General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am very proud that the ACT Party is the only party in this House that has had the same position on the foreshore and seabed legislation from day one, while every other political party has flip-flopped from one side to the other. The ACT Party has stuck to its principles, and the principles are these: to stand up for New Zealanders’ property rights, to stand up for the rule of law, and to stand up for one law for all. That is why we opposed the Labour Government’s move to torpedo iwi and hapū rights to have their day in court. That legislation was wrong, and the ACT Party opposed it. Iwi, like all New Zealanders, should be able to have their day in court. What Labour did was a travesty.

When National and the Māori Party came to see the ACT Party about what should be done, the ACT Party’s view was simple; it was to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act, to use Parliament to return iwi and Māori to their position pre-2004 that allowed iwi and Māori to go the High Court, and to legislate for free public access. That was ACT’s position in 2004; that is ACT’s position in 2010. That is ACT’s position now, and it is a principled position on the rule of law.

We thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was a shocker; the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is far, far worse. It defines an entirely new set of statute-made property rights. It sets up a process that enables the New Zealand coastline, our foreshore and seabed, to be carved up and privatised across iwi hands, so that not only do they own the foreshore and seabed but they control its use because they become the consenting authority. No other New Zealander can do that; that is wrong. Iwi should be able to go to court and seek customary title, and not have Parliament define what that customary title is.

But it is far worse than that, because the foreshore and seabed legislation enables iwi to go and see the Attorney-General and negotiate a settlement, rather than go to court—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Do a deal!

Dr Hutchison is absolutely right. Iwi are able to do a deal behind closed doors to say: “Hang on, how much do you think we should own of the foreshore and seabed?”. The Attorney-General is on record as saying that National thinks it should be about 10 percent, which is about 2,000 kilometres of coastline. So according to the Attorney-General, iwi would own 2,000 kilometres of coastline. How did the Attorney-General come to that figure? How did the Attorney-General hold it to 2,000 kilometres? What mandate does any Government have—does this Parliament have—to establish ownership rights in the foreshore and seabed, and have those rights granted, politically, in a Minister’s office? ACT says “None!”. That is divisive, it is discriminatory, and it is against the rule of law. It is against one law for all. The only principled position for this Parliament to adopt is to say that of course iwi, Māori—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, oh—principled? You couldn’t spell “principled”.

—even Clayton Cosgrove—can have their day in court.

The Court of Appeal decision was plain. The court said that of course iwi could have their day in court, but it did not think they would succeed because it is tough to prove customary title. The Government is saying not to worry about that; the Government will drop the threshold so that Māori can meet it. The Government can hand across the coastline and no one even needs to go to court. They can just pop into Chris Finlayson’s office and he can sign on the dotted line. That is wrong.

On the evening of Wednesday, 28 July, in the office of the Hon Chris Carter, three leading members of the Labour Opposition gathered with Mr Carter. They were talking about when to change their leader and when to strike. Although Shane Jones and Ruth Dyson earlier in the afternoon had given speeches criticising this side of the House for a lack of leadership, they were no doubt part of a group that was gathering on the evening of 28 July, or one of the 17 who Mr Carter said were involved. We need to know the answer. Were those members two of the 17? Or were they one or two of the three gathered in the office of the Hon Chris Carter? The party opposite is riven with internal division. We see it every day in the House. Ruth Dyson and David Cunliffe twitter to each other about the performance of their colleagues on the bench next to them. We see where they look. They do not look up and look at Mr Goff when he asks any questions; they twitter amongst each other about whether the debate was very good or whether it went anywhere.

Who was in that office on 28 July with Chris Carter? Who were the 17? It is to be expected. We have been there, done that. It is to be expected as Labour had 9 years in office, then it was kicked out and now it is unable to get any traction. Labour has stuck at around 27 or 28 percent in the polls, and it is unable to get any traction anywhere. It is grabbing every little win it can possibly get. So of course they would be gathering, in the evening on 28 July, in the office of Chris Carter, to choose the date to strike. Who were those three people? I am sure that he will tell us eventually. He will tell the public. Who were the 17? Well, I reckon we know who the 17 are, and speakers on this side of the House will no doubt put that across to members who are listening.

While the Labour Party is fixated on its internal problems and those members talk about how long the Goff-King failed team can possibly survive—whether people first elected during the 1980s are the faces of the future—members on this side of the House are focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders. We are focused on the real progress needed to keep New Zealand moving forward. We are putting New Zealand forward. This month there were tax cuts across the board for all good New Zealanders. The average wage earner will be almost $15 a week better off. The family on an average household income will be $25 a week better off. That has put money into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders, who deserve the chance to get ahead. What is more, those New Zealanders who have served our country so well during their working lives and who are now on superannuation will be $11 a week better off, for a married couple, as a result of this Government.

