General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: From time to time all of us make the odd mistake in this place, including me. That is no reason to make so much noise.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether we should take another 30 seconds to allow the instructions to come in from New York.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I choose to ignore that.

It was with a sense of enduring shame that when the rest of the world was signing up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, the Labour Government of the time, without consultation with its own Māori caucus or with the wider Māori population, decided to oppose the declaration, thus sending a very clear statement to the world that as long as Labour was in power, New Zealand would oppose the fundamental rights and aspirations of Māori people. Labour openly declared that opposition, even though Māori had attended meetings all around the world for more than 20 years in support of the declaration, and even though the draft declaration had received the unqualified support of such national Māori icons as Sir James Hēnare, Dame Whina Cooper, Dame Mira Szaszy, Te Atairangikaahu, Sir Robert Māhuta, Hui Vercoe, Sir Paul Reeves, and Sir Hepi te Heuheu, as well as the Māori Women’s Welfare League and the New Zealand Māori Council.

So it was with a deep sense of satisfaction from within the whole of Māoridom that Labour was dumped from the Government benches 12 months later, and lost four of its precious Māori seats to an upstart party whose people had finally woken up to the fact that Māori aspirations were being strangled to death in a party of indifference. This cleared the way for the brand new Māori Party to open negotiations with the National Government, which led to yesterday’s historic announcement to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a document opposed vociferously by the previous Labour Government in 2007, and still opposed by Labour in 2010.

Today I stand with pride to congratulate the Māori Party co-leader Dr Pita Sharples and his staff on the months of negotiation in the lead-up to yesterday’s announcement that New Zealand would be supporting, without caveat, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the opening session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York. On behalf of the Māori Party I congratulate Prime Minister John Key and National on the boldness of the Government’s decision to work with the Māori Party in recognising that Māori do hold a special status as the indigenous people of Aotearoa, and that indigenous rights and indigenous culture are of profound importance to this country and are fundamental to our identity as a nation.

Again, on behalf of the Māori Party I acknowledge the longstanding support of the Green Party for the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and its commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I also acknowledge United Future for its support of the Government’s decision to adopt the declaration. For the rest of this House—those who would speak against this document—I have some very simple questions. Why is it that opponents in this House can so comfortably sign up to international covenants on the rights of women, children, gay people, and even dogs, but be so small-minded, petty, and mean-spirited in their opposition to an international covenant on the rights of indigenous people?

This declaration is aspirational in its wording, positive in its vision, and uplifting in its nature. The adoption of this declaration deserves a greater conclusion than I can deliver, so I leave my final words to the Hon Sir Edward Taihākūrei Durie, who emailed us this morning, stating: “My congratulations to the Māori Party caucus for the Party’s role in securing New Zealand support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Were nothing else done during the Party’s lifetime, this one thing would be enough to secure for it a treasured place in Maori history.

Notwithstanding the progress made through all the tribunal reports and court cases from the 1980s, and the consequential changes in legislation and official policy, I would still rank the day that New Zealand gave support to the Declaration as the most significant day, in advancing Maori rights, since 6th February 1840.

I do not overlook that the Declaration has only moral force. The same is said of the Treaty. Important statements of principle established through international negotiation and acclamation, filter into the law in time, through both governments and the courts, which look constantly for universal statements of principle in developing policy or deciding cases.

Most significant for the present is the statement that recurs throughout the Declaration that indigenous people should be dealt with through their own institutions, a matter with potent implications for the Office of Treaty Settlements”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee, I remind members that when the bell goes in the general debate, that is the end of a member’s contribution, regardless of who the member is.

What do Rinso, Clayton’s, the DeLorean, Enron, Pan American World Airways, Ansett, Betamax, Cold Duck, and the Labour Party all have in common? They are all dead brands—all dead brands. They are all disasters in their own kind. And how do we know that the Labour Party is worried about that? Well, we have been made aware of the document I have here, which is probably from Clare Curran, called the Labour Brand Survey. It has been distributed to all Labour members and supporters throughout the country and asks some very important questions: do Labour Party members want to be known as non-confrontational people? Do they want to be known as memorable people? Do they want to be known as retro people? Are they desperate to be known as clever people? No; instead, they are choosing “Edgy”, “Out there”, “Funky”, “Fresh”, and “Cool”. Well, I think that if members have sat on the Labour front bench for 26 years, what better descriptions for them are there than edgy, out there, funky, fresh, and cool?

💬 Chris Tremain: But not retro—not retro.

But not retro. The difficulty is working out who wears what, because although I would admit that Annette King is cool, she is certainly not funky. And I think that it would be an absolute outrage for me to suggest that she is out there. But that is not all. The survey goes on to ask the question, on page 2—

💬 Hon Member: Look at this.

💬 Hon Member: It’s Phil.

💬 Hon Member: That’s many years ago.

That is right. I think that is Phil Goff, but I am not sure. It looks more like “Phillipa” Goff. But, anyway, the survey also goes on to ask members “Can you describe Labour in six or fewer words?”. Well, I have to tell this House that I cannot use the word, but I think I can come up with one word that has six or fewer letters to describe where Labour is at the moment.

