General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am able to confirm to the House today that the Labour Party is a rift of splits and divisions, and that the statements made at the time that the Hon Chris Carter exited the party were absolutely correct. There has been a lot of speculation about that magic number, 17. Who were the 17 people signed up, ready to go, wanting to give Phil Goff the shove? It has been a mystery up until now. We knew that Charles Chauvel was there and we knew that George Hawkins was there, but we had an amazing revelation last night in the Chamber. When the Labour Party was voting on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill it managed to split its vote into four different categories—those who were in favour, those who were against, those who were abstaining, and those who just did not know what to do. The interesting thing is that the Noes, the abstentions, and the “I don’t know what to do’s” come to 17.

One would think that on a bill such as the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which is designed to make sure this is a very successful event for New Zealand, the Labour members, who have been through contortions at the Government Administration Committee for months, would have followed the advice of Trevor Mallard—a major factional leader—and said to him: “We’re with you, Trevor.” But, no, they did not do that. They split themselves into all sorts of factional camps.

In just 2 short weeks the Labour Party has voted against the success of The Hobbit and against the success of the Rugby World Cup. Who are these people? It will not come as any surprise that Brendon Burns is in that camp. It will not come as any surprise that Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson are in that camp. Ruth Dyson may well be the leader of that camp now; I am not sure. There is also the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. There is also the Hon—no, he is not—there is also Ross Robertson. That is a true shock to me. That man regularly comes to Parliament adorned in all sorts of clothing, one of which he wears proudly is the blazer belonging to the Parliamentary Rugby Team, yet he is voting against the bill. It is a factional decision on his part, but I suspect it is also about securing his future. There is also William Sio, which is no surprise, and David Shearer, which is no surprise, although how disappointing for Mr Goff that a man he has been so close to has lost his confidence. Then, of course, there is Maryan Street. She is also tipped to be deputy to Ruth Dyson in this new faction.

But there are a couple of names here that are very surprising. Firstly, there is the Hon Damien O’Connor. That is a true surprise, but here is the biggie: Clayton Cosgrove. Clayton Cosgrove was not a yes or a no, he was an abstention. Actually, he may ruin my theory because I suspect that he is out there, wanting to set up his own faction, and he would be a faction of one.

There are two other interesting names. One is Lynne Pillay. I suspect that she just lost her way to the Chamber, which would be nothing new. Then, finally, we have Shane Jones.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How did he vote?

He did not vote at all.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: He wants to be the video ref!

No, I think Shane Jones was out there, probably consulting the Ayes, he probably consulted the Noes, went off to have a talk to the abstainers, and then just got lost on the way to the Chamber. He has no direction whatsoever.

So there we have it: the 17 fingered by Chris Carter. These are the people who are all signed up and all set to go to say goodbye to Mr Goff. It is no surprise. Mr Goff has spent most of the last 6 months trying to find out what John Key’s appointments were around the country in order that he might turn up on those occasions to get a photograph opportunity with the Prime Minister. It is great to be able to confirm to the House that these splits, these divisions, and these factions are live and well in the Labour Party.

An amusing little speech there from the Leader of the House, a man of substance who always makes a major contribution on the issues of the day. An old saying comes to mind when we look at the flurry of activity of the National Party around the Mana by-election. That old saying that comes to mind is “lies, damned lies, and statistics”, and we have had a liberal dose of all three over the past month. The bemused people of Mana have watched the passing parade of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, swanning through their electorate. Well, that was a place those Ministers would not have been seen dead in a few weeks ago. They thought of places like Porirua and Tītahi Bay very much in the same way that John Banks, their man in Auckland, thought of South Auckland. But the by-election has ignited a sense of panic in the National ranks, because those members know that they must have a strong endorsement of their policies on 20 November. It will not be good enough to get somewhere near their last result; they will need a ringing endorsement of their policies in the by-election. They will have to really perform on 20 November.

You know, it was not so important at the time of the Mt Albert by-election; in fact, perfunctory attention was paid to the outcome of the Mt Albert by-election. After all, National put “The Brains Trust” in charge of the election campaign—Jonathan Coleman—the person who knows as much about campaigning as he does about giving somebody else’s speech in Parliament and not knowing that it is not National’s policy. National did not really worry about the Mt Albert by-election. John Key made a couple of visits and had his photograph taken, and then he abandoned the National candidate for Mt Albert. He did not even bother to turn up on election night to be there with the defeated candidate. For me, that was the moment when I got the measure of the man—the measure of this Prime Minister. He did not pass a fundamental test of leadership. A good leader is there in the good times and the bad, and a good leader has loyalty. John Key was not there at Mt Albert.

Two years on, and there is a by-election in Mana. Well, we no longer have a new Government, as those members like to call themselves. They have been in power for 2 years and it is time they took responsibility for the decisions that they are making. We have had two Budgets since the election—two Budgets. All those decisions are Bill English’s decisions, and he does not take any responsibility for them. We can look at him in the House, day after day, blaming everybody else except himself and taking no responsibility.