Those older New Zealanders could be those getting elective surgery, as the number of older New Zealanders getting elective surgery has grown by 11 percent in the last year under this Government. We are providing more operations, faster emergency departments, and faster cancer treatment. More kids are being immunised, more people are getting home support, and more people are getting the care that they need from a Government that is determined to get the best value for money. More New Zealanders are getting their homes insulated.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: How many?

Over 60,000 homes have been insulated under the Government’s home insulation scheme, which is more that that party opposite ever imagined. More New Zealanders are getting the benefits of the services of this Government. More important, more and more young kids are getting the benefits of national standards in their schools. This Government is focused on the issues that matter, not on the internal problems that started on 28 July in Mr Chris Carter’s office.

Before I begin today, I would like to acknowledge Mr Jim Currie, who was a messenger in this House for 5 years in the 1980s—a man whom I know that you also know, Mr Speaker. I went to his funeral today. There was a large representation from the people out in Kilbirnie. He was a gentleman and a much-loved member of many sporting clubs in my electorate, and I pass on the sympathies of this House to Mr Currie’s family.

What I will talk about today is: what is leadership? That question has been dominating the debate over the airways and in the pages of our publications and on the blogosphere over the past 2 weeks. That debate has been triggered by the Prime Minister’s response to the racist and inappropriate remarks made by the so-called shock jock Paul Henry. Questions have been raised, such as, when should a Prime Minister show leadership? Is political leadership applied only in certain circumstances? Is political leadership available only from 9 until 5? Does political leadership not apply when one is dealing with one’s mates? Does political leadership require insight? Does it require courage, a quickness of thought? Does it require real convictions?

I believe that these are all legitimate questions when it comes to analysing John Key’s giggling deflection of Paul Henry’s comments about the Governor-General—about his ethnicity, the colour of his skin, his birthplace, and his manner of speech. When I listened to John Key’s response that morning, a quote from Albert Einstein came to mind. He said that in the case of political leaders, it is often very doubtful whether they have done more good or harm. In my view, there is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s limp-wristed, giggling, and joking response to the provocative, hurtful, and racist comments made by Mr Henry has been harmful.

Most New Zealanders see their leaders as people who guide and who inspire. People like to have leaders who make them feel proud. Leaders are not people who just bask in the reflected glory of other people’s achievement, but people who make us, as Kiwis, feel that we have something to contribute in securing a better world and a future for us all—like leading the fight against nuclear weapons; standing up against discrimination of women, disabled people, and people of different sexual orientation or ethnicity; fighting against apartheid; or refusing to join the Iraq war because it was not sanctioned by the international community, even though considerable pressure was applied by our friends. Real leadership requires taking a stand, having a genuine belief in one’s policies, and standing up for those beliefs. Genuinely held beliefs are not tradable commodities at an election to secure votes, nor are they tradable commodities during an interview on television to retain friendship, to look matey, or—to quote John Key—“to be cool”.

I believe that John Key failed the test of leadership during the Paul Henry interview. His instinct was to pander to Paul Henry, not to slap him down for his racist comment. His moral compass was missing. Where was his belief and conviction against racism? Eight hours after the furore had reached a crescendo, the Prime Minister issued a very, very weak press release. I have yet to hear the Prime Minister make a speech that sets out what his genuine beliefs are, what his bottom-line convictions are, and the issues that would make him take a stand, come hell or high water. What I have heard from the Prime Minister are the utterances of a person used to taking a gamble on other people’s futures—short term, expedient, here today and gone tomorrow, and increasingly to smile and walk away.

Winston Churchill once said “There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away.” In my view, John Key campaigned on false hopes. I think people are starting to see him as the emperor with no clothes and they are noticing his nakedness.

The Hon Annette King, who has just resumed her seat, has bravely asked what leadership is. Well, she might well ask that of herself. She then regaled us with a lecture on moral leadership. Frankly, I will not take that from a key member of a Labour Government that would have to have been the most morally bankrupt Government we have ever seen, certainly in my lifetime. That Government gave us the Electoral Finance Act, which was all about shutting down opposition. It was a Government that bent, weaved, and twisted. I sat through question time after question time under the previous Labour Government with David Cunliffe twisting and weaving when questions were very decisively and succinctly asked of him regarding Taito Phillip Field. I remember those. I remember Helen Clark’s many excuses as Prime Minister. She said that people were just helping others. Yes, right!