I will turn now to two lovely pamphlets that the Labour Party is currently circulating around electorates. The pamphlets have inside them some simple, silly little questions that Labour is asking the public. On their fronts is a lovely picture of Labour’s current leader. They are the same pamphlets, so we would think that they would have the same information, but that is except for when it comes to their back pages. On one there is a lovely pōhutukawa tree, beautiful rolling green hills, and a lake in the background. That pamphlet is for electorates like Wellington Central, Auckland Central, and every other ritzy electorate in the country. But the other pamphlet has dirty old miners’ hats on the back page. That is for the West Coast, for Rongotai, and for all those hard Labour electorates.

So here we have a party, so hopelessly disorganised with no single brand, that does not know whether it is nice, tough, or naughty, or whether it is funky, retro, or out there. It has no idea on any of that stuff. Just to prove how confused the party is, going into his caucus yesterday Mr Goff, the Leader of the Opposition—the alternative position to the Prime Minister; the hard man who is supposed to take out the Government—said “Actually I think John Key’s quite good.” He said “I’ve got to give it to him: he is a very good politician, very slick, very professional at what he does.” Mr Goff stopped just short of saying “I want to vote for him.”, but I have to tell the House that that was not far off.

When we go through this document, we see that Labour members are looking for different sorts of branding that they might apply to the party in the months ahead. Well, I have found one for them. The brand is on this page. It is “PS”—I presume that is a Labour Party or a left-wing socialist party from some other country around the world—and I think it stands for two things. It has two letters and a picture of a hand outstretched with a rose in it, so we are looking here at the postscript for the Labour Party, and the rose on its coffin.

I think it will be very interesting in the next couple of weeks to see how things go, because yesterday, when it came to the issue of leadership, which we all know is on the agenda for Labour, Mr Mallard was good, and just as he used to be. He was good yesterday and said “No, no. We’re not discussing that stuff.” Mr Cunliffe, on the other hand, said “Oh, well, this is an important matter, and we will be having discussions in caucus.”—statesmanlike, and in perfect iambic pentameters, too, I might say. They are a brand that is dead.

Tēna koe, Mr Speaker. E mihi kau ana ki ngā kōrero puta ā-waha a Hone; tēnā koe.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. I commend Hone on what he said in his address; well done.]

I was glad to see that Hone Harawira was kept on his chain. He was playing poodle, and was under strict direction from his leaders. That was not Hone talking, and he knew that what he said was wrong. It was like that frumpy “big boy” over there on the National side, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who was barking in his speech. There is a poodle in the Māori Party seats and a bulldog in the National seats. Mr Brownlee was carrying on and nattering on about nothing. Labour is a party of all of those things he mentioned. We are a party that cares about all sorts of people, and I am not so selective as to pitch just at the rich boys, and never mind anybody else. But that is what Hone has fallen for, at the end of the day.

Let us go back to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I tell Gerry. This is what the Prime Minister said quite clearly and unequivocally: “I think it is important to understand that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is just that—it is a declaration. It is not a treaty, it is not a covenant, and one does not actually sign up to it. It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no”—and this is the important part—“impact on New Zealand law and no impact on the constitutional framework.” That is what the National Government is saying. Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira on his chain are telling us to celebrate—celebrate. Celebrate what? Celebrate nothing. I will tell him, because he said we were useless bastards. That is what he said on TV.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and there will be no interjections. Normally when members are clearly quoting something, I would not object too much. But the implication was that some members of this House are as the member described, and I do not think that is acceptable.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What my colleague said was a direct quote from that member about members on this side of the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It was a quote—and I think part of it was translated; a direct translation—of what that member said about members on this side of the House. If we cannot say what he said about us, and refute it, we have some problems.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The point is that in this House there are some limits. I do not want to be too tight, because this is a robust debate. There are rulings that state that members cannot use a quotation to introduce unparliamentary language. I do not want to be too precious about that, because this is a place of robust debate, but when we start quoting inside the House things that have been said outside the House, that implies across the House that members might be as the member said, I think we need to be a bit careful. I ask the member to be a little cautious, and not to be too careless in what he says.

Mahi waha hukahuka, e Hone; tēnā koe.

[It is mouth-sweetening stuff, Hone; good on you.]

What did the Prime Minister mean when he said last week that there will be no rush to sign the declaration? Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Māori Affairs when he said the sign-up was unconditional? That is what the Minister of Māori Affairs said. [Interruption] That is right, I say to Maurice. He is not yet back on the front bench, but that is dead right. At the end of the day, Gerry will make sure of that, and Simon will sit there and open up in the sense of the distortion that he spoke about yesterday in relation to the UN declaration. National members know that they have put the Māori Party asunder. They know that they are celebrating in disguise, and they know full well that they are using Māori Party members and milking them.

As Minister Turia said today, this is about next year’s election. Well, let us see about that, in relation to the Māori issues. I will tell Hone Harawira what the last Labour Government did. We raised the minimum wage eight or nine times. In the last period of time when National was in power, it raised the minimum wage by 37c. National is at it again with GST, accident compensation, and all those issues that are relevant to Māori. Labour brought in 14 weeks’ maternity leave. It did all of those things. Labour halved the Māori unemployment rate. What does Hone Harawira have to say about carrying one of the highest unemployment rates in North Auckland? That is even though the Minister, Paula Bennett, says that we have 11,000 fewer unemployed—that is benefit shuffling; we are down. What does she have to say to the 43 percent of Māori under the age of 24 who are unemployed? That is seven points off 50 percent, which would be half of all those people. It has nearly tripled since this Government has come into office. What does the UN declaration have to say about that? How will it make a difference? That is what is relevant. You know, Hone—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is an experienced member. He cannot point the finger across the House and say “you know”, because the member is then referring to the Speaker. He must not do that, as it leads to disorder.