In Mana we have also seen major changes being made to the lives of New Zealanders. Many old people, young people, and low-income and middle-income people in the Mana electorate have been detrimentally affected by the Government. It has passed many pieces of legislation. It had a Job Summit that did not produce any jobs. There have been countless reviews, task force inquiries, rising unemployment rates, a rising cost of living, and no plan for the future. There is no brighter future, just slogans. All we have nowadays is the politics of “smile and walk away”. How will National convince the people of Mana to give it a strong endorsement? It must get a better vote than in 2008, and that will be very difficult.

We can take one issue: health. The old people of Mana have just been told that on 1 December their home help will be cut unless they have the community services card. That means if older people receive over $399 a week, they will not be able to get home help because they are over the limit for the community services card. That means they will pay for their home help. When we take off the cost of living for an old person, he or she has about $124 a week to live on. We would need to take $30 from that to pay for that person’s home care. That is what National is doing to the old people of Mana, and it believes that those people will turn out to vote for it. I say that National members are dreaming. They are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

The cry has gone up—the cry has gone up. Who is in charge over there? I think that probably the man who sits in the far corner of the House is in charge, the one with the texts from the person sitting in an office in New York. He is the one in charge. It is very clear that there is no leadership on that side of the House. I have been a whip. I know what it is like to have a split vote. I do not believe that one would have a split vote on a closure motion—a split vote on a closure motion, for heaven’s sake! Apart from the fact that Phil Goff seems to talk about everything and know very little, there is no leadership in the Labour Party.

The fact is that we look at this list of a split vote and we see that we again have, as my colleague said, the magic number of 17. Four Labour MPs came to this House and did not have an opinion on a bill as critical as the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. One or two did not even bother turning up. I bet Chris Carter was sitting in the back of the room. It is outrageous that we should see Labour in such a mess that it has a split vote on a closure motion.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Tell the truth.

The mad dog sitting in the corner there, who needs to take his pills, wants to look at the truth. This is the truth. The list states that the Ayes were 23, the Noes were 11, four abstained, and two were missing. That is the truth, I say to Mr Mallard. How a former Minister for the Rugby World Cup can abstain—abstain—from voting on a bill that will ensure that the Rugby World Cup is a success is beyond me.

While the Opposition is in disarray, this National Government is getting on with the things that matter to New Zealand. Absolutely! The important things that matter to this—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise for interrupting the Minister during her speech; I will stop the clock. The member will desist from that kind of totally objectionable interjection. I mean what I say. He will desist.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with your comment, but the difficulty that caused the reaction was a most unparliamentary comment the Minister, whilst using the full microphone, made about my colleague. She referred not only to a derogatory name but also to an action, and it was broadcast with the full microphone on. My colleague did not have that benefit—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We have interrupted the member’s speech. I heard what happened, and it was in response to earlier very unsatisfactory interjections. But as to the last one, I will not tolerate members interjecting about personal matters of members of this House. I absolutely put my foot down on that. I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her speech, but that will not be tolerated while I am Speaker.

I will take the opportunity this afternoon, whilst the Opposition is in such disarray, to talk about what is happening in the rest of the world. I recently attended a meeting of OECD Ministers of Education. It was amazing, when we are in the middle of industrial negotiations with teacher unions, to realise what is happening in the rest of the world and to realise how good we have it here under this National-led Government. In Italy 42,000 teaching jobs are being lost—42,000. In France next year 13,500 teaching jobs will go, and they are looking at losing 40,000-odd teachers. In Russia they are talking about losing 200,000 teachers out of their system in order to balance their education budgets—200,000 teachers. In Ireland there is a 2-year pay freeze for public servants, which of course includes teachers. In England they have just announced their Budget. There is growth of 0.1 percent in real terms each year for the education budget in the next few years. That means that schools will have to save about a billion dollars; they will have to make savings of around a billion dollars.

That is extraordinary, compared with this country, where we put a new $300 million into education last year and the year before that. I read on a website today that schools in England will be forced to publish teachers’ salaries, qualifications, and sickness rates in order to determine whether they offer value for money.

When we look at what the National Government is doing here in New Zealand, we see that we are focused on lifting long-term economic growth, in which we know education plays a key part. We want to make sure that all our children learn to read, write, and do maths while they are in primary school. We want to make sure that every child leaves school with a qualification that will enable them to succeed in this modern world. We know that we had to rebalance our tax system. We know we need better, smarter public services.