Annette King has asked very clearly a question regarding Phil Goff’s leadership—that is what she was really asking. She is really asking the Labour Party whether it will stand by its leader, Phil Goff. She asked questions about how a leader can have one view today and another view the next day. Let us ask about that. Phil Goff flip-flopped on supporting the trade of holiday leave for cash. This is what he said on 20 July this year: “I don’t have huge objections to that.” Yet, a few weeks later, on The Nation on 14 August, he said: “We wouldn’t make it tradable.” That is a complete and utter flip-flop, so well might the Hon Annette King ask about leadership, as did the 17 members of the Labour Party, the detail of which the Hon Chris Carter will want to share with us, no doubt. By the way, where is he? Where is Chris Carter?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member should not be referring to the absence of another member.

Thank you, Mr Speaker; you are quite right, absolutely. It is very interesting. I am looking forward to hearing more of the Hon Chris Carter and the 17. Who is leaving already? We already know that Helen Clark has left, Michael Cullen has left, and we know Chris Carter has shifted. We know that the Hon Winnie Laban has left, and that the Hon George Hawkins will be going, as are Lynne Pillay and the Hon Pete Hodgson. So who will be left? Who is part of the 17? Well, Sue Moroney is definitely part of the 17, and Brendon Burns will want to be part of the 17, because those members want to know what it is like to be in Government. Well, under Phil Goff there will be a long wait ahead.

In the meantime, while those members are meeting behind closed doors, talking about leadership, and stabbing each other in the back, we are just getting on, on this side of the House, with governing the country. I have heard Labour members give us lectures about the price of food. Let us have a look at that issue. In the last 2 years of the previous Labour Government, food prices overall went up 15 percent. That is in the last 2 years; 15 percent.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How much?

It was 15 percent. In the last 2 years of the National-led Government, food prices went up by 5 percent. Is that not amazing—one-third? Yet do we ever hear that from Labour members?

Let us look at these good, honest foods. In the last 2 years under the previous Labour Government, vegetable prices went up 21 percent, but in the last 2 years of the National-led Government they have gone down 6 percent. There is not a peep out of Labour members about that. Let us look at another good food—fresh milk. The cost went up 23 percent in the last 2 years of the Labour Government, but it has gone up only 7 percent under National. Let us look at eggs; eggs are a good food. There was a 19 percent cost increase under Labour, but a 6 percent decrease under National. Cheese—I remember lectures on cheese from Labour members. The price of cheese increased 50 percent—that is 5-0 percent—under Labour, and minus 3 percent under National. For goodness’ sake!

National is definitely the party of the people, unlike the Labour Party—the party of the elite. Labour Party members tiki-toured around the country, on the taxpayers’ back of course, talking about Labour’s “Axe the Tax” stance. Members will remember that, will they not?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: I do.

Mr Auchinvole remembers that. Mr Goff then decided that he was not going to axe the tax after all. I wish he had told the taxpayers, and they could have saved the petrol. Then we had Mr Mallard talking about “a very silly bill to take GST off ‘Healthy Food’”, saying: “Just imagine trying to define that. And how much of each we are allowed each hour/day/week before GST ticks in. And the army of inspectors to check the food. And the increase in GST…” blah-blah-blah. He said that on 22 April this year, and now we have Labour members, and Mr Goff in particular, saying they are going to remove the tax on food.

I start today by congratulating Mayor elect Celia Wade-Brown. The counting of the special votes has been finalised today, and Celia Wade-Brown has been elected mayor of our capital city, Wellington. It is an interesting development that both Wellington and Auckland—congratulations also go to Len Brown in Auckland—are led by mayors who support sustainable transport options. We now have the bizarre spectacle where the Minister of Transport is completely at odds with the leadership of two of the largest cities in our country, Auckland and Wellington—

💬 Sue Moroney: And Hamilton.

—and Hamilton as well. Pro-train councillors have been elected in Hamilton.

A spectre is haunting the Minister of Transport, and that spectre is green transport options. For the first time we find that leaders of our major urban centres are promoting sustainable transport options, while the Minister of Transport is locked in the 1950s with his idea that we can build motorways to reduce congestion. Building motorways does not reduce congestion; building motorways induces more traffic and results in more congestion. As Transit used to say famously, all we ever do is move the congestion point.

There is one really good way to reduce congestion in our major urban centres. The people who have just voted in the local body elections in Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, and elsewhere have chosen that particular method, and that is mass public transport. It is also active transport such as cycling and walking. When we build trains and train lines, when we build light rail, when we have more efficient bus services, and when more people can walk or cycle to work, then we reduce the amount of traffic on roads. It is one of the paradoxes that the major beneficiaries of more public transport are road users, because it frees up the roading network when more people move off the roads and into mass transit or active transport options.

The other side, of course, is that it reduces our greenhouse emissions and makes our cities much more livable. New Zealand has very high transport greenhouse emissions. They have increased by about 70 percent since 1990, and that is connected to our obsession over the previous 10 years with building more and more motorways and inducing more and more traffic, and hence consuming more and more oil. It is also tied to the fact that oil is a finite resource. Just today the Parliamentary Library released a paper that looked at some of the issues around oil. The paper concluded that oil was going to increase in price quite significantly. It looked at international projections as well as domestic projections, and the impact that increase would have on our domestic transport options. Of course, our domestic transport system is entirely dependent on oil because we have thrown billions and billions of dollars at white elephant motorway projects, instead of into sustainable transport options that actually reduce oil use.

If we wanted to get home faster, then we would support the kinds of options that people in Wellington and Hamilton have just voted for, such as better public transport. If we wanted to reduce our greenhouse emissions, we would support those options. If we wanted to reduce our dependence on oil, we would support those kinds of sustainable transport options. If we wanted to live in more sustainable and more livable cities, where we do not have giant motorways slicing and dicing our communities, then we would support those kinds of sustainable transport options. That is exactly what the people of Auckland, Wellington, and elsewhere have just done.

We now have the bizarre situation of conflict with central government, which is still dominated by people from the 1950s who think the solution to congestion is to build more motorways. We have the conflict between the 1950s thinking of Steven Joyce and the National Government, and what the people of Auckland and Wellington are desperately calling out for. They are the ones who live in big urban centres and understand that we cannot reduce congestion by building more and more motorways. That does not solve congestion. The urgent priorities in Wellington are around light rail, both to the airport and to the hospital. The urgent priorities in Auckland are around a train system that extends through the central business district loop and also out to the airport.

This is a great day for green politics in New Zealand. It is a great day for everyone who supports sustainable transport options for Aotearoa New Zealand.

The 2010 barbecue season appears to have started early, perhaps as early as 28 July. Recent revelations about our friends on the other side remind me of the ditty from that great Gilbert and Sullivan opera The Mikado. Instead of the Lord High Executioner, we have the “Lord High Executed”, and instead of Ko-Ko of Titipu, we have “Carter of Te Atatū” and he has a little list. After Catherine Delahunty’s maiden speech I vowed I would never sing in this House, but if I did, the song could go something like this: “As some day it may happen that a leader must be downed; he’s got a little list. Seventeen offenders who really must be found; he’s got a little list.” I certainly agree that none of them would be missed, but I am sure Mr Goff would certainly love to get his hands on it.

When Mr Carter finally does leave this place, and I do not think it will be long, he might want to consider a new career as a game show host. Remember Jason Gunn’s The Rich List? Well, Mr Carter could front a new show called “The Ditch List”. Labour MPs could appear and attempt to name as many of their colleagues as they can who are ready to roll their leader. That would be one show where getting a good score might be a bit career limiting. What is most astounding about this whole affair is that Mr Carter has been very indiscreet; in fact, he was so clumsy in his attempt to undermine his leader that I suspect that that was his intention all along. He is probably very upset that his 17 colleagues did not follow him into the coup d’état after he led them out of the trenches.

The most astounding point about this is that Mr Carter’s main criticism is absolutely accurate in respect of the extraordinary flip-flop on GST. Mr Carter rightly points out how inconsistent the Labour leader, Phil Goff, is being when he dusts off the big red bus, paints the words “Axe the Tax” on the side of it, and crusades around the country telling people how badly off they will be.

But when it comes to the crunch, he cannot commit to axing the tax—quite the opposite. He now commits to keeping the rate of GST, but tinkers around the edges of it with fruit and vegetables. After 25 years of Labour defending the efficiency of GST—25 years, including Dr Cullen deriding any suggestion of differential rates of GST—in a desperate move, he proposes to tinker with the policy. If Mr Goff really has a problem with the tax switch and if Labour genuinely believes New Zealanders would be better off by returning GST to 12.5 percent and handing back the $4 billion of tax cuts they just received, then he should take that policy to the electorate at the next election.

Labour members repeatedly state that those changes do not favour the many but favour the few, so they should have the courage to go to the electorate and wind back those changes. They should tell a family on the average income who has just got $25 a week more in its pay packet despite the GST switch that Labour wants to take that back off them. Labour members should tell the married superannuitants who receive a minimum of $12 more a week, and whose income under this Government has gone up by over $100 a fortnight, that they want to return this country to the tax-and-spend policies that led New Zealand into the brittle economic state this Government found itself in. Those members should have the courage to go back to the electorate and turn the policy into action. I suspect that that was what upset Mr Carter and the 17 members sitting on the other side of the House the most—talking big, but not following through.

Who might be on the list of 17? Well, one could probably discount the most recent arrivals to Parliament, so that takes down the suspect list to about 28. If we take away the leader and the deputy leader, we are left with 26. If we take away those who have retired or announced that they are not standing at the next election, because they are bound to be ambivalent about the leadership, that is another four or five, so we are now down to about 21 possible Labour members. That is 21 Labour members who did not come in at the last election, who still plan to be around after the next election, and who are not the leadership pair. Seventeen of them are very possibly on Mr Carter’s list. So 17 of the 21 more experienced members who want to stick around next year could be exposed by Mr Carter as wanting to roll their leader. The aspirants to leadership know that timing is everything. They would probably be happy to let Mr Goff fall on his sword after the next election, but they might be thinking about moving sooner now on the basis that if they do not, someone else might. On the other hand, what will it mean to be exposed by Mr Carter as a member of the list of 17? Well, it probably augurs pretty well for their plans. That will be of comfort to the aspirants as the barbecue season approaches.

If Mr Paul Henry did not know, or did not have examples of, what it means to be a New Zealander then there is something wrong with him, given that in my view and in the view of certainly most people in this House there are 4.2 million examples in this country of what it means to be a New Zealander, what it sounds like to be a New Zealander, and what it looks like to be a New Zealander, and they are called our community.

I say that because as Annette King said, we have not only in the last couple of weeks but in the last month seen two key and critical failures of leadership on behalf of the Prime Minister. The first was to not defend the Governor-General. That was a failure, not just simply because he is the Governor-General but—and I suspect there would not be a member of this House who would not agree with me in saying this—because he represents of himself and his good lady wife, Lady Susan, the essence of New Zealand: a decent human being, a decent Kiwi, and a decent person. That was the first strike. The second strike, which was some weeks before, was to not hold a Minister in his Government, Rodney Hide, to a high standard that he himself promoted as early as November 2008 when he said: “I expect high standards from my Ministers. If they don’t meet the standards I set, then obviously I will take action if necessary.”

What were the series of excuses that the Prime Minister used to not stand up, to not show leadership, and to not reflect the feeling in the community, which was one of anger, emotion, and revulsion in respect of Mr Henry? The first excuse was, to quote him, he was “jetlagged”. The second excuse was to say: “Well, you know Paul. You never know where he’s going.” The third excuse was that the Prime Minister said: “Where there’s freedom of speech, there is always those who will push the boundaries.”

I say to the Prime Minister that he also has a thing called freedom of speech. He also has that great principle that we hold dear, called freedom of speech, but he chose not to use it. He zipped his lips and he used the fourth excuse, which was to blame Television New Zealand, 3 days later. He used his freedom of speech, which he countenanced in Paul Henry, 3 days later.

I say to the Prime Minister that it was not Rick Ellis, the chief executive of Television New Zealand, sitting on the couch with Mr Henry, being interviewed, and it was not any of the executive team of Television New Zealand sitting on the couch with Paul Henry, being interviewed, so why does he blame them? Oh, no, that was an alibi as the giggle, the smile, and the wave occurred. It was in fact the Prime Minister sitting on the couch with his best mate and former Tory candidate Paul Henry. The Prime Minister showed no fortitude in articulating the emotion of New Zealanders, in using his freedom of speech to rebuke Paul Henry, to utterly reject what he was saying, and to defend a symbol and a person who is a decent New Zealander. He giggled, he waved, and he chose not to use his freedom of speech. He used the excuse of jetlag, and then he blamed Rick Ellis and Television New Zealand. Well, I say again that it was not Mr Ellis sitting on the couch, being interviewed, who had the opportunity to rebuke Paul Henry. It was not Mr Ellis or his executive team who were elected Prime Minister of this land and have a responsibility to show leadership.

I say to Government members that although they squawk and giggle, and poke a bit of fun at Mr Carter, at our expense—one can see the likeness of that coming through—there is a big issue. That issue is about freedom of speech, it is about leadership, it is about articulating the hurts and concerns of New Zealanders, and it is about showing some guts; it is about showing some guts.

In that respect I turn to the Hide fiasco. Mr Hide talked today about high principle. I could not believe my luck when Mr Hide talked about the Foreshore and Seabed Act and deals done behind closed doors. If there was ever a person who has been inconsistent on every principle that he has stood for, whether it be perks, David Garrett, zero tolerance, or name suppression, it is that member. Mr Hide could not spell the word principle. He did the ultimate deal behind closed doors, aided and abetted by Garth McVicar, who knew about David Garrett. He was aided and abetted, he knew about it, but he did nothing. Where is the principle in that? I say that that is the other failure of Mr Key, as Mr Hide hangs like a millstone around his neck. Where is the high standard he promoted in 2008, and where is Mr Key showing leadership in holding that Minister to account? He has zero points on Paul Henry and zero points on Mr Hide.

Today there is a tale of two parties. We have a party on the other side of the Chamber that is sinking. It is actually quite sad to watch that. What we can see—and it is a pretty standard tactic when we see a ship sinking—is the tactic of diversion. That is exactly what we have seen today from Annette King and Clayton Cosgrove. They have chosen to divert the whole argument to one about our Prime Minister, but here are the facts. The facts are that Labour MPs have been jumping ship from that caucus for a long period of time. We have seen Dr Cullen go, Winnie Laban is nearly gone, and we will see George Hawkins go.

But the one person who is staying is Chris Carter. He is sticking around, because he is going to spill the beans. That is right. What he is talking about is what I am calling the “Save Labour 17”. I can hear right now some people clicking away and creating a Facebook page called “Save Labour 17”. I can tell members that—and we have done the numbers here; we have done the numbers—when we start to look at the number of MPs who would be in that list, we see the fact is—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I wouldn’t go down here if I were you, Nikki Kaye.

That member has the numbers; he has the numbers. Anyway, the reality is that there are not 17 members but 18 members on that list, because one of them is munching a bagel in New York as we speak. There are actually 18 members on that list.

We see a party that is in absolute disarray. I could not believe it when Annette King stood up today and asked what leadership was. I will tell that member that she asked exactly the question that is being asked in the offices of all her party’s MPs right at the moment. The irony was incredible. The irony was incredible when she chose to give a speech in which she posed the question, what is leadership? If the deputy leader needs to ask that question out loud, what is going on in the Labour Party? That was actually a bit sad, so I will not spend any more time on that. Members can see a party in absolute disarray questioning what leadership is.

That situation contrasts with what this Government is doing, so I will tell Annette King right now what leadership is. Leadership is leading the biggest tax reforms that our country has seen in a long time. Leadership is making real changes to GST. Leadership is not the flip-flopping that we have seen Phil Goff doing. Leadership is about funding over 3,000 new university places, to help young people. Leadership, as I said before, is about changing the country from one that was absolutely laden with bureaucracy to one where we have real front-line public services. Leadership is about making changes to the Resource Management Act, so that thousands of New Zealanders do not have to spend time and money on bureaucratic processes. Leadership is saying it is not fair in this country to allow one in five kids to leave school without being able to read and write. We see a Government that is making real change to New Zealand in terms of education, the economy, health, and the environment, compared with a party that, sadly, is completely imploding.

I noticed the Hon Chris Carter was due to speak next, but he does not appear to be in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member cannot refer to the absence of another member. That is a caution.

“A plan” was the braying chorus we heard from those on the benches opposite as the collective caucus uni-neurone briefly glowed from time to time. A question we may well ask is whether they would recognise one. Would they recognise a plan? Why do I suggest that? It is because for an interminable period in Government they appeared to operate without one. As a result, year after year after year in times of unparalleled global prosperity the performance of our tradables sector dropped ever further behind. Slumped in their armchairs of apathy and indolence, dressed in pyjamas in the daytime, feet encased in the woolly slippers of indecision and hesitation, a rug of torpor on their knees, wearing nightcaps of incomprehension and bemused incompetence, what plan did they espouse when they had their arthritic, twisted talons on the levers of power? What plan was there?

Long-suffering New Zealanders were taxed, regulated, and subsidised. Small-business men and women, as well as exporters, were effectively told to stand by, to hurry up, and to wait. Labour had no plan; its position instead appeared to be that if something moved, tax it; if it continued moving, regulate it; and if it stopped moving, subsidise it. Innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship were stifled; a fresh idea was as rare as a Bantu at a bar mitzvah, and the tradables sector wilted. Its default position of supervised neglect meant that our economy underperformed despite the best economic conditions since Noah took a day off to go fishing.

Most New Zealanders were blithely unaware of the previous administration’s mismanagement as the calamitous state of affairs was masked by ever more overseas borrowing and ill-directed spending. As the global recession approached, little changed; no one in the home for the bewildered noticed. The background muffled whiffling and cackling continued unbroken save for the odd curse or oath as one resident tried to snatch another’s bauble of office.