That member knows that, and he understands it very well. It is hurtful, having worked over a period of time with Hone Harawira, to see him being led. That is what happened here today. I am thinking hard about what we can do. What has been done for Māori? I refer to tertiary qualifications, I say to Hone. It takes Māori 1 year and 3 months longer to qualify, for whatever reason. We could blame colonisation; we could blame Gerry for being a woodwork teacher; we could blame anybody else—but we will not. We are not like that. But what we will make sure of is that whoever does all this shuffling around—Paula Bennett—who at the end of the day will this affect? It will affect Māori, and it will affect Pacific Island people. That is what will happen.

I can tell those members over there what they are saying out on the road. People are starting to doubt, big time. We get around, out on the road. It is not about votes for the Māori Party. The people think there is a shemozzle going on. The majority of this country understands the patting-poodle stuff and what National tells mainstream New Zealand. They understand that its members are very wary that they do not damage their image and are watching the polls, and that those members over there in the Māori Party do not understand that they are being taken down the road.

The major disadvantage about being speaking fourth in the general debate line-up is that the third speaker gets to use the material before I do.

It is worth taking just a bit of time to look at this Labour brand survey. It starts like this: “We want to hear your views on the Labour brand. What follows are a series of questions aimed at discovering: what you think is essential to the Labour brand, how you’d like to see the brand represented, and your views on a selection of existing brands. Thanks again for taking part. 1. Pick the values you’d like to see associated with Labour. Choose as many as you like.” What should be in brackets after that sentence is: “because we don’t have a clue.”

My colleague has set out a range of options, but she missed out a few that puzzled me. We have heard that some of the options are “Futuristic”, “Feel good”, “Bold”, “Inspiring”, and “Cheeky”. I thought “Cheeky” was an interesting option, as were “Dynamic”, “Cool”, “Modern”, and “Happy”. “Unusual” is one of the options, as are “Artistic”, “Edgy”, “Out there”, and “Funky”. But the one that got me absolutely flabbergasted, and that made it in halfway through the list, is “Sober”. It asked whether members think Labour is sober. I do not know what to make of that option or why on earth any organisation would put it in as one of its core messages for consideration as part of its branding.

When we look closely at this survey, we see between the various categories a direct contrast between issues relating to the past, such as “Retro”, and matters relating to the future, such as “Futuristic”, “Edgy”, “Out there”, and “Unusual”. Are they “Sophisticated”? I particularly liked “Memorable”. Is the Labour Party memorable? Other options are “Integrity”, “Innovation”, “Caring”, “People”, “Dependable”, and “Approachable”.

What does this tell us? It tells us that halfway through the term of this Government, there is a sense of deepening malaise in the Opposition ranks. Watching their faces during question time today when their leader was on his feet was a sad indictment. Clayton Cosgrove is a good little scrapper—he likes to get his teeth into the odd issue and is known for putting forward a view every now and then—but he was totally disengaged. His head was up; he was looking at the ceiling during question time. His eyes were wandering, he was looking at the top of the roof, and he was not the slightest bit interested in what was going on. I do not mind reading about Trevor Mallard’s cycling exploits from time to time; I just wish that he would not write about them during question time when his leader is on his feet trying to hold the Government to account.

One of the things that I found interesting about Mr Brownlee’s contribution was his mention of Phil Goff praising the political skills of the Prime Minister. Phil Goff at the moment reminds me of one of those dad characters from a 1980s sitcom, and not just because Family Ties first aired when he was in his first term in Parliament. He is following a well-used formula called the “centra eccentrics” formula, where one straight character is the anchor for all of the other characters, who ultimately upstage him. While Mr Goff is nervously describing his unpopularity, we see a range of characters appearing in larger-than-life formats.

David Cunliffe was understandably moved by his visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, but his Dominion Post column yesterday suggests that he is forgoing his finance role for one presenting the History Channel. Some of his prose in that article reminded me of some of his earlier work from “I am Harvard”. I have also come across another delightful piece, entitled simply “Seasons”. I am no literary critic—I will leave those matters to the House—but it goes like this: “Almost without warning, branches that just a few weeks before were dead, dry twigs, are crowned with the lushest green foliage. Spring is brief. As a delicate balance between irresistible forces wrestling for control—it gives way, explosively, to Summer.” It sounds decidedly like the leadership crisis in the middle of the Labour Party. He is a lead actor in his own show.

As for old Mr Jones over here, his continual calls of “hōhā” in the House every time he gets to his feet remind me of Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. He has refused to rule out a leadership challenge, stating: “that lies somewhere between our caucus and providence,”. Providence is also known as the work of God, so I guess that is his natural modesty continuing to come through!

In June of last year Environment Canterbury paid a visit, accompanied by the police, to the property of Mr Tim Smith, and 21 charges were subsequently brought against Mr Smith, who has subsequently pleaded guilty on all counts. Mr Smith’s brother is the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment, who has recently sponsored legislation through this House sacking Environment Canterbury. A conflict of interest, therefore, arises. The conflict arises because the Cabinet Manual says so. It says so very clearly.