If any member of the executive greeted with great delight the announcement made by the Prime Minister this week that there will not be a major Cabinet reshuffle before the general election, it would have been the Hon Anne Tolley. I think her lack of passion in describing her education portfolio, at the tail end of her speech, just shows why, when everyone thought the skids would be put under her before the election, she must have been so happy at John Key’s announcement that there would be no change in Cabinet. The national standards slogan that the Minister is trying to turn into a policy is a disaster, up hill and down dale. Anybody who delves into the issue to understand it gets to see that it was a slogan for an election; it was never meant to be a policy for a country. That is what all the people tell us who sit in meetings and look at the issue in a clever way—be they parents, students, or teachers. The same thing comes through time and time again: the slogan does not work as a policy. But then, of course, it is part of the whole mantra of “smile and wave”.

I want to follow on from what the deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Hon Annette King, had to say about the Mana by-election. There are some really important issues for that by-election, to be held on 20 November, that we believe are worth exploring. Annette King has talked about the health issues in that electorate. I want to touch on some of the transport issues in the Mana electorate.

At the last general election, residents of the Mana and Ōtaki electorates thought there was a bipartisan transport policy between Labour and National when it came to transport. They thought that both parties were saying the same thing. In fact, the National candidates went quite some way to wrap themselves in the cloak of the Labour Government of that time. They said they believed in Transmission Gully, and they said they believed in the 90 percent Government subsidy for a local two-lane Western Link Road, like the one that the Labour Party had proposed and funded. They said they believed in the further electrification and double tracking of rail. Those were the things they said at the time of the general election.

Then, about a year or so ago, in the dead of night, Steven Joyce, the Minister of Transport, who runs large swathes of the Government behind closed doors, decided he had a better idea than everybody else—a bit of a theme there, actually. He thought he knew better than absolutely everybody else. He turned up and said he had lived in the community 35 years ago, so therefore he knew what the answer should be. He said a four-lane, 110 kilometre an hour motorway, an autobahn, should go right through the whole of the Kapiti coast. That is what he said he was going to do, but that was not what the National Party had campaigned on, and the community was taken by huge surprise because of that.

Of course, during the consultation period the big, bold, decisive, brave, and courageous National MPs in the area, when asked what their opinion was, said nothing. They had no opinion on the preferred option in the consultation period. They had absolutely nothing to say about it at all. They sat on the fence, waiting and waiting to see what the Minister of Transport would decide. As soon as he made a decision, they were gung-ho behind him—the greatest cheerleaders ever to have walked along the Kapiti coast. That is how bold and brave they were.

On Sunday this week the people of Kapiti were meant to find out where the expressway will be going. The New Zealand Transport Agency spent $22,000 on inviting people from all around the region to come and see the plans. As we heard in question time yesterday and today, Steven Joyce, the Harry Potter equivalent of Lord Voldemort in this Government, discovered that this issue would be coming up before the by-election, and he decided—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Harry Potter saves the day.

If only Tau Henare had gone to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, he might be in a better state than he is in. But he would join any old organisation, which is why he is sitting over there on the National benches at the present time. As soon as Steven Joyce found out that this issue was coming up too close to the Mana by-election, he cancelled the consultation. On 2 November the Government cancelled the consultation, due to take place on 7 November, until after the Mana by-election.

Do members not think that the National MPs for the area would be outraged at this disenfranchisement of the people of Kapiti? Do they not think the National MPs would be waving around pieces of paper, saying that it was not good enough, and that there comes a time when MPs have to put their community before their party, so they were breaking ranks with their Government in order to make sure that their people had a say before the by-election? But can members guess what? There was not a word, not a complaint, not a criticism, and not a demand for a new series of dates. The National MPs sat there boldly, saying absolutely nothing. They are lambs in Parliament and lambs in the electorate. It is absolutely unbelievable. Now we know that these plans will remain secret, because the Government is scared to release them to the Mana electorate. It is a disgrace. Government members should be upfront with the public about the situation. They should go back to Labour’s policy at the last election, which they said they were in favour of, as well.

I want to return to the theme that the mover of the motion started with, and that is the chaos that currently prevails within the Labour Party. We can have a look at one of the names that the Associate Minister and Leader of the House mentioned—Charles Chauvel. I do not know whether members noticed, but Charles was having a “Secret Squirrel” session with Chris Carter this afternoon, at the back of the House. Perhaps Charles has decided that the mood for change has re-emerged, and no doubt Charles wants to be at the front of the queue. Charles likes the baubles of office; there is no question about that. He wants to be where the winner will be. It is no wonder he was up there.

Grant Robertson spent most of the debate last night speaking against the motion. He rose three or four times last night to speak against the motion. I looked at the list. What does it show? It shows that he voted in favour of the motion. Grant cannot actually make up his mind. He naturally, probably, belongs with the Chris Carter faction—the 17 faction—but he has obviously decided that currently, as he has moved up in the ranks to the front of the 2008 fraternity, he clearly owes some patronage, some payback, to the current leader. So he obviously decided in the end that he is making better grass where he is at the moment. Clearly, though, he is ready to jump ship.

