General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. On 1 July this year victims of crime in New Zealand will be better off as a result of the work that this John Key - led Government has done. But I want to turn to another large news item in recent days. The recent leadership coup in the Australian Labor Party has led me to reflect on the possibility of change in the leadership of the New Zealand Labour Party. There are a couple of lessons to be learnt from the Australian experience. The first is that the polls cannot be ignored. The latest TV3 poll showed not only that the current Leader of the Opposition is polling one-tenth of the support that New Zealand has for our Prime Minister, John Key, but also, more important, that Mr Goff is within 0.2 percent of his main rival, the former leader of the Labour Party, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who now resides in New York. This is the same former leader who apparently still advises members of the Labour Party caucus by text from New York. I ask whether it is the same advice that Brian Edwards gave to Chris Carter to “keep his head down until after the 2011 election, when he will almost certainly be answerable to a different and more reasonable leader of the Labour Party.”

As we saw with the change in leadership from Geoffrey Palmer to Mike Moore in 1990 and the attempt to roll Helen Clark in 1996, Labour has a history of changing leaders in an attempt to lessen the damage at the last moment. After all, when David Lange talked of poll-driven fruit cakes, he was talking about his own Labour colleagues.

Mr Goff is not immune to poll-driven advice. He appears to have adopted a new, purposeful stride as he gets around New Zealand, and he now sports a fixed, toothy smile whenever he is yelling into the nation’s living rooms on television at 6 o’clock each night. But if his polling does not improve by the end of the year, then we will see a leadership spill to stem the bleeding. It is the kind of ambitious and aspirational race we have come to expect from the Labour Party.

But the second lesson from the recent Australian experience, and this is the key point, is that the people to watch are not the leadership aspirants, because there are not too many of those left over there, but the power brokers. The power brokers are the people to watch in Labour Party politics. It was a great relief to be enjoying this trans-Tasman analogy, because I have to say I was struggling to come up with any leadership aspirants in the Labour Party caucus, but the potential game changes I look to amongst members opposite—and he has his head down; he is a bit bashful but he knows what I am going to say—are people like Trevor Mallard. He is a power broker in the Labour Party, and in recent days he has made some dangerously thoughtful contributions in the House regarding State-owned enterprises, and on his blog about commerce matters.

I also look to people like Charles Chauvel, who in the wake of the credit card scandal will be grateful he was not elevated to the executive, as he thought he should be when he put his press release out claiming he had been, under the last Government. I look to Grant Robertson, the leader of the 2008 intake. I say to him: “Take it from me, Mr Robertson, it will get you nowhere.” The leader of the 2008 intake recently revealed this: “It’s funny when you’re with Phil and out in public with Phil, people do warm to him … but the way in which the media portrayal of him is happening … I don’t think it’s giving him a lift in the polls.” That was very insightful advice from Mr Robertson.

But it is the quiet ones we have to watch. Ross Robertson and George Hawkins are still fighting the good fight. The only way the Labour Party will get the seats back from them is to prise them out of their cold dead hands, because those two are not letting go, come hell or high water. Of course the real players, as I said, are the dangerous ones. Ashraf Choudhary—one never knows! There is a big bloc there. But then there are those who have a foot in each camp on the generational debate, like Moana Mackey, or Darren Hughes who has one foot with Annette King and Phil Goff and the other just edging out to see who is next. So the final lesson in all of this for Mr Phil Goff, from the Australian experience, is “Keep an eye on the redhead”.

Tomorrow New Zealand will be introducing the emissions trading scheme. We will be world leaders in climate change, despite the Prime Minister’s promise not to be. I say that, because no lesser person than the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, told this Parliament on 24 September last year, and again on 24 November, that we would be the first country in the world, outside of Europe, to have an emissions trading scheme and that it would be “the most comprehensive in the world”. Those are not my words; those are the words of the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

The ACT Party has led a campaign to try to build political awareness and political support for the postponement of the emissions trading scheme. I stood in this Parliament and spoke in the general debate on 24 March this year, and I was optimistic. At that time France had just abandoned its own proposed carbon tax. Over the last 3 months Rodney Hide and I have held over 40 public meetings on this subject. We were optimistic, and we were particularly optimistic when Australia announced that it would be deferring its emissions trading scheme until at least 2013. Now, on 30 June—the eve of 1 July—it is obvious that our scheme will proceed.

What is the cost to New Zealanders of New Zealand taking this leadership position? What is the cost, to use Dr Nick Smith’s words, of having the “most comprehensive” emissions trading scheme in the world? Well, the price of electricity will rise, the price of petrol will rise, the price of heating will rise, and the price of pretty much everything else will rise. The very food that we eat will increase in price. In particular, our exporters and our businesses will be exposed.

The Government says that the cost to New Zealanders will be $3 a week, but we know that that is a gross underestimation. The cost will be at least $5 a week. Some people can comfortably afford $5 extra, but for hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged New Zealanders on low incomes, that additional $5 a week will be substantial. The increased costs of electricity and petrol alone are a consequence of the emissions trading scheme.