Let me quote paragraph 2.60. Paragraph 2.60 states: “A conflict of interest may be pecuniary … or non-pecuniary (concerning, for example, a member of the Minister’s family.) A conflict of interest may be direct or indirect.” So a conflict of interest is there all right, but the question is how the conflict was handled. Again, the Cabinet Manual gives us some guidance. It states that when a conflict of interest arises and it does not impinge on the Minister’s own portfolio, then the Minister should declare the conflict of interest. It then states: “Having declared the interest, the Minister should either withdraw from the discussion or seek the agreement of colleagues to continue to take part.” So if it is not within the Minister’s own portfolio that the conflict of interest arises, the conflict should still be declared, and the Minister may or may not choose to leave the Cabinet meeting.

In this case, the conflict of interest directly impinged on the Minister for the Environment’s portfolio. Indeed, it was probably the most important thing on his plate at the time. At the time there was probably no bigger issue in the environment portfolio than whether to sack a rather large regional council. Again, the Cabinet Manual gives guidance as to what to do in those circumstances. Paragraph 2.70(c) states: “A Minister with a conflict of interest concerning a particular issue within his or her portfolio may, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, transfer responsibility for that issue to another Minister.” I know, because I have had issues transferred from me or to me on many different occasions—more than a dozen, I would think.

I do not think that that happened in this case. I do not think that the Minister for the Environment transferred the portfolio; I will say why in a minute. It is important to note that a conflict of interest does not cause the Minister to behave badly. The fact that a conflict of interest arises does not mean that the Minister necessarily performs badly in pursuit of that conflict of interest, but what does matter is that the Minister cannot say that he did not behave badly because he did not take himself out of the action in respect of this conflict of interest. That is bad Cabinet practice—pure and simple.

How can I be sure, when I do not sit around the Cabinet table, that the Minister did not transfer responsibility to another Minister? Well, because legislation resulted, and the legislation was in the name of the Minister, and the Minister involved was the Minister in the chair in this Chamber during the Committee stage and was the predominant Minister shepherding the legislation through. That is really bad practice. It is not just a sort of bad manners thing; it leaves the Minister vulnerable to the accusation that he did behave badly, and it leaves him vulnerable to not being able to prove that he did not.

That sort of thing is becoming a feature of this Government. We saw it just yesterday in the House with the Minister of Agriculture and the response that the Prime Minister gave to a series of questions from a member of the Green Party. I am putting on the table my concern about the slackness of Cabinet processes in this Government. I do not think that conflicts of interest have been managed at all well in this Government. They can be very awkward. They can be very awkward. When dealing with Māori land issues, sometimes half the frigging Cabinet used to get up and leave, including a bunch of Pākehās. That certainly was the case with the South Island Landless Maoris legislation I was responsible for. Certainly, if something involving Brierley’s arose 10 years ago, there would be a bit of a railway station effect as Cabinet Ministers left. I do not think that is happening in this Cabinet.

I think that this Cabinet is taking an easy approach to managing conflicts of interest, and I am putting this on the record now because I intend to question the Prime Minister as time goes on about the management of conflicts of interest in this Government. I do not think it is up to scratch. I do not think enough attention is being paid to the propriety of governance decisions.

Now that we have heard from “Angry Smurf”, we understand why the Labour Party is so desperately—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Did I hear the member use a name that is not a member’s name to refer to a member?

Well, I—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member did so, then I ask her to withdraw. That is not acceptable.

I withdraw. For the last 18 months we have seen the Labour Party desperately trying to reinvent itself. We almost heard the conversation around the boardroom table when Labour members were telling Phil Goff that he was not making any traction and he needed to reinvent himself. They told him to wear more leather, get on a bike, and get out there into the heartland. They told him to visit pubs on that bike, and they would see how it went.

My advice to Phil Goff is quite simple. It is called being true to oneself, and it seems to come through each time. I would say to Mr Goff that he should be true to himself about the fact that he is an “SPM”—a stale, pale male—and that it is nothing to be ashamed of. We see people all over the world embrace their inner selves and get away with it. As Mr Goff travels around the country, desperately trying to reinvent himself and sending out a Labour survey that says things like: “Let’s see ourselves as retro and edgy.” and “Do you see us as funky?”, we see that it is not really working for him.

First of all, we saw Phil Goff “The Paratrooper”, who came sailing in out of a plane, and that did not really work for him. Then we saw him as “The Farmer”, when he stuck a lamb on his shoulder, and we all remember that. Quite frankly, any farmer knows that when people stick lambs on their shoulders, all that will happen is the lambs will pee down their backs. But Phil Goff went for that angle. Then he went for the “Biker Dude”. We saw the leather and the cruising up and down the country. I can hear the conversations. I wonder whether he is like the Lone Ranger. If Phil Goff is the Lone Ranger, then I wonder whether there is a Tonto uniform for Shane Jones. That is where we are heading. It is about ditching the spin and embracing who one truly is, and, we never know, Labour members might find that being true to themselves means people believe them.

I can see Phil Goff and “Slick” Rick Barker pulling up on their bikes to the pubs with Annette King in the car in the background, trundling along behind, and the people in the pubs saying: “Woohoo! Here they are to change our lives.” Those people will be sitting there filling in a Labour survey about whether Labour is retro, funky, or all that. Quite frankly, is it any surprise that we are seeing such an absolute display? On Facebook, in conjunction with this, Phil Goff put up a nice photo of himself as the young, hip, new face of the Labour Party. The photo shows how truly retro and funky Phil Goff really is. It is a great start to the programme. It was a nice way to reinvent himself and to find out who he can be.