We then move to Iain Lees-Galloway. He spoke vigorously and regularly against the bill, but he voted for it. I am not quite sure, but he clearly was a mirror image of Grant. He is really in Phil’s camp, and unfortunately he got a bit betwixt and between. But that is not unusual. He proceeded to tell us how the annual Rugby Sevens tournament should be run, but he then admitted he had never been to one. But that is not unusual behaviour from Labour members. They spend most of their time lecturing people on things they have never known and never experienced.

I come now to Trevor Mallard. Here is a guy who has fought this particular bill, tooth and nail. He lost every battle—but I look at the voting sheet, and what has he done? He has voted in favour. Why did he do that? I suspect that it is because he wants to make sure that he gets invitations to the corporate box. He is a bit scared, and I know for a fact that he has already had a conversation with the New Zealand Rugby Football Union about getting free tickets to the Rugby World Cup. I know that for a fact. On the one hand he wants to fight the bill but on the other hand he knows that if he does not vote for it, the New Zealand Rugby Football Union will not give him tickets.

Shane Jones, my friend at the back, did not know what to do.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know it was done in humour, but I think there was some suggestion of motive—in this case, very expensive motive—in my regard as to a vote yesterday. I want to place on the record that that is not correct.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member. If the member with the floor had alleged that an outside influence had influenced the member’s vote, that would definitely be an issue of order. But I do not think he quite did that. He put it the other way around. He alleged that the member was thinking about something, and I do not think that is out of order. A point of order should not be used to interrupt the speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I come now to Shane. Shane did not vote, at all. He wanted a foot in both camps. Do members know why he wants a foot in both camps?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: He wasn’t here.

Well, he wants to be the TMO. He wants to watch the video.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Wants to be the video ref.

He wants to be the video ref—the TMO—but he is also a bit worried about making sure he gets the corporate hospitality. What he does not know is that he is, I think, off the list for corporate hospitality, because people do not want to host people who watch bad movies.

Let me finish by mentioning Sue Moroney.

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

The speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Quinn, is evidence that the Government is clearly struggling. Not only has it put up Paul Quinn for the general debate but it is talking about a personal vote and how the Opposition voted on a personal vote. The Government is clearly struggling, and that was evidenced by Paul Quinn, who suffers from being two inches shorter that he needed to be to become an All Black, according to the rugby fraternity. But I think that sad speech he made is just more evidence that he is suffering from short man’s legacy.

I want to focus on the poll that is coming up, and we will see whether the Government is struggling. I refer to the poll that is about to happen in Mana. We know that it will be a poll on the Government’s policies. It has to be, because Hekia Parata said she does not do second place. So if she comes second in that by-election, it must be a commentary on the Government’s policies. John Key knows this.

💬 Hekia Parata: It’s a highly aspirational electorate that’s been held for 60 years by a low-ambition Government.

She is very loud here in the House, but we will see how she gets on in the electorate.

John Key knows that the Mana by-election will be about the Government’s policies. The New Zealand Herald of 24 September said we should not blame him for chasing every potential voter in Porirua and Whitby. Then it went on to state: “It was reminiscent of a scene in The Simpsons movie where the US Government, having lost its credibility, gets super-nice-guy and actor Tom Hanks to announce the destruction of the town of Springfield while gently rustling a boy’s hair.” That is what the New Zealand Herald had to say about John Key and his campaign style, out in the electorate of Mana.

Of course, John Key has gone to a few early childhood education centres. He was very brave to do that, because we all know that the National Government has cut funding to early childhood education, thereby increasing costs to families and making it extremely difficult for the parents of Mana to have their children participating in early childhood education. John Key visited Mana Montessori, a centre that has 60 children, and, yes, the quality of education for those children is in doubt because it is one of the centres where funding has been cut by John Key. He cut the funding in the Budget, then he visited the early childhood centres and stroked a small boy’s hair, just like Tom Hanks in The Simpsons. But it did not work very well. The school head, Nicola Dickie, said she wished there had been no funding cuts to early childhood education and that the school was likely to introduce a fee increase for parents. What will that do for the young children of Mana and their future? We know that families really struggle when fees go up.

What about First Five Community Childhood Centre? I do not know whether Hekia Parata has been there, but I know that Kris Fa’afoi has. He is an excellent candidate for Labour, and he has been to visit the centre. That centre has 34 children, and it will also face a funding cut. In May, its treasurer, David Conwell, said there was no choice but to increase fees for care over the 20 hours scheme. He said that parents using that centre would be facing increases of $40 to $50 per week per child. He said that the parents were shocked but they understood.

One of the parents actually knows about this because she is also on the management committee, and her name is Niki Alefosio. She has two children at the centre, and she knows that she now has to find $100 extra per week to keep sending her two children to that centre. She is part of the centre’s cooperative management group, and says that if she takes into account other factors like rising GST—another National Government policy—she is looking at an extra $10 per day per child. She says she may need to look at cutting back on family outings or savings. That is the sort of impact that this Government’s policies are having on the families of Mana. Mrs Alefosio works 30 hours a week, but she said part-time work may not now be viable. She said she may now need to look at going to full-time work or looking at another form of childcare, just to make ends meet.