That figure of $5 extra is very easily justifiable; one simply has to look at the very numbers that Dr Nick Smith has tabled in the House. He has quoted the example of the average household using 8,000 units of electricity at an additional price of 1c a unit. That same household, he says, drives 28,000 kilometres at a cost of 3c a litre. I say that it is simple mathematics to deduce that the cost of the emissions trading scheme to the average household of electricity and petrol alone is $165 a year, or $3.17 a week. But the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Prime Minister, and the whole of the National caucus seem to misunderstand that they are grossly underestimating that cost. One needs only to look at the very website of the Ministry for the Environment to find that the ministry actually acknowledges that the cost of the emissions trading scheme is more than $3.17 a week. That appears on the website of the Ministry for the Environment. If the National Government, its Ministers, and its backbenchers think that New Zealanders are fools, then they will have to pay a very big price for that at the next election. The emissions trading scheme will cost more than $3.17 a week, and that is very obvious simply by looking at the website of the Ministry for the Environment.

Whether it is $3 a week extra or $5 a week extra, we know that dairy farmers will pay about $75 a week, and that sheep and beef farmers will pay $35 a week. That is another fact that the Government chose to try to hide or deny in the early stages of the campaign the ACT Party has run over the last 3 months. National members tried to treat farmers as fools. The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, turned up at Mystery Creek on 5 May and said to DairyNZ that the emissions trading scheme would “cost 2.5 cents per kilogram of milksolids. Not a cost you will welcome, but it’s hardly a cost that will drive you off the land.” Well, Mr Carter treated dairy farmers as fools, because the cost will not be 2.5c in 2015, as Mr Carter tried to assert, it will be three times that amount. Dairy farmers and other farmers up and down the country feel as if they have been treated with contempt by this National Government, just as I am sure do many hundreds of thousands of householders. Thank you.

Simon Power’s speech today focused on leadership, but there is irony in that because not so long ago Mr Power was one of those National members who had his leadership strategy drawn up for him. I tell members opposite that I happen to have a copy of that, and I would be happy to share it with anybody who wants to read it. Mr Power has been preparing himself for that moment, and perhaps members opposite would like to see how he will go about it. It was funny that Mr Power talked about changes in Labour Party leadership; most of us recall that there have been five leaders of the National Party in fewer than 10 years. National changed them about every 2 years until it finally found the smiling Mr Key.

But I do not want to talk about leadership. I want to talk about the real issues that face New Zealanders. I want to talk about the family who were sitting around the kitchen table last night, looking at their weekly budget. They know that tomorrow, on 1 July, a large chunk of their income will be stripped from them by a raft of National Government - imposed cost increases and policy changes. I call them “Instalment No. 1 of Dr Key’s medicine for New Zealand”. That medicine is about to be administered with a very large spoon, and it will have a very, very nasty taste for most New Zealanders. Of course, people are being softened up for that medicine. They are being told, repeatedly, not to worry, because it is going to be good for them. They are being told that no one will be worse off, that it will not hurt, and that they will be better off after they take their medicine. But Kiwis are not silly, and the soft words of reassurance from the Prime Minister, who constantly refers to his State house beginnings but lives a life far beyond the dreams of most New Zealanders, will be exposed for what they are over the next few months. His words will be exposed as puffery and blatherskite.

Nothing shows that more than the letter Mr Key sent to senior citizens last week. Thousands of letters were sent to superannuitants and veterans around New Zealand, costing tens of thousands of dollars. I do not see anything wrong in informing people about policy—there is nothing wrong with it; Governments do that. But I object to the use of taxpayers’ money and not telling taxpayers the whole story. On the one hand, Mr Key’s letter tells them that policy changes are going to give them more money, but on the other hand it fails to tell them about the costs that will be imposed on them. There is something wrong in telling older New Zealanders that there will be an increase in superannuation and the veterans pension on 1 October and that they will be fairly compensated for the GST rise. That is a clear and blatant fabrication, because the letter does not tell older New Zealanders about instalment No. 1 on 1 July, and instalment No. 2 on 1 October. Older New Zealanders and low and middle income New Zealanders are facing a raft of increases.

The family sitting at their kitchen table know that after tomorrow power prices will go up by as much as 12 percent. If we ever want to see a Prime Minister who is out of touch with his people, we only need to hear John Key tell people to shop around if they do not like the power company that provides them power. I asked Mr Key from across the House today: “Have you ever tried to shop around for a better deal from a power company?”, and he kept his head down and did not reply. He does not know what is involved in trying to find a better deal from a power company. He is out of touch with what is happening to real New Zealanders. Families know that their rent will go up. Property investors have said that someone has to pay for the changes in the Budget, and they predict rent increases of up to $30 a week. Those are the real issues we should be hearing about from the Government.

I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the letter from the Hon John Key to superannuitants that Annette King has just referred to, which fails to tell people the cost of the emissions trading scheme and fails to tell people the cost of power price increases.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

What a great pleasure it is to take part in the debate today. I was going to refer in my speech solely to the unbelievable progress that this National Government has made in the field of law and order, because the list of achievements is impressive and exciting, but I feel that I cannot let the leadership issue go past without exposing something I have stumbled across in regard to not just who the next leader of the Labour Party will be but also the timing for that change of leadership, which I have found secretly encoded in that leadership candidate’s own writings. Members need to listen carefully because I refer to a poem written by the Hon David Cunliffe. In my view there is no doubt—and I do not think there is any doubt in his mind, either—that he is the next leader of the Labour Party. I do not want to refer to the “I am Harvard” poem, although it was an interesting one, where he said:

For some year or two

I suckled you

With potent milk

Of truth and learning.