I simply say that when we hear the rhetoric and the questions that are coming from the Labour Party, we see that there is something simple in all of the messaging. It is that we cannot continue the way we are. We cannot continue to pour extra millions and millions of dollars into our communities, like we have for the previous 10 years, and expect to see different outcomes. We are seeing dysfunction in some of our families and communities that is getting worse and more serious. I say to those people who think it does not affect them—and there are some New Zealanders who sit back and say: “That is them, this is us, and we are sitting here.”—that it does affect them. If there is such dysfunction in a family that they are hurting each other and hurting their children, then imagine what they are doing to their street, to their community, and to their country because they simply have nothing invested in it.

To say that we are going to do some stuff differently, and to say that we will take some of the power out of Wellington and put it back into our communities and let them decide how they do it through programmes like Whānau Ora, and contracting—

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s where it has been for years.

The member opposite yells out that that is how it has been. For 10 years we saw more money going in and we saw more box ticking required from Wellington, but we did not see outcomes. We have more children being abused and neglected than we have ever had, we have more dysfunction in our families, and we have had 10 years of increases in benefit dependence, and that has driven society backwards.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What nonsense!

Let me give the member some evidence of that. In December 2000 there were 33,560 people on the sickness benefit, and in December 2008 there were 50,896 people on the sickness benefit. Over 45,000 people have been on the invalids benefit for 5 years or more. That is entrenched welfare dependency. This Government will not sit back and let it happen.

We clearly have a problem in New Zealand when we have just announced the Government’s ratifying of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but even within the Government, even within this Parliament, we have such a widely divergent view of what it means. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says that it is of no practical effect, and that it is aspirational. On the other hand, MP Hone Harawira says that it is of enormous impact because, as Mai Chen says, it will inform the courts, it will inform the Waitangi Tribunal, and it will inform political discourse for years to come.

I believe that Mr Harawira is right, because words have to mean something. The words of the articles of the declaration are very, very clear in what they say, but I do not believe for a minute that the majority of New Zealanders agree with the sentiment set out in that declaration. I do not believe they want to live in a country where we are divided into two: those who are indigenous and have a separate set of rights and privileges, and everyone else. I certainly do not want to live in such a country. It is very clear when we read the articles that they say that indigenous people should be able to have political autonomy. Well, the Prime Minister says that that is an aspiration, but is it truly an aspiration for New Zealand that Māori people within New Zealand can have their own political structures, their own State? I say no.

Article 26 says that indigenous people have the right to the land and the resources that they traditionally owned or occupied. Clearly, if we look at that, we see that that is all the land and resources of New Zealand. We have followed a process where that land has been alienated, sometimes unjustly, and we are working towards fixing that through the Treaty. But this article does not allow for that; it says all the land and resources traditionally owned or occupied should be returned to the indigenous people. That is why Helen Clark as Prime Minister refused to ratify the declaration. She would sign up to anything from the UN that was put in from of her, but not this declaration; Parekura Horomia said it was incompatible with the democratic processes and the fundamental laws of New Zealand.

We cannot get around this by saying: “Don’t worry. Nod, nod; wink, wink. We will ignore it.” What sort of integrity do we have as a country and as a Government to sign something that we do not believe in, have no intention of honouring, and do not accept? And what sort of approach do we have to Māori in New Zealand when we sign something without meaning that it sounds a bit like 1840 all over again? I believe that the fact we have such divergent views on this matter is a cause for division in New Zealand. Hone Harawira clearly has a view of what it means, but the Government has a different view. Well, that is a cause for discord and disharmony. Why would we sign up to something that would cause such discord and disharmony? And why do it under the cover of darkness, covertly?

The ACT Party has been shocked and appalled, because when we signed up to support a National-led Government, it never occurred to us that National would depart so radically from its founding philosophy, and its election manifestos over many years, of having one law for all New Zealand with everyone being treated equally. I believe that that was a founding principle of the National Party, and that is why we are so concerned. Thank you.

Taking a completely different tack from that of the previous speaker, I will talk about economic growth. For me, ensuring there is economic growth is absolutely vital for New Zealand, because that is how we will provide the jobs that will keep our young people here, which is what we need in order for there to be a strong future for New Zealand. We want to keep young people here, because we also want to pay for our health, education, and law and order, and for the care of our environment. People need to start thinking seriously about how we can achieve that. Do they really want to leave a financial millstone around the necks of their children and grandchildren, or do they want to get behind the more aspirational leadership of the Prime Minister, John Key, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English? They are holding New Zealand steady during the most serious, tough economic times that we have experienced.

We inherited empty coffers, which were absolutely savaged and ravaged by Clark, Cullen, and their cronies, supported by Phil Goff and the rest of the Labour members who are here still in the House. The Labour members did not have a care or a thought about securing the future for New Zealanders and for all of the young people whom we so desperately need to stay in this country. Clark and Cullen, supported by Goff and all their other Labour cronies, spent up large, and it was a case of to hell with the consequences. So it is no wonder that Labour has no message.

It is no wonder that Labour members are out there trying to re-brand themselves. What are they doing? They are even asking questions about what people think are the essential elements of Labour’s visual identity. They are asking whether that identity is a red flag or other symbols. I suggest the Labour members look at some other symbols. They are also talking about essential graphic elements: the flag, fern, green, blue, stars, Pasifika, and Māori. I cannot believe it. We all know about the moon and the stars. Labour just does not have a message.