That continues to this day. Coups are plotted, denied, discovered, and the rank and file of the Labour caucus look on bemused as senior members squabble in the sand pit. Instruction in party policy and doctrine are solicited and received from union leaders on the outside. Senior members are draped in sackcloth and ashes, ritually humiliated and excommunicated from the party; they leave muttering dark threats and imprecations.

We are told of a long list of Labour caucus members unhappy with their leader. Who could be on that list? Potentially, almost every second member of the Labour caucus. New Zealanders are asking the question: “If this is Labour’s level of self-government, how could it ever be fit to run the country?”. The economic mess the previous Labour Government left behind proved that it was not fit to run the country and Labour members’ current antics also show they are not fit. All that is missing is the death rattle.

John Key’s principled, pragmatic National-led Government has set out a plan to deal with the worst recession in seven decades and has reshaped the economic mesh in many areas and at different levels. We are focusing relentlessly on lifting New Zealand’s long-term economic growth to create jobs, boost incomes, and raise the living standards of the hard-working people of Manurewa, where I am privileged to be based, and, indeed, of all New Zealanders.

Our society is judged by how we treat our most vulnerable. We need to grow the economic cake in order to provide the world-class public services that all New Zealanders deserve. To paraphrase Lao-tzu a bad Government is despised, a good Government is revered, a great Government, the people say they did it themselves. This National-led Government is aspirational for our country. We are working hard to provide families in our communities with the financial security, the opportunities, and the higher incomes they need to help unlock the potential within each of them to pursue their individual dreams and aspirations and create a brighter future for themselves. Our 1 October tax package is rewarding effort. It will help attract and retain skilled people in New Zealand and help hard-working families to get ahead. Thank you.

The last couple of National speakers have chosen to touch on issues of leadership. If members opposite want to talk about leadership by the Prime Minister, I ask where he showed leadership when our distinguished Governor-General was being slagged on a breakfast television programme and racist and offensive remarks were made right in front of him. Where was leadership shown by him in not responding to those questions on the spot? John Key is one of three people who bear responsibility for this very unfortunate saga—one of the three. Paul Henry has paid the price for the comments he made, and appropriately so, but John Key and the chief executive of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) bear responsibility, as well.

We have to say that the Prime Minister failed to recognise and stand up for the interests of the 100,000 New Zealanders of Indian origin when Paul Henry made his racist and offensive remarks about a person of Indian descent not being an appropriate choice as the Governor-General. I wonder whether this weekend the Prime Minister will attend one of the many Diwali events around the country as our Hindu community celebrates its sacred festival. Will he stand shoulder to shoulder alongside members of the Indian community and enjoy their hospitality, when he failed so miserably recently to defend their interests, to defend the reputation of a man who grew up in that community, who has been a distinguished New Zealander, and who, in front of an audience of hundreds of thousands, was denigrated on our State television channel?

I think John Key bears as much responsibility for that as Paul Henry. Not only did he fail to challenge those racist and offensive remarks, but also he sat there for the next few minutes and virtually encouraged Paul Henry to continue. Paul Henry continued his offensive comments. He then started questioning who should be the next Governor-General, and the Prime Minister allowed him and encouraged him to rule out two other distinguished New Zealanders: one a former member of this House, Jeannette Fitzsimons, and the other the Mad Butcher, Sir Peter Leitch, whom, ironically, Paul Henry was due to host on This Is Your Life last weekend. The Prime Minister sat there like a stuffed dummy and allowed not just one distinguished New Zealander but three distinguished New Zealanders to be denigrated. I say that is an issue of leadership. When a remark like that is said in front of politicians of any stature, certainly at Prime Minister level, politicians need to find their moral compass and stand up and say it is unacceptable and it is offensive. It deserves to be responded to immediately; they should not sit there, smile, and wave. The Prime Minister failed a large section of the New Zealand community at a time when it wanted true leadership.

It is not the first time that Paul Henry has caused offence, and, in fact, that is where the question mark about the judgment of TVNZ and its chief executive comes into question. I note that there has been a series of events like this one that have been increasingly trenchant and have increasingly caused division and offence in the community. Until now there has not been any attempt by TVNZ to rein in that presenter. It sat by and said publicly that he was a bit naughty but, by golly, he rated! That should not be the only requirement of a State-owned broadcaster. We should have expectations that a State broadcaster will have some requirement other than simply to maximise ratings and revenue. That is why it is the State broadcaster. It is a shame on TVNZ.

I acknowledge that Paul Henry has been on air through two Governments, but members should note that, as one media commentator put it, he seemed to go really ballistic from the time of the change of Government onwards. Part of the reason for that, of course, is that this Government has told TVNZ to ditch any other requirement; to not think about issues of national identity, balance, ethics, and judgment, but simply to focus on the bottom line and to maximise the dividends for this Government. When that kind of requirement is put on TVNZ, this sort of thing is no surprise. That said, we expect people in positions of authority, like the chief executive of TVNZ, who is also editor-in-chief, to recognise the commercial risks he is putting upon his company.

I think the real motivation for TVNZ’s taking action against Paul Henry at the level it has done was not really the response of hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders—the biggest ever response—but the threat of one of its major advertisers to pull its advertising. That is what rang TVNZ’s bells. That is what caused it to intervene and respond, not the fact that tens of thousands of New Zealanders were personally offended by the comments made in the presence of the Prime Minister, who failed to defend the integrity of our Governor-General. Shame on him.

I am truly delighted to take part in this general debate. This month is October, Breast Cancer Action Month. Yesterday I hosted a Rural Women New Zealand initiative called Let’s Get Plastered for Breast Cancer. Not surprisingly, the title of the event captured everyone’s attention. Getting plastered was not about getting rolling drunk, but rather about women and some men taking plaster casts of their chests and displaying them anonymously, with the proceeds going to breast cancer. This was quite a fun event, enjoyed by many, but there was a very serious message behind it. Getting plastered is about promoting breast cancer awareness, which is an important tool for all women of all age groups. It is important that women understand the normal breast changes, and particularly changes in their breasts that persist. We are very fortunate to have a high-quality breast-screening programme—BreastScreen Aotearoa, known as BSA for short—which targets women between the ages of 45 and 69, when the most benefit is seen. But we know mammograms are not perfect, and there are cancers that appear between mammograms and, indeed, outside the screening age. That is why it is important that women get to know what their normal breast tissue is like, and, when changes persist, act to see their doctor.

Very importantly, the Let’s Get Plastered event was about raising money for the New Zealand Breast Cancer Foundation. I acknowledge the vital work that the foundation does in breast cancer education and awareness. The fact is that this country needs a vibrant charitable and voluntary sector; without it, quite frankly, many of our support and social services would be next to impossible. So my congratulations go to the foundation for the work it does.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer for New Zealand women, and one of the leading causes of cancer-related death. Each year, approximately 2,600 women are diagnosed with this cancer, with more than 650 dying of this disease each year. The Government is committed to improving the numbers of people affected by breast cancer, as well as the survival rates. It is pleasing to know that the proportion of New Zealand women accessing BreastScreen Aotearoa continues to increase, and it is particularly heartening to see that coverage rates for Māori and Pacific Island women, where generally coverage is lower, and survival statistics are poorer compared with other women, are increasing. That is a positive step in the right direction.

There has also been good progress in breast reconstruction. For many women who have a mastectomy and choose to have their breast reconstructed, it is definitely not a cosmetic procedure; it is a vital part of their treatment and their healing. In 2006 Hutt Valley District Health Board decided it was unable to offer delayed breast reconstruction to women of the central and Nelson-Marlborough regions, due to resource constraints. In April this year the Government announced in the Budget that $8 million over 4 years will go to the Hutt Valley District Health Board to deal with the backlog of women from the central and Nelson-Marlborough regions. This will allow 100 women to get secondary breast reconstructions this year, which is tremendous news for those women.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It certainly is.

Absolutely. The Government has sent a clear message also that reducing cancer treatment waiting-times is one of our top priorities. This is reflected by the fact that radiation oncology times are now covered by one of the Government’s six key health targets. Under the National Government not one woman has had to be sent to Australia for radiation treatment, and that is just fantastic—not one woman. District health boards are now aiming for every person needing radiation treatment to receive it within 4 weeks; that will be a target by December this year. That is an astonishing improvement since the last term of Parliament, when women were basically going in droves over to Sydney and other centres in Australia for their breast cancer treatment.

Under the previous Government, eligible patients with early HER2 positive breast cancer were able to access only 9 weeks of Herceptin treatment. The Government made 12 months’ funding of Herceptin treatment available for women with early-stage breast cancer from December 2008, and that was the right thing to do—there is no doubt about it. As time goes on and more trials come out and more data is produced, the evidence for 12 months of Herceptin has grown stronger and stronger, while the evidence for 9 weeks has become extremely weak and shaky. The Government did the right thing; I am proud to be part of this Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.