders not to do, which is to live beyond their means. Labour, while in Government, took us to either the greatest heights or the deepest depths by showing us how to live on a promise. The Labour Government did not fund anything, but allowed the public to believe that they could rely on getting the services and outcomes it told them to expect.

We have moved from credit card economics; we have moved to focusing on the future. One thing the world knows, the New Zealand public know, and members on this side of the House know is that these are tough economic times. We need to focus on what matters. We need a suite of policies that focus on the short, medium, and long term. We need a suite of policies that try to soften the sharpest edges of the recession for the most vulnerable New Zealanders, while at the same time investing for sustainable growth in the future and minimising the debt burden that New Zealanders might struggle under now and into the future.

This Government has been prepared to confront this very challenging balancing act, and, according to all the commentary, it is doing so successfully at the moment. We have a Prime Minister who is in touch with the pulse of New Zealand. In the first 100 days of Government we did not—as the previous member said—deliver rhetoric; we delivered the promises of our election campaign. We did it within the 100 days, as we had committed to, and we have gone on since then with traction, momentum, and pace to continue to deliver.

We have done so under the leadership of the Prime Minister, who is in touch with New Zealanders. He is supported ably in Cabinet by Bill English, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who has experience, capability, and cognisance. All of those skills have been ably reflected in the very balanced Budget 2009, which sets New Zealand on the road to recovery.

Let us take just a moment to remind ourselves of some of the key elements of Budget 2009 and of how they will assist us in navigating the road to recovery, which all New Zealanders are interested in. Budget 2009 takes steps to ensure that New Zealanders are cushioned from the sharpest edges of the worst global recession since the 1930s. We have safeguarded entitlements. Our Prime Minister and this Government have said that one of the most important aspects of living in a time of turbulence and change is to ensure that there is certainty and confidence.

I am delighted to welcome Cam Calder to this House. I rise to address the question of the possible redeployment this year of the SAS in Afghanistan. I trust that the Government will accept my comments in the constructive spirit in which they are advanced. No more responsible decision befalls a Government than deploying a country’s armed forces overseas. This pertains especially to the deployment of our highly capable SAS. The skill and courage shown by people such as Willy Apiata simply heightens that political responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to ensure that any deployment we make overseas is lawful, so let me address the legal implications of what we are being asked to do.

Since 1945 member States of the UN are free under the charter to use armed force on two occasions only. The first occasion is in self-defence, under article 51. The second occasion is when the United Nations Security Council authorises force, under article 42. On 7 May, in answer to a question from me, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Murray McCully, stated that the Government always ensures that its force deployments are made pursuant to relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Yesterday, in answer to another question from me, the Minister advised that the previous Government cited Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 as the legal basis for the deployment of our SAS in Afghanistan from 2001-05. He is at least factually correct in respect of Resolution 1368, which expressed the Security Council’s readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks—namely the right of individual or collective self-defence. But the inherent right of self-defence is an interim right—to use force in response to armed attack. Under article 51, that right must not affect the authority of the Security Council to take action necessary to restore peace and security. The Security Council did that when it established the stabilisation force, the International Security Assistance Force, under Resolution 1386 in December 2001.

Resolution 1368, 2 months earlier, neither mentioned nor explicitly authorised the counter-terrorism mission that subsequently became known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Since September 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom has mutated into an indefinite counter-terrorism campaign, unguided by the United Nations. The Security Council never even acknowledged its existence until October 2003, 22 months later, and then only by meekly calling upon the International Security Assistance Force to work in close cooperation with the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition. Today resolutions authorising the International Security Assistance Force endorse collaboration between it and Operation Enduring Freedom. At no stage, however, has the Security Council authorised Operation Enduring Freedom in its own right. This critically important point was totally lost yesterday on the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who kept getting confused between the two operations.

Eight years after Resolution 1368 was passed, it might reasonably be queried whether UN member States have a legitimate self-defence claim in 2009 in Asia, after the attacks of 2001 in America. It is, of course, politically self-evident that Operation Enduring Freedom reflects US perceptions of its self-defence against terrorism and, by extension, that of coalition partners that share a similar view to that of the US. But that does not, in itself, meet the higher threshold required in the UN era of ensuring the lawful use of force under the charter. Alas, the point was simply too challenging yesterday for the Minister, who pleaded for more time.

It fails the standard test of our era to turn a blind eye to military power when the use of that power is not sanctioned in law. Operation Enduring Freedom, I repeat, has never received an explicit UN authorisation. An oblique reference from a different force’s mandate does not suffice. It would be folly for New Zealand to agree to any further deployment of its SAS in Afghanistan without an explicit mission mandate from the UN Security Council. In the event that the Government consciously flouts its binding obligations in international law, let us be very afraid for the future. I call upon the Government to provide an assurance that, under the current legal situation, there will be no further SAS deployment by this country to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.