The Prime Minister, John Key, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, are two of the most outstanding political managers that New Zealand has ever had. I hate to think where we would be today if it were not for their outstanding leadership. Frankly, we would be up the proverbial creek. Labour does not have a clue about how to manage money; everybody knows that. I would not even put Labour in charge of a piggy bank.

Phil Goff does not understand how superannuation works. The Minister of Finance, Bill English, has taken great pains to repeatedly explain it to him, but he just does not get it. So I will explain yet again that a combination of tax cuts and other adjustments has seen New Zealand superannuation payments increase significantly: by $100 a fortnight in the hand for a married couple. I will repeat that, because Goff does not get it. I think everybody else does, but clearly Labour does not get it. That means an additional $100 a fortnight in the hand for a married couple receiving New Zealand superannuation.

The Hon Bill English went on to explain the situation further for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly has no idea what he is talking about on this issue. Let me explain once again that it is quite clearly evident that people understand that the current Labour leader has no understanding of what is happening with regard to New Zealand superannuation. If GST is increased, there would be a once-only increase in inflation of just over 2 percent. After-tax New Zealand superannuation rates would be increased on the day of any GST increase by that amount. Do those members get it? In order to meet other and ongoing price increases, the usual annual inflation adjustment would be made to superannuation rates, so that superannuitants’ spending power was preserved. We have to say that in quite simple, clear, plain English for the benefit of simple minds, but it does not seem to reach through to the Opposition.

Finally, any personal income tax cuts would also increase the amount of superannuation that people received in the hand. Therefore, superannuitants who rely on New Zealand superannuation would be better off.

Labour members should listen up and understand the message. I take Trevor Mallard as an example. What does he blog about to the New Zealand public? All that he does is to think about the time at which the Prime Minister and his Ministers actually turn up to work. I tell members to look at one of his blogs.

💬 Chris Tremain: Yeah, very focused.

That is the level of focus of Trevor Mallard. What does that say about the Opposition?

For members of the public who are listening, that was the state of the nation speech from Sandra Goudie, the member of Parliament for Coromandel. It is impossible, almost, not to like her in a lot of ways, for her substantial contribution in that respect.

Today in the general debate we have heard from the Minister for Economic Development, at a time when our economy is still very fragile. We have heard from the Minister of Justice, at a time when law and order is out of control and we have a record number of murders in our country. We have also heard from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, at a time when the employment rate is the highest it has been in 10 years. But from those three Ministers we have not heard anything at all about the policies they are pursuing for the country to try to address the crises that exist in their particular portfolio areas. All we have heard from them was their obsession with the Labour Party’s rebranding exercise. If, after 18 months in Government, those members have run out of talking about their policies, and if all they want to do is talk about the Labour Party, then we know that we are absolutely on the right track.

That is not the first time that political parties have looked at their brand.

💬 Paul Quinn: You need help so we’re helping you.

I remember—long before Mr Quinn took an interest in politics, so at least 2 years ago—the National Party taking on the Coldplay song “Clocks” from Chris Martin, without any permission or copyright from the band Coldplay. John Key was being introduced all around the country as that song was being played on his DVD. His DVD was bright and shiny but hollow in the middle, which I always thought was quite reflective of the Prime Minister’s political principles in that particular respect.

I will take up some of the issues that Mr Hodgson has come up with today, with regard to conflicts of interest. But before I do I will touch on the issues that some speakers have mentioned with regard to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have seen no better example in the last 2 days of the troubling matter of this policy than the responses of the Government itself. Catholics believe in three Gods in one—the Trinity. In New Zealand we have three parties in one, in the Government. But one of the points about three in one is that they are meant to speak with one voice. In New Zealand we have the Māori Party, who has said that signing up to this declaration is the most amazing victory for Māori people ever, and that Māori should be swinging from the lamp posts in the streets, so happy should they be about it. Another member of the Government, the ACT Party, has told us that it is the end of the world that the Government has signed up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Prime Minister himself, from the National Party, has said that it does not matter, it is aspirational, and it is non-binding. But he was not able to answer Mr Goff’s question about a single thing that would change for life in New Zealand as a result of our taking on that declaration.

That goes to the heart of the problem. If something does not mean anything, why sign up for it? If we sign up for something, we should have a consistent view about what it means. I say to Mr Harawira and the Māori Party—and I would say to Mr Te Ururoa Flavell, but I know that he is in other places at the present time—that when things actually count for Māori on policies, that has an effect on Māori people living in New Zealand every single day. An example is representation every single day on the Auckland super-city, on which the Māori Party was rolled by the National Party. The Māori Party failed to change the mind of the National Party. Māori members cannot point to a single thing in this declaration that makes any difference for Māori in work. The declaration does not put a single unemployed Māori back into a job, it does not lift a single dollar an hour in a wage for Māori in our economy, and it does not improve Māori representation around council tables or here in Parliament. That is why we are saying the declaration does not mean anything; that is where John Key is right. He has agreed to ratify something he does not believe in.

We know about the National Party; it was the great party of “Iwi/Kiwi”. It was the great party of “no deals: the beaches are for everyone”. When Bill English was Leader of the Opposition he paid for Parliamentary Service - funded billboards outside every airport in New Zealand. That party also campaigned on “one standard of citizenship for all”. I listened to Simon Power give his speech in Parliament yesterday. If a Labour Government member had got up and said those words, the National Party would have been right out there; they would not have even bothered with the dog whistle. They would have gone right on to talkback radio and said that the Labour Party was giving New Zealand away to Māori. Paul Quinn laughs and smirks because he knows that that is absolutely right. National members are statesmen when they are in Government, but when they sit in Opposition they are divisive. That is why they sign up to these deals that mean nothing for Māori. And for Hone Harawira and the Māori Party to act as thought they have achieved some great thing is absolutely unbelievable given the record and what is happening for policies in this country.

I have written to you, Mr Speaker, about a matter that I do not want to go into today. It is a question of privilege with regard to the declaration of pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. I do not want to go into the details of that until I have had a response from you. But there is a wider issue that has been reported in the media, which I do want to touch on, and that is the funding of legal expenses for members of Parliament by the Parliamentary Service. Section 4.53 of the Cabinet Manual makes it clear that if a Minister has been represented at the expense of the Crown and costs or damages are awarded in the Minister’s favour, then those monies should be regarded as public funds and paid into a Crown or departmental bank account unless Cabinet directs otherwise. That is a very good principle under which we are governed, and an example of what should be happening in the National Party.

It is a pleasure to speak during this general debate. We have just got the Labour Brand Survey, and as I turn to the first page I see that the first question is: “Can you describe Labour in six (or fewer) words?”. In describing Labour, I would say that it wasted and squandered the best times. That is why the Labour Opposition is in the doldrums. Labour is doomed. It is destined for political oblivion because of the way it wasted and squandered the very best times that New Zealand has experienced over the last 30 years.

When that member on the other side, Darren Hughes, resumed his seat, he had really identified the problem on the Opposition benches. Labour is very much like an empty drum. When it is beaten it creates confusion. What we see in the House is that there is a clear choice for New Zealanders. Do people want focus, direction, and purpose, or will people look again at what Labour offers?

Let us look at what Labour offers. There is no clear message or direction. What we saw over the last 9 years was a waste and squandering of the very best times. It would be easy to go into how that occurred when we look at the areas of education, health, and law and order, but, really, the problem the Opposition has is at the top. We know that when there is confusion and disarray, it is all at the top.

The problem for Labour is that it has a demoralised leader who has difficulty with identifying himself, and it is likewise with the front-benchers. Phil Goff used to lead off the debate when Labour was in Government. He was considered a big hitter, even though he was outside the country most of the time. However, leadership does not necessarily fit well with people when they move into another role. What we have seen is that Phil Goff came in like a lion and he has gone out like a lamb. He has reduced his own persona to mediocrity. He accompanies demonstrations; he does not lead demonstrations. He rides on buses and motorbikes. He is so much the average man that he goes around totally unnoticed.

The other day we got a bit of an insight into how Phil Goff is thinking on the inside. He is quite envious of the Prime Minister, John Key. He praised John Key’s political skills and he nearly went as far as saying he would vote for Mr Key. So we can understand that there is a lot of disarray over on the Labour benches—they are in a demoralising situation. One thing about Phil Goff is that he is willing to learn, but when we look at the rest of the Opposition front bench, we see that they have not yet realised that they are in Opposition. What are left are the remnants of a visionless, failed Labour Party. Labour was lazy in Government and it is lazier in Opposition. On this side of the House is a Government that has clear messages and well-designed plans. This Government is working on those focus plans to restore this country’s economy. Who is doing that? Of course, it is a National-led Government.

Let us have a look at taxation. In my view, there is no better way to leave money in the provinces and the regions than to leave it with the people who worked hard to earn it, whether they be wage earners, employers, or investors. When we send money to a Government department, we expect, with blind faith, that it will be used in the best possible way. We are looking forward to 20 May and to a Budget that will reset the incentives for taxation so that it is about enterprise, hard work, investment, and saving—everything that is contrary to what Labour did in Government. It encouraged speculation, sloth, and poor practice.

We are very enthusiastic with regard to 20 May, when we will see a major step forward. Unfortunately, because of the problems that Labour faces at the moment, it puts off all the hard decisions. The Resource Management Act is one of the things—now it is benefiting the regions immensely.

When I need to buy laundry powder, I go to the supermarket. I go to the right aisle and I check out all of the products that are available. I look at the effectiveness, the environmental and ethical dimensions, and the price of each product, and I choose the one that best meets my needs. How dumb would it be if all of the laundry powder manufacturers queued up to offer me their products one by one? If the first one came and I said yes, then all of the others could go away; if I said no, then the next one would come, and I could continue that way until I bought something. It would not make sense for soap powder and it does not make sense for power generation schemes, yet that is precisely the method that we use to determine power generation schemes.

The problem in the soap powder example is that I would have no way of knowing which is the best of the products that are being offered to me and no way of knowing what the total range would be. That is precisely the problem for power generation. The only schemes that get to be considered are those that best meet the purpose of profit maximisation of the power companies, not those that best meet the public good. Very often those two purposes will not be aligned. Furthermore, it is currently forbidden rather than encouraged for the merits of, for example, two competing schemes to be compared.

It is a ridiculous situation and it is currently well illustrated on the West Coast and northern Buller, where a company called Hydro Developments Ltd has received resource consent for an ingenious power generation scheme that involves dropping water from the Stockton Plateau down to sea level and using the drop to generate electricity. The scheme that is proposed by Hydro Developments would have a net positive environmental impact. If that scheme goes ahead, along with the Arnold Valley scheme, which is already consented, and the existing generation the West Coast would be self-sufficient in electricity.

It is a worthy goal, but the consents have been appealed, most notably by two State-owned enterprises, Meridian Energy and Solid Energy. In both cases the grounds of the appeals look spuriously weak. Understandably, members of the public have come to the conclusion that both of the appeals may have more to do with rival schemes owned by those two State-owned enterprises. Solid Energy’s scheme is broadly similar to that of Hydro Developments, and it is a matter of extreme regret that the State-owned enterprise has refused offers of mediation from the chief executive of the Buller District Council. I would like to hear from the Minister for State Owned Enterprises as to what mechanisms he has in place to rein in the apparently unethical behaviour of both of these State-owned enterprises.

The shortcomings of our current decision-making framework are best illustrated by the Meridian Energy scheme. Its plan is to desecrate one of the most valuable and treasured places in the entire country, the Mōkihinui River. Meridian Energy intends to build an 85-metre-high dam and a 14-kilometre-long lake. It intends to inundate around 300 hectares of our most precious forest ecosystem in New Zealand. According to Meridian Energy’s own assessment, the conservation values and recreation values are second to none in the New Zealand conservation estate and cannot be offset. The impact of this scheme can never be reversed.

A rational decision-making framework would say that, given that either of these schemes would make the West Coast self-sufficient, we should be able to compare the one that has the net positive impact on the environment with the one that has a catastrophic, irreversible impact. Kate Wilkinson has this matter in her hands. She has the chance to refuse the land swap that is proposed by Meridian Energy and that is recommended against by the local conservation board. I have heard her say that she loves the conservation estate of this country as much as anyone. This is one of the most important parts of that estate, and I say to Kate that it is time for her to show the love.

I do not know whether it is just me, but I am feeling a little edgy at the moment—sober, but edgy.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: You’re looking very edgy.

Maybe it is the brown suit and the branding; I do not know.

I want to talk about how lucky we are in New Zealand to live in this great country, which has a mature democracy. It is a democracy where the big parties—Labour and National—can come together on big issues and we can agree. We can get cross-party consensus on things like our antinuclear policy and international free trade.

It has been very pleasing to see this week that we have come together on a core plank of the Government’s policy and success. Phil Goff has made it very clear what a great Prime Minister we have in John Key. He said: “Look, we can learn a lot from this guy.” I agree with Phil Goff. John Key is a great leader. He is a great Prime Minister. Why is that? What is making Phil Goff look to John Key? It could be something to do with the 54:33 lead in the polls—about 21 percentage points. They are probably 21 good reasons why Phil Goff is feeling a little down at the moment. Another figure we could go with is 54:8, but that would be a bit mean. I agree with Paula Bennett that we are talking about someone who is trying to reinvent himself. Phil Goff has been getting out on the Triumph motorbike and trying it with the big red bus. The National Party has a bit of advice for this guy. He needs a bit more than a big boys’ toys campaign to be the leader of an Opposition that is doing very well.

During this debate we have heard a lot about “DRIP”.

💬 Paul Quinn: Oh!

I say to Paul Quinn that I am not talking about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am not talking about something that has only a symbolic effect.

💬 Todd McClay: What are you talking about?

I am talking about the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff. What does “DRIP” stand for? It could be that “d” stands for “don’t”, “r” for “really”, “i” for “ideas”, and “p” for “polls”—“Phil I don’t really have any idea what to do about the polls Goff”. I say to Phil Goff that that is all right, because neither does anyone else in the Labour Party. If they did, he would not be the leader for very long. What we have here in “DRIP” is more than a policy and it is more than symbolic, it is actually a condition that could be with the Labour Party for quite some time yet. Labour members may have “DRIP”—“I don’t really have any idea what to do about the polls”—for some time yet. Of course, I could be wrong.

💬 Todd McClay: No, they’re out organising a barbecue.

Well, they probably are. As I say, they are not really sure which drip should replace the current drip. But “DRIP” could stand for other things, such as “devastated really at how invincible the Prime Minister is”. Of course, the “i” could stand for “infallible” or for all sorts of other things, but it is clear that we have some drips in the Labour Party.

I do not want to be cruel, and I have already made the point that it is good that there is cross-party consensus on these things, but I refer to some of Labour’s allies. The Standard, which is a well-known left-wing propaganda blog, has been getting in on the act. Today’s blog states: “Call in Malcolm Tucker, we’ve got a live one”. It goes on to state that Phil Goff is “Too busy heaping praise on John Key. Calling him a ‘good politician’. Saying he deserves ‘credit where credit’s due’. One News asks if Goff is losing his marbles. 3 News wonders if he’s voting National in 2011.”—that is a very fair question—“Me, I wonder if he’s angling for a job with the Herald.” We can see quite clearly that the Labour Party is adrift. It is a rudderless ship on the ocean of politics, if you like.

Here in National we are not worrying about whether we are retro, cheeky, edgy, sober, futuristic, or any of those things; we are just getting on with the business of running this country. We are a party that has a credible plan. We have a plan for the future of the economy of this country. We want to take this country forward. As a first-term member, if I could give Phil Goff some advice about what to do, it would be to emulate John Key, to get out and talk to people, and to do things in a straightforward—actually, I am letting the secret out.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.