It gets a bit sickly towards the end. I think that the better poem that David Cunliffe wrote was a poem called “Seasons”. I ask members to listen to this poem very carefully. I know that Darren Hughes, the power broker behind the leadership coup, knows what is in this poem and how to translate the words. I will go through the poem and take it carefully. The poem is called “Seasons”.

Spring comes suddenly in New England.

Almost without warning

Branches that just a few weeks before were dead, dry twigs—

I think he is talking about some of his colleagues.

—are crowned with the lushest green foliage.

I think there is a clue there: it is to do with a Green coalition he is looking to get together. But, hang on, it gets better.

But spring is brief

As a delicate balance between irresistible forces

Wrestling for control.

It gives way, explosively, to summer.

Here in lies the clue and members will get it—[Interruption]—no, it gets better; it gets really good.

Summer is sweet and delicate as a butterfly’s touch or a skylark’s dance

Summer is a glory, which no one who has not lived through—

That is really interesting. I am going to read it again.

Summer is a glory, which no one who has not lived through a northern winter—

It is not really good, is it? It is not really good.

—can ever understand.

The Minister of Education says she is lost. Mr Cunliffe might have lost on the national standards, but this is what he wrote. It gets really good. It says:

So what of summer?

Is it just a pointless part of an endless repeating cycle of seasons

Forgotten again amid the golden leaves of autumn

As the icy blasts of the first snows?

No. No. Each summer changes history.

There can be no better example that the Hon David Cunliffe’s plan for the leadership bid is exposed in the poem. He wrote it knowing what it meant. His own followers read the poem at night, tucked up underneath their duvets with their torches on, knowing that summer is not far away. We are in winter; we have only spring to go. Then spring gets rid of the dead twigs, the dead branches, and it is all on. So let me repeat it again:

Each summer changes history.

It adds new wood to the trees

New generations to the world

And weaves itself into the fabric of our lives.

Look, this is absolutely, unbelievably clear with regard to the Hon David Cunliffe’s plans for a leadership coup. I think it is quite clear—and Simon Power gave a very good exposé on it—that no one else is in the running. Yes, George Hawkins and Ross Robertson may be power brokers for one of the factions; I think they are power brokers for the South Auckland faction. Yes, Ashraf Choudhary and—what is the name of the former Families Commission man?

💬 Nicky Wagner: Rajen Prasad.

—Rajen Prasad may be power brokers for the ethnic communities of the Labour Party. But, if we go through the list, we see that there is only one candidate for leadership. Trevor Mallard is not a leader. He will not be the leader nor, now, will Shane Jones or Chris Carter after what has happened. So, David Cunliffe has it. He has it, clearly. Anyone who wants to read his poem will know that summer is when it will happen.

All that I would say to Mr Williamson is that he has forgotten the ABC of politics; he should be addressing cost of living issues—[Interruption]—cost of living issues, and then cost of living issues.

I will talk about a subset of those cost of living issues being one of the imposts upon New Zealanders coming up on 1 July, which is the increase in accident compensation levies that we are all facing in this country. These increases were over-egged by the Government last year as a consequence of its members’ claims of a crisis in the accident compensation scheme. They were telling everyone in New Zealand that the scheme was fundamentally broken, that some significant changes were needed in order to justify their plans to both cut cover and privatise parts of the scheme. But under the cover of that, they could not really go through with it without hyping the financial problems that they said the accident compensation scheme had. They talked about billions of dollars of extra liability, much of which was caused by the financial crisis decreasing the rates of return on investments. As a consequence of the claimed problems in accident compensation, they had to go through with it and they had to put up everyone’s accident compensation levies.

Tomorrow accident compensation levies go up for New Zealanders. Everyone who owns a car will see their registration fee go up by $30 per annum. That is $30 more for the accident compensation levy on one’s car. The levy that one pays as an earner will go up for every $100 of earnings. That has been $1.70 up until now, but that is going up to $2 per every $100 of earnings—an increase of closer to 20 percent than 10 percent. These are very significant increases ahead of the rate of inflation. I ask whether they were needed. No, they were not needed. We heard from Dr Smith last week at a select committee that the Accident Compensation Corporation, miraculously, is projected to have a surplus of $2 billion this year—not next year; $2 billion surplus this year. That is a $2 billion surplus this year. That is much better than the Minister had everyone believing at the end of last year when he set these levies. As a consequence, they have pushed the levies higher than they needed to push them.