Then there is Jane Wild, who also has two children at the same centre. She said that the funding cuts were “really stink”—that is what she had to say about it. Her son Max receives 20 free hours of childcare and she pays for an extra 4 hours. She also has a 1-year-old by the name of Cameron, and he goes to that centre for 16 hours. She will have to pay extra for him. That is the effect of the Government’s policies in Mana.

We have just heard from my parliamentary colleague Sue Moroney. Yet again she concentrated on Mana. It seems to me that Labour members are concerned about Mana, and indeed they should be. If they do not get more than their current majority, then it says a lot about Labour.

It seems that Labour cannot even run its own caucus; I dread to think how it would try to run the country. [Interruption] Yes, it really does pose questions. One need look only at the votes last night to see that Labour is at sixes and sevens as a party.

💬 Hon Member: Six and 17.

Yes, six and 17. On a matter of national significance, a bill that ascertains how we are seen internationally, Labour splits its vote. It seems it is as divided on this matter as it is on the party leadership. The Labour Party cast 23 votes in favour and 11 votes against, and four abstentions—abstentions. These members of Parliament are paid to make decisions, not to sit on the proverbial fence, twiddling their thumbs, leaving the hard thinking to the rest of Parliament. If they abstain on this one, one wonders what else they might abstain on.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been previous Speakers’ rulings about tedious repetition. There is tedious repetition from one speech to another. Maybe they should just table the research unit notes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We will not have any further points of order on this. The member should not interrupt the member’s speech like that; that is not fair.

💬 Hon John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt. There have also been Speakers’ rulings about idiot interruptions through points of order. The member should be brought to order; it is not good enough.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not know where the member has been for lunch, but it is not hard to see that I am on my feet. He will be silent. Points of order should not be used to call a member what that member just called him; I will not repeat it. I have already reprimanded the Hon Trevor Mallard for frivolously interrupting a member’s speech. At least it was in moderate humour and it was not nasty. The member raised this point of order in quite a nasty way, and that is not helpful. I go back to the first point that members should not interrupt, especially in the general debate.

💬 Hon John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am quite embarrassed by the comment you made about my lunch. It was quite inappropriate, actually. For lunch, I was not very well and I had a piece of chicken, if that is of any use to the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. If the member was not aware what he said, I say that he called another member of this House an idiot under a point of order. That is totally unacceptable. He continued to interject when I was on my feet. He will not do that.

Thinking of the point of order that was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard, it is interesting that he talked about repetition. Goodness me! After wondering who the shadow Leader of the House is, one has to wonder at the repetition of his points of order—it is all the time, and it goes on.

Let us come back to the point that I know minds are seized with, and that is the fact that the country cannot afford to be mired in the sort of prevarication that Labour members have been. In military parlance, yesterday’s performance by Labour can be seen as the “Charge of the Labour Extremely Light Brigade”. Those members not only charged in the wrong direction—the wrong way—but they went in all directions at once. My parliamentary colleague Mr Damien O’Connor—back in the saddle, I am told—leapt on to the horse and went in completely the wrong direction altogether. To top it all off, we had a number of desertions from the ranks.

On a slightly more serious note, why do Labour members hate success? They hate success. It seems that everything that might benefit New Zealand, such as The Hobbit and the cycleways, Labour is dead against—dead against—and it will do everything it can to vote against it. Is Labour seriously trying? Is this perhaps a cunning Labour plot to seriously damage New Zealand’s tourism potential? We in National fortunately are more focused and we are working hard on the real issues that affect New Zealanders on a daily basis. The National-led Government has maintained a clear and unrelenting focus on employment in the midst of a recession.

I was very taken by the very beginning of the Prime Minister’s statement, which stated that we would protect the entitlements of beneficiaries. We have done that. When we have made changes to the cost of living, when we have made changes to GST, we have compensated for that. I do not remember Labour engaging in any such activities.

Let us go through a list of the things we have done. We have a growth-enhancing tax system and we have better, smarter public services. With respect, the resolution of the neurosurgical questions in Dunedin came to me as a surprise during question time. I think the answer was fully deserving—fully deserving—of strong and sustained spontaneous applause, because that is what it merited. We are lifting education, we are lifting skills, and no matter how rude Labour might be towards our Minister of Education, she is doing a great job. We are boosting productive infrastructure, we are pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, and I say well done to Mr Tim Groser for his efforts in that direction. We are cutting red tape and regulations.