So for everyone in New Zealand who owns a car, whether a business or a private person, his or her registration fee for each and every car will go up by $30. If he or she owns a motorbike it is even worse. If it is a motorbike, the increase for the owner is between $70 and $170 a year. Those increases would not have needed to be so high if the Minister had not so exaggerated his claims as to problems in accident compensation. In order to justify those outrageous claims of insolvency and the other claims he made, let us not forget that he said that the scheme was insolvent. On his measure of insolvency, it has never been solvent since the day it started. He asserted that until it had a fully funded book, until it had enough assets on its book to pay the whole-of-life cost of all claims on the books, it was insolvent. He is now claiming that they have made enormous progress in the last year, that it is now financially stable—those are both statements he made—and that it is on track to make a $2 billion surplus this year. Not next year; this year.

So I ask why these exaggerated increases in the accident compensation scheme levies are being foisted upon the public. It is to make the accident compensation scheme unpopular. That is really what the Government wants. It wants people to think that the scheme is so fundamentally expensive and broken that it can justify its plans to change it. It wants people to not be concerned about accident compensation being privatised. It wants people to put up with the decreases in the scope of cover that are coming through. Some of these things are patently unjust, like how virtually no people are getting counselling approved for sexual abuse. The rate of approval is down by more than 80 percent. That is patently unfair. There are increased rates of people being turned down for operations on their shoulder, and other things. There are more costs being put on people for hearing aids. Everywhere in the accident compensation scheme the Government is getting meaner. In addition to that, it is putting up everyone’s levies. So one is paying more but getting less. That has been because the Minister exaggerated the woes of the scheme.

I rise to take a call in this debate because I am so pleased at the advances that we have made in the justice sector and with the law and order issues that have prevailed in New Zealand for a long time. It is great to have been able to put together some ideas when in Opposition, to win an election in 2008 under the leadership of John Key, and then to put some initiatives before the select committees and the House. They are initiatives such as short-term protection orders, the offender levy system, the increase in measures against gangs, new initiatives to tackle P, new powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime, tackling violent youth crime and giving young offenders a fresh start, strengthening some bail laws that really needed to be dealt to after some changes made by the previous Government in October 2008, putting an extra 600 police officers on the front line by the end of 2011, and—probably most critical for victims—taking DNA samples from people when they are arrested for imprisonable offences.

It is great to see, for instance, through the victim compensation scheme that victims will be able to access more from the taxpayer to assist them in recovery from crimes against them and their families. There is enhanced homicide support for families to attend court hearings and to do good by those who have been stolen from at the hands of violent offenders. There are enhanced court services for the victims of sexual violence—for instance, a payment of $250 to address the immediate costs in providing evidence in sex crimes, like the replacement of clothing, access to some immediate counselling, access to some immediate help in respect of the victims’ recovery, and having child-minding facilities paid for by the taxpayer so they are able to attend court. Returning to families of homicide victims, there is $124 a day for family members towards the costs of attending court—child-minding, accommodation, meals, and those sorts of things—so that they can take part in the proceedings. There is a funeral grant of up to $4,500 for families of homicide victims.

Those things are all very important to make sure we refocus our criminal justice system on the victims of crime instead of concentrating overly on offenders and listening to those people who are screaming hard on behalf of them. For instance, the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants to go down a harder and harder line without being precise enough to cater to the real concerns of victims’ families.

What did we hear under the previous administration? I have a couple of examples. Several promises were made, for instance, on changes to the domestic violence law. Prior to the 2005 election Labour promised to “Evaluate amendments to the … Act to ensure its effectiveness, for example through considering whether greater flexibility is necessary in the types and coverage of protection orders. Greater flexibility might allow for interim protection orders to be granted, and for coverage of orders to be varied where that is in the interests of dependent children.” When we got to the end of 2007, a month after National’s announcement of on-the-spot protection orders, the then Minister of Justice, Annette King, released a discussion document proposing changes to the Act, including the addition of protection orders very similar to National’s. In June 2008, 7 months later, Annette King announced that changes would be introduced by July. Nothing happened. In September Annette King said: “We undertook a major review of the Domestic Violence Act, we consulted widely, the legislation has recently gone through Cabinet, and it will be in this House in due course.” “Due course” meant that 2 days after Parliament was adjourned for the election fight in 2008 that bill was dropped into the House.

Do members want to look at another one? It is on victims’ compensation. On 4 July 1994 Helen Clark said: “Labour also intends to consult widely on an appropriate victims’ compensation scheme.” In Labour’s 1996 election campaign she promised to investigate the establishment of a separate criminal injuries compensation scheme. In 2005 she promised more, but nothing ever happened.

We have heard a thoroughly underwhelming contribution to the general debate from Government members. Simon Power and Maurice Williamson diverted attention from the real issues facing New Zealanders. The discussion about leadership is a distraction, and members on that side of the House should look at themselves, because when the shine and the gloss come off their smiling Prime Minister, the lens will be turned on them. They should be concerned about what is next for leadership within the National Party. That is the real question. Leadership is not really something that Labour members should be thinking about; it is something that National members should be thinking about when the shine and the gloss come off the smiling Mr Key.

I challenge some member—in fact, I challenge any member—from the Māori Party to speak in this general debate, and tell their constituents how tax cuts and GST hikes will be good for Māori whānau. Since the National-led Government introduced Budget 2010, not one Māori constituent has come into my office, or approached me when I have been out and about, to praise the tax cuts. Someone from the Māori Party should be here to say why their members voted for it. Those members should be concerned. Constituents tell me that the tax cuts will not have any benefit for them, whatsoever. They ask why the Māori Party voted for it and they are concerned about the Budget in itself. Seventy-three percent of Māori households in my electorate earn $40,000 or less. They will get nothing, or very little, from the tax cuts. The median income in Hauraki-Waikato is $22,000. Those same constituents are concerned that the Māori Party voted for a GST increase of 15 percent, which will see increases to power bills, kai bills, rates, kids’ clothing costs, and mortgage or rent payments. Whānau are feeling the pinch, and no amount of talking up Community Max, Job Ops, or the Community Response Fund will get away from the fact that it is harder to get a job because fewer are available. Instead, the Government is promoting short-term training schemes rather than growing the economy to provide real jobs and real wages.

Last week I was at the opening of Thames Community Link, a centre led by the community for the community, and partnered by Government agencies. Community Link is a great model that was started under Labour in order to find local solutions to training and employment challenges. I commend that community in Thames, and others like it, for working together to get people back to work. But do members know what? The feedback from community participants in that particular initiative was that times were tough. Families are feeling the pressure, jobs are just not there, and they see stress on families and children. If Budget 2010 was designed with the great majority of fair-minded, hard-working, keen New Zealanders in mind, then the proof of the pudding would be a productive and growing economy that created jobs, jobs, and jobs. Sadly, that is not the case. Although the Community Max scheme that I visited in Thames demonstrated positive gains for the community and individuals involved, out of a team of about six young people at least one individual was looking for employment overseas, three people did not know what they were doing, because there were no jobs available in Thames, and the other two would perhaps go elsewhere to look for a job if there was one available. Community Max is a short-term fix to a long-term challenge. Our young people want to work, but, sadly, jobs are not available and the Government is not doing anything about it.

I am concerned because it is winter right now. I am concerned for families and children, especially when kids get sick. Let us look at a community in Fairfield, where a grandmother looking after her grandchild cannot get an appointment to see a local doctor. She pays only $10 for herself and the visit is free for her child. She gets told that the waiting list is long, and that she should go to the accident and emergency centre. That is all very well if one has $69 to go there, but if one does not, and if one has no private transport so is reliant on public transport, then one has to go to the hospital. That puts pressure on acute services, because someone has not been able to see a local doctor. Under this Government, we will continue to see prices increase for general practitioner fees, and that is simply not good enough in winter.

I am also concerned for kaumātua in winter. They tell me that they are concerned about power price hikes. They have to make the decision about leaving the heater on or turning it off. Most of them are turning the heater off or—worse—getting gas heaters that increase condensation and make an unhealthy environment at home. They will feel the pinch of increased power prices at home. Things need to change.

I am delighted to tell my Waikato colleague Nanaia Mahuta that unemployment is falling and confidence is returning to our region and, in fact, right around the country. But I will return to the theme that has been outlined by the member for Whanganui and other speakers on this side of the House, and say that one of the many achievements of the National-led Government since it came into office has been a raft of significant law and order initiatives that will have, and indeed are having, a hugely beneficial impact in creating safer communities throughout New Zealand.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: What’s the drop in crime in Manukau?

It is long past the time, I tell Dr Prasad, that we put our focus on the interests and rights of victims—something that that member’s previous Government sadly failed to do.

For far too long the trauma of being a victim of crime has often been compounded by the insensitivity of the judicial system, which has focused on the prisoner in the dock. The judicial system often re-traumatised victims by subjecting them to distressing public airings of their experiences, and the horror of facing their attackers in court and answering defence counsel’s questions that try to attribute some blame or responsibility to the victims for what has occurred.

Just recently in Hamilton I had the great privilege of meeting Louise Nicholas, and of hearing first-hand just how traumatising were her well-publicised experiences of a few years ago. It is pertinent to note—as the Minister of Justice told us at question time—that Louise has welcomed the recent announcements of the Minister about initiatives to support victims. I am sure that every member of this House would wish to protect any future victim from the terrible ordeal that Louise endured.

It is also pleasing to note the positive reaction of our police to the new on-the-spot safety orders. The police are confident that these measures will save lives, and that has to be welcome news in every community from Kaitāia to Stewart Island. Yes, there will be some challenges to collect the new offender levies from some criminals. When the measures were being discussed in the House some time ago, I recall that members opposite at times scoffed at the suggestion, but there are ways and means of doing this too. I know that my constituents in Hamilton are delighted to know that the victims’ compensation scheme will collect an estimated $13.6 million over the first 4 years that it will be in existence.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How much?

It will collect an estimated $13.6 million. The fine people of West Coast - Tasman will be as delighted as the people of Hamilton West are.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: How much to run the scheme?

Instead of scoffing at the proposal, I say to Dr Prasad and other members opposite, I challenge those members to tell the House whether they are opposed to the enhanced homicide support service that the new fund will support. I ask Dr Prasad whether he opposes it and whether, in the unlikely event of his being returned to Government, Labour will cancel the provision of grants of $250 for victims of sexual violence towards the expenses they incur as a result of that experience.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Nick Smith already has.

Will Labour revoke, I ask Mr Hughes, the High Court attendance grant of $124 per person per day, which we have introduced for up to five adult members of a homicide victim’s family? Will Labour revoke the funeral grant of up to $4,500 to families of homicide victims? Of course it will not. It is pretty clear from the way Mr Hughes is interjecting that he does not like the question, but I know jolly well he would not ever move to get rid of that—at least; I certainly hope he would not.

In 2008 I campaigned in Hamilton West as strongly as I could on the urgent need for our country to tackle the horrific problem of P in our society. Methamphetamine is an abomination. Those who succumb to it are on the road to ruin. Anything and everything we can do to protect the young and the vulnerable from encountering those who manufacture or distribute P, or from encountering those who entice new victims to try it, must be done. I am thrilled and proud that our Government has taken significant steps to clamp down on the criminal gangs, the drug manufacturers and pushers—all power to its arm.

I am proud that we are putting an extra 600 front-line police officers on our streets by the end of next year. I am proud that we are providing access for victims to compensation that may have been awarded to those who harmed them. But I am also proud that we are getting serious about the rehabilitation of prisoners, especially those who require the drug and alcohol treatment measures that we are expanding, and the raft of extra options that we have given to the Youth Court to deal with some of our youngest offenders, as was mentioned by the member for Whanganui. These are all great measures for New Zealand and they are particularly welcomed in Hamilton. I close by congratulating my friend Rev. Maku Pōtae on his appointment as the national director of the Prison Chaplaincy Service of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Tomorrow hard-working Kiwis will take another hit in their family incomes, thanks to this uncaring Government. Price hikes in a raft of areas will hit them hard in the pocket, and that comes on top of a year of lay-offs, pay freezes, and increases to the cost of living. Families are already doing it tough, and if Government members are not hearing from those families, then we are on this side of the House certainly are. Rents have increased by 9.5 percent and are set to get worse. Rates have gone up by 6.4 percent. The price of groceries went up by 10.3 percent. Telecom has put up its rates, so the family phone costs more. Interest rates have gone up, so mortgages will be affected, and interest rates are forecast to rise further this year.

It is not as if the jobs are bounding back. Just last week, 350 workers in the meat industry lost their jobs. That is a lot of jobs in a local economy. Did we hear a peep out of the Government about it? Not one word. The rates of Youth, Māori, and Pasifika unemployment are at sky-high levels.

Many workers effectively had pay cuts when the accident compensation wage earners levy rose in April. Tomorrow the cost of accident compensation in terms of registration for the family car will go up, and that is more stress on the family budget. Drivers of vans, utility vehicles, and light trucks will face an increase in levies of as much as 46 percent. People in small businesses rely on those vehicles in order to earn a living, and, of course, those who need the car to get to work will find it tougher.

I have to say that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is a mess. The Minister for ACC boasts of a culture change, but culture change can happen only with the cooperation of staff, and look what has been happening with ACC staff. They walked off the job last week. They have been through 91 redundancies, and we were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last week that it is not over yet—there is a lot more to come. Do members know why the staff went on strike? It is because ACC refuses to even write their rates of pay into their agreement. How backward is that! It sounds like the 1990s.

New Zealanders are paying more and getting less in accident compensation. Every day now Labour MPs hear from people who have been denied cover for spurious reasons. The Government has completely abandoned the victims of sexual crime who seek counselling to recover. It has reduced cover for part-time workers, seasonal workers, young workers, and those with a threshold of up to 6 percent hearing loss. The Government has privatised the management of 600 long-term claims, and in a memo leaked last week, it was revealed that it is planning to privatise some more claims. Unfortunately, Kiwis had better get ready for a whole lot more because of the secret privatisation agenda of the Government. The Government will not even release the interim stocktake report. We are waiting with great interest to see what it recommends, but I think that we can guess.

Kiwis will not be able to rely on the health system, because the Government is cutting four front-line services every week. It has cut them every week since the 2008 election. Doctors’ fees are on the rise, and services are being slashed, particularly for older people.

Tomorrow petrol prices will go up. That is another blow to the family income, and it comes on top of the accident compensation levy increases. Power prices are going up, and many householders have already received a letter from their electricity company saying that it is all the Government’s fault. I have to say that I liked getting that letter, even though the power prices are going up.

Workers who rely on the minimum wage are expected to make do with a miserly 25c pay increase until next year—and they cannot rely on tax cuts for any relief. Their tax cut in October is a miserable $4.13 a week, and that has already been more than eaten up by the price rises that this Government is rolling out. Meanwhile, the Australian minimum wage has gone up. It is now 45 percent higher than the New Zealand minimum wage. The truth is, I think, that the Government has given up on catching up with Australia. We are drifting further and further behind.

There is just one last thing: it is now 12 months since pay and employment equity was cut. The Minister of Women’s Affairs said that she would leave no stone unturned in her efforts to close the gender pay gap. Well, I have seen nothing except, perhaps, the rocks in her head.

Today I want to talk about what this excellent National Government is doing to cut crime in my city of Christchurch. As a central city MP, I find that crime is what worries my constituents the most. Before the last election 400 people came to the Christchurch Town Hall and called for action on crime and for a safer city. That is exactly what this National Government is delivering. Christchurch people were concerned about criminal gangs and the P trade. We have clamped down on that and have created new powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime. Families were worried about violent youth crime. We are tackling that through our Fresh Start programme for young offenders. People were horrified by the number of violent offences in the city, many of which were committed by prisoners on bail. We have strengthened bail laws to make it harder for violent criminals to get bail. At the same time, we have denied parole and increased the sentences of repeat serious violent offenders and those who have committed the worst murders.

To help convict more criminals and solve cold cases, we have enabled the police to take DNA from people arrested for imprisonable offences. We have introduced Tasers. We have increased sentences for crimes against children, we have increased drug and alcohol treatment for prisoners, and we have provided victims access to prisoners’ compensation. We have done all this, and more, in the last 18 months. Labour had 9 long years to improve law and order, and it did not do a thing.

In central Christchurch we have homed in on the two key issues of intercity violent crime and antisocial road-user behaviour. Under Labour, both of these issues had been allowed to get out of hand. This Government is cleaning up that mess and we have seen a real step change in behaviour. The police launched Operation Crusade, which is all about having more police active on the streets, and deploying them in crime hot spots around the city. The Christchurch City Council is working hand in hand with the police and complements their work by employing Safe City Officers. Camera surveillance has been beefed up, and changes have been made to the way licensed premises operate. The result is a steady improvement in behaviour in public places and a safer city. It was new legislation from the Hon Steven Joyce and the Hon Judith Collins that has provided a breakthrough on the boy-racer problems in Christchurch. That legislation focuses on the things that matter to dangerous and illegal drivers—their driving licences and their cars. The issuing of demerit points and the confiscation and, as a last resort, the crushing of cars have hammered home the message that Christchurch people will not tolerate dangerous, illegal, and antisocial driving behaviour on their streets. The anti-cruising bylaws being introduced this week will nail it down even further.

There will always be victims of crime. This Government is determined to provide a more supportive framework for victims who through no fault of their own end up in difficult, traumatic, and often tragic circumstances. Labour had promised a victim compensation scheme for 14 years; National has done it in fewer than 14 months. The $50 levy to be introduced this Thursday is a victim compensation scheme with multiple benefits. It means that victims are firmly at the centre of the justice system. It sheets home to offenders the consequences of their behaviour and the responsibility to their victims. Finally, it provides a fund to support victims and their families. Of course, nothing can alleviate the hurt and pain of victims, but a supportive framework that addresses the financial and emotional costs that fall upon them will make a difference. Christchurch and New Zealand are better places because of this National Government. We are dealing to the criminals, and we are supporting the victims of crime.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Right now, the Paranagua Express, carrying tonnes of radioactive uranium ore, is sitting there, berthed at the Port of Auckland. It is proof of our support for the international nuclear cycle, and it is mocking our nuclear-free status. This ship, and the others that will be transhipping through our ports almost weekly, undermine our proud nuclear-free history and the blood, sweat, and tears of the thousands of Kiwis who in the 1980s fought to entrench our nuclear-free status on the world stage. Radioactive uranium ore is more than Australian dirt, as Nick Smith alleges. It is a radioactive material that puts our people at risk, harms Australians, damages the environment, and is possibly involved in the most egregious industry of all—the nuclear weapons industry. We need an urgent moratorium on these shipments. But what does the Government say to Kiwis? It says “Let them eat yellowcake.”

Earlier this year the Environmental Risk Management Authority decided to routinely trans-ship uranium ore from Australia, stored in 44 gallon drums, through the ports of Auckland, Tauranga, Napier, and Nelson, en route to various nations. The ore is a radioactive powder that gets turned into either fuel rods or enriched uranium. The risks locally are probably smaller than, say, from a fuel-oiled tanker, or from the plutonium shipments in the Tasman Sea that I alerted the House to last week. But the risks are there, and the risks are genuine. Accidents do happen, especially at sea. Fires can rage for days, and cargo can move around on board, splitting open containers. Our ports and our port workers are not equipped to deal with radioactive spills.

Regardless of local risks, New Zealand should not be part of or support the nuclear chain, or allow into the country the raw materials needed for nuclear generation, because of the huge impact that uranium mining has on the Australian environment, its communities, and its workers. Doctors say that 30 to 50 percent of men who have worked in the uranium mines in Australia have developed lung cancer and have died. If they wear respirators it makes no difference, because the radon gas still gets through even if the powder does not. Much of the darker side of uranium mining in Australia is left unsaid, as employees in the larger businesses are forced to sign non-disclosure clauses before they start work. There are many stories of spills that employees are too intimidated to put on the record.

Uranium mining is environmentally destructive. For every tonne of uranium produced, hundreds of tonnes of radioactive and toxic waste or tailings are left behind. South Australia’s Olympic Dam, for example, consumes 33 million litres of water every day, and is one of the largest users in that dry country. The Queensland branch of the Electrical Trades Union has recently banned its members from working in the uranium mines or in the nuclear industry. Until it can be proved that none of the uranium in our ports is contributing to nuclear weapons, we need a moratorium.

The Australian Government says that its uranium is used for only peaceful purposes. However, this has been challenged repeatedly. Australia cannot, and will not, guarantee that its uranium will not be turned into nuclear weapons or depleted uranium; nor does the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office keep track of Australian uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency suffers from a want of funds and is prevented from making spot inspections. Australia has sold to non-proliferation treaty members, such as Taiwan. Even when Australia does sell to non-proliferation member States, there is no way of tracking the onselling to non-members. As I tabled in this House last week, a report from energyscience.org.au illustrates that Australian uranium enables countries to advance nuclear weapons by freeing up scarce domestic reserves. Australia sells its uranium to nuclear weapon States, and purposefully closes its eyes to the uses of its uranium; New Zealand should not be a link. Although the weapons-grade link is murky and secretive, and we cannot ascertain whether, or how many grams or kilos of, Australian uranium has been turned into weapons, I can guarantee that every single gram will be disposed of as waste and pose a hazard for millions of years.

In the 1980s New Zealand stood up and spoke truth to power. We said no to nuclear weapons and no to nuclear-powered ships in our ports. Yet at the same time we continued to allow uranium to trans-ship through our ports—a fact we found out only recently—seemingly without any officials or elected representatives being aware of that. This trade is being conducted behind closed doors, like so many of the nuclear energy and weapons programmes internationally. Why were the public not consulted? We need an investigation into these issues. I hope to bring before this House draft legislation to amend the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 to prohibit New Zealand’s role in the nuclear cycle, and I urge members to support it.

This afternoon’s general debate has certainly been revealing, in terms of the way that it has considered the different leadership aspirants in the House. I allude to the comments made by a number of National’s front-bench MPs today, particularly those by Maurice Williamson and Simon Power, who canvassed the leadership aspirants in the House. Of particular note were Maurice Williamson’s comments. He rose and quoted the poetic oratory of “David William Shakespeare Cunliffe”, the bard of New Zealand politics. He quoted from his poem about the summer of New Zealand politics, and foretold the summer that is to come and the change in the political environment, particularly in the Labour Party. In addition to what Mr Williamson said, it was interesting to listen to Simon Power, who revealed the power brokers behind the Labour Party push for a change in leadership, particularly Ross Robertson and George Hawkins from South Auckland, and who revealed the things that they would do. I think the most revealing remark from Mr Power was his very last comment: “Keep an eye on the redhead.”

I have some new, revealing information to share with the House today—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Chris Hipkins?

No, not Chris Hipkins. I understand it is about the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, and Labour’s senior whip, Darren Hughes. We have been able to reveal the results of the TV3 preferred Prime Minister poll that came out recently, which I am holding. We have seen Mr Phil Goff falling in his leadership numbers over time, and then slightly coming up. The interesting point was that Helen Clark’s numbers had also been falling since she left New Zealand, but then they rose as colleagues from across the House texted her to seek information from her. The very revealing point from this new information that has come to hand is that we have seen Darren Hughes entering on to the political landscape in TV3’s preferred Prime Minister poll. The other very interesting information is on Phil Goff’s net approval ratings. We have seen Phil Goff’s net approval ratings falling, unfortunately, over the last 6 to 8 months.

But it is even more revealing to see young Darren Hughes getting on to the political landscape. We see the rise of Mr Hughes’ ratings through this particular poll. But more recently, as he has risen to No. 8 in the pecking order on the Opposition side of the House, he has been in the news over buying his own beers and keeping his head down with regard to political expenses, and he had a huge lift when we had Hug a Ginga Day here in the House—a huge lift. More recently, there was obviously the crimplene suit affair, which gave him a profile that none of us were expecting for him. That certainly saw him rise in the polls. But most recently he has had a huge increase in the polls from the Australasian ginga effect, with Julia Gillard’s appointment as Prime Minister in Australia. That has had an effect on Darren Hughes over on the other side.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The ginga!

The ginga effect. Members can see his net approval ratings for preferred Prime Minister going through the roof. So it is absolutely—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What about “Chippie”?

No, unfortunately “Chippie” has not come on to the radar yet. The polls show that it is only Mr Hughes, who is leading by more than a nose at this time. So this is great news for Mr Hughes, and it is great to see him appearing on that political poll, especially given that he is my colleague across the House. It is absolutely fantastic.

💬 Grant Robertson: How does that member rate in those polls?

I am not even on the radar, and am not planning on being there, at all.

While Mr Hughes is rising in the polls and the Opposition members are debating leadership aspirants and wallowing in all the issues that they face, this Government is getting on with the job. We are delivering. In terms of law and order, we have driven through a great law and order policy in the last couple of weeks. Back in the seat of Napier, Judith Collins came and we opened a new police station in Tamatea. Three new police officers will be operating from that station—once again we are delivering on the promises we made at the election. In the suburb of Maraenui, which is in my electorate as well, we have rolled out new police officers into that suburb. They are new community police officers, whom Judith Collins has rolled out. It is absolutely fantastic to see those police officers in the community, in the schools, and helping to lift law and order and safety in that community. That is really important in the lower socio-economic part of my community. On top of that, later this year, we will see a new, or refurbished, Nūhaka police station. There will be another police officer there, just down the road from Anne Tolley’s electorate on the East Coast. That is great news. All up, this Government is doing extremely well. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.