To conclude on the matter of cutting red tape and improving regulations, I have been going around a number of councils lately. We did not just reduce the number of complaints about the Resource Management Act; we stopped them altogether.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa me huri te kei o te waka ki wāhi kē. Kua waimarie te Pāti Māori i ēnei marama. Tuatahi, nā mātou te take o te kai hikareti i kōkiri ki mua i te Komiti Take Māori, ā, kātahi anō taua pūrongo ka puta. Kua oti i a Tariana Turia te whai ake i ētahi wāhanga o tērā pūrongo hei whakatinana i ōna kōrero. Koi rā te pai o te noho tūranga ā-Minita nei.

Nōnātatanei i puta te pūrongo o te Kōmihana ā-Ture mō te waipiro. Arā nō ōna kōrero mō te tau e tika ana kia taea ai e te hunga taiohi te hoko waipiro, unu rānei i te waipiro, ko te rāhui tonu i ētahi inu i te tirohanga kanohi, ērā take katoa.

Ko te mea tuatoru, ko te pire whakakore mihini ā-petipeti i raro i tōku ingoa. He mea tēnei i puta nā runga i te tokomaha o te iwi Māori e whai ana i tēnei momo āhuatanga. I tōku kāinga tonu i Rotorua, i a au e haere ana ki te taunga waka rererangi ki te haere mai ki Pōneke nei mā te waka kawe, i kaha kōrero mai ngā kaitaraiwa mō ō rātou kitenga, ko te āhuatanga o te hunga whakapau moni nā ngā mahi petipeti. Kua kite tonu au i te kino kua puta mai mō tētahi whānau nā tēnei mahi kino. Nō reira e tika ana kia whai te Pāti Māori i ēnei take.

Ko tōna tikanga, ka tae taku pire gambling harm reduction ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata ā ngā rā tata kei mua i te aroaro. Ko te āhua nei ka aro mai ētahi o te Whare ki te tikanga o tēnei pire. Pēnei i a au nei, kua kite tātou i te kino o ngā mīhini nei. Ehara i te mea kei te kī au, kārekau he painga e puta mai ana nā ngā mīhini, kāo! Kei te mōhio tonu tātou he moni te painga. He moni e tukuna atu ai ki ngā rōpū, ngā tīma hākinakina hei āwhina i a rātou pea ki te hoko kākahu. He moni āwhina i ngā marae, he aha atu, he aha atu. Ko tā mātou kī e pēnei ana, he kino ake te kino i te pai.

Koi nei te mea ohorere ki a au, ko ngā rōpū pēnei i a Problem Gambling, Poverty Action Waikato, Salvation Army, Family First. Ko Len Brown tonu te tumuaki hou o Tāmaki-makau-rau kua kaha tautoko mai i te wairua o tēnei pire. Ko ētahi o ngā mema o te Rōpū Nāhinara tonu kua kī mai ki a au, kei te tautoko rātou i te tikanga o tēnei pire. He pōti ā-wairua tēnei, me kī he conscience vote. Arā, mā te wairua o te mema ia e tohu, āe ranei me tautoko, kāre rānei. Ko te mate kē, ko te āhua nei kei te herea te kakī o ngā mema o te Nāhinara, o ACT tonu, ā, ka whai rātou ko te kōrero o tō rātou wepu. He aha i pēnei ai, mēnā kei te mōhio tonu te nuinga o te Whare, he take kei konei? He take ki te hunga pōhara, ki ngā Māori me Ngāti Pasifika, he take e pā ana ki te hunga hoko mīhini ki ngā pāpara kāuta e tuku koha, mēnā ka whakawātea mai ngā kaihoko waipiro i ngā kūaha ki wā rātou mīhini. He take kei konei i te mea, ko te moni ka puta mai i Rotorua, ka whakapauhia kētia ki wāhi kē. He take kei konei i te mea, ko ētahi o ngā moni o ngā mīhini ka haere ki ngā karapu whakaomaoma hōiho hei moni tuku. Ko ēnei kōrero katoa, kāore e kore, ka puta hei te pānuitanga tuatahi ā kō ake nei engari ko tāku kē, he āki i ngā rōpu katoa kia kaua e here i wā rātou mema mō tēnei take. He pōti ā-wairua tēnei, waiho mā te wairua o tēnā, o tēnā e tohu.

Koi nei ngā akoranga o te noho i te Whare Pāremata. Tuatahi, mēnā kei a koe te minitatanga ka taea te whakatinana i ngā kaupapa here o tō rōpū. Tuarua, ahakoa pēhea, ahakoa ko te wawata me te ngākaunui, me whai hoa koe, tō rōpū rānei kia eke ki te ono tekau mā rua o ngā pōti, arā, kia toa tō pōti. Ki te kore, he moumou tāima te kōrero. Ka toru, me noho hei Kāwanatanga. Ki te kore e noho hei Kāwanatanga, ko tāu he pāinaina i te rā, he moemoeā te mahi, he whiuwhiu kōhatu te mahi. Koinei te āhuatanga o Reipa i tēnei wā, e kore e taea te aha. He kōrero noa iho te mahi, ā, karekau he whiwhinga.

Koinei te āhua o ngā kōrero e rere haere nei i tēnei wā i te Ao Māori, arā, mō te pire hou mō te takutai moana. I kī ake te Pāti Māori ka ūkuia katoatia te pire takutai moana nā te mea, he mea muru taua pire. Ka rua, ka whakatuwherahia ngā kūaha ki ngā huarahi katoa, kua mutu? Aroha mai. Nō reira, kua ea te wāhi ki a mātou o te Pāti Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings, one and all. Allow me to set the stern of the canoe in another direction. The Māori Party has been fortunate in recent months. Firstly, we brought the issue of cigarette smoking before the Māori Affairs Committee, which has just released its report. Tariana Turia has begun implementing some aspects of the report. That is one of the good things about being a Minister of the Crown.

The Law Commission recently released its review on alcohol. Among other things, it recommends a minimum purchase and consumption age for youths, and a total ban on some drinks.

Thirdly, there is the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, under my name. It emerged because of the large number of Māori people involved in this sort of thing. It is very prevalent in my town of Rotorua. When I have been on my way to the airport to catch a flight to Wellington, taxi drivers have spoken at length about what they have seen and how people spend their money on gambling. I have seen for myself the terrible effects that some families experience as a consequence of this terrible addiction to gambling. So it is only right that the Māori Party address issues like these.

According to procedure, my Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill should come before the House soon. Interest in the purpose of this bill is apparent from some members of the House. They, like me, see the evil side of these gambling machines. It is not as though I am saying that these machines have no benefits at all. Far from it! We are absolutely sure that revenue accrues. Organisations receive grants, sports teams get assistance to purchase uniforms, marae receive financial help, and so on, and so on. But what we are saying is that negatives far outweigh positives.

Organisations like Problem Gambling, Poverty Action Waikato, the Salvation Army, and Family First New Zealand are a surprise to me. The new mayor for all of Auckland, Len Brown, is a strong supporter of the spirit of this bill. Some National members have told me they support the purpose of this bill. This is a spiritual or conscience vote. The conscience of each member will determine whether they vote yes or no. The problem is that it seems that members of both National and ACT are tied by the neck to follow what their whip demands. Why did it come to this, if most members of this House realise that there is an issue here? It is an issue for those on lower incomes, for Māori and Pasifika people. There is an issue here that relates to those who sell gambling machines to pubs, and who make donations if alcohol vendors make their gambling machines available at the door. There is an issue here because some of the revenue that comes from Rotorua is being spent somewhere else; some of the money from the machines is going to the horse racing industry as grants. All of these points will no doubt soon emerge at the first reading, but I really urge all parties not to force their members to vote along party lines. This is a conscience vote. Let each member make up their own mind.

This is what one learns by being a member of Parliament. Firstly, if one has a portfolio, one is better placed to implement party policies. Secondly, regardless of personal desire and commitment, a member must have an alliance, or their side must receive 62 of the votes to ensure their vote finishes at the top. If this is not achieved, talking becomes a waste of time. Thirdly, one must be in Government to be effective here, otherwise all one can do is lie in the sun, dream on, and cast stones about. That is Labour’s current position: merely talking and getting no rewards.

This is the current situation in Māoridom, with all the commentary flying about over the new foreshore and seabed bill. The Māori Party stated that it would repeal the foreshore and seabed Act totally, because it is confiscating legislation. Secondly, the new legislation opens up doors to every avenue. Is that it for me? I am sorry. So that is it from us, the Māori Party.]

Mr Speaker, talofa lava, and to members of this House I am grateful for the opportunity to also make a contribution to this debate. In the past several weeks, perhaps the past three general debates, we have listened to the members of the John Key Government talk about Mana. All of a sudden today they are no longer talking about Mana but are trying to make a big ado about nothing. Yet, in those past several weeks, I have sat and listened to members of the John Key Government keep repeating how good and wonderful they were to the people of Mana. That reminded me of an old saying: “Na’o le moa sope lava e toe vivi’i e ia lava ia.”

I will translate that saying for my friend across the room, Tau Henare, whose Samoan is not as good as mine. It says: “The cock is the only bird that crows its own praises.” For the past three or so general debates that was all we heard from the National Government members—praising how good they were towards the people of Mana.

It is important that the people of Mana know that the success or failure of this John Key Government, and its policies, can be measured by how the Government treats the people in communities like Mana. The Mana electorate is diverse in its peoples, cultures, languages, and faiths. Mana is a microcosm of New Zealand society now and into the future, so the way the John Key Government treats the Mana community enables us to see how it would treat the rest of the nation. We have to ask, and I hope the people of Mana continue to ask this Government between now and 20 November, how the Government treats the people of the diverse communities of Mana.

I say with the greatest of respect, this John Key Government has treated Mana in the same way that we saw John Banks treat South Auckland not long ago. This Government treats the people of Mana in the same way that John Key treated South Auckland; he treated it with disdain and disrespect. I have to add that he was aided and abetted by the John Key Government.

I give some examples of how the people of Mana have been affected by the John Key Government and its policies. In June this year we read in the Kapi-Mana News: “More than 2,000 Mana children will be affected by Budget cuts to early childhood education and the people of Mana, their families, have every right to feel betrayed by this Government.” Information obtained by Labour from the Ministry of Education shows that 2,109 children are enrolled at 47 early childhood education services in the Mana electorate. Those services currently receive funding because they have 80 to 100 percent qualified staff. The John Key Government will cut that funding from next February, leaving a shortfall of $25 per child per week. Early childhood centres will likely pass that cost on to parents or sacrifice the quality of education those children are receiving. Local families have every right to feel betrayed by this Government, which broke its promise to keep existing early childhood education subsidies in place. When I visit groups, churches, and community organisations in parts of Mana I hear parents express their concern about the future of their young children. They express that concern because not only is this Government cutting the valuable funding that goes into the education of those children—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Not true.

It is very true.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Not true.

I tell the Minister to read what is written in the Kapi-Mana News. The Minister’s comment is another example of somebody who sits in an ivory tower so does not know the pain and struggles that the people of Mana are going through. I tell him that Kris Fa’afoi knows what is going on.

💬 Hon Members: Who?

Kris Fa’afoi.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, me te Whare. I am delighted to stand as the National list MP based in Mana and to have the opportunity of my parliamentary role to congratulate Porirua on winning three Gold Awards at the International Awards for Liveable Communities, held in Chicago last night. Porirua achieved gold for its Village Planning Programme, winning first place in the socio-economic section of the Environmentally Sustainable Project Award. It also won a Gold Award in topping the community sustainability criteria in the Whole of City Award. That is particularly important because they competed against 43 other cities from around the world, included in which were Montreal, Vancouver, and Beijing.

The reason I start my contribution with that today is that if we listen to the Opposition, the only thing we would hear about the Mana electorate would be doom and gloom. The people there want the full story of all the communities of Mana told to the world, because they are proud of what they are achieving every day. Unfortunately, the attitude of members opposite was personified and typified by their vote on the Rugby World Cup 2010 (Empowering) Bill last night; they try to ride all sides of a story—they are for, they are against, they do not know, they are ambivalent, and they are ambiguous. That they are in disarray is the fact of the matter.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: A casserole?

I thank Mr Calder. They are a verdant casserole of complexities in disarray.

The fact is Mana has a great story to tell across the board. The crime rate in the Kapiti-Mana Police District is the lowest in the Wellington region. In terms of health, I am sure the House was delighted to hear—although it could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, because of the acrimonious remarks thrown by members opposite—the Minister of Health yesterday advise the House that in the 2 years of this National Government the number of elective surgery procedures has climbed 57 percent in the Mana electorate.

💬 Hon Members: Hear, hear!

It climbed by 57 percent. As for outpatient consults, they have climbed 30 percent.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: So what!

I will tell Mr Mallard so what. For 60 years the Labour Party has had—apparently—a safe seat in Mana, and what does it have to show for it? A legacy of poor health, a legacy of deferred maintenance in housing, a legacy of people who are undereducated.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: So what!

So what! I and the National Party care about making a difference for the people of Mana. We care about backing the people of Mana into business. We care about the Porirua youth, of whom there are a significant number, as witnessed by the Porirua Youth Awards, which were held last week. This party in Government wants to celebrate achievement. Yes, there are problems; yes, we must address them, and are we? Yes, we are. This record in health demonstrates that.

I have been criticised by the Opposition for apparently remaining silent on roading. I am not silent on roading; I absolutely support this Government’s decision to invest $2.2 billion—by the way, our scheme has been costed, unlike the Opposition’s scheme—in a corridor from Wellington Airport to Levin. I have spent my time advocating that the impact be as minimal as possible, that the schools be as little affected as possible, that the focus on environmental screening be important, and that the interchange options be the best possible available.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Where are the plans?

Unlike Mr Hughes, I do not think public silence means total silence, because effectiveness does not require press releases every 5 minutes that say or mean nothing. My interest is in how we get the best possible outcome for all the communities of Mana. It is a young population, it is multicultural, and it is aspirational. I want more for the families, the kids, and all of those communities. Unlike Labour, which has had 60 years to do something about it, I in 3 years have made significant differences, and I can point to them. This Government can point to them, because what we are interested in is—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: How sweet is the kūmara?

Yes, quite right, Opposition members also specialise in cultural insults, which they put other people up to talk about.

Our Government is interested in sustainable economics. It is interested in sustainable health, which is why we have seen an improvement. It is interested in sustainable policing, which is why we have seen a decline in the crime rate. It is interested in sustainable employment, which is why we have seen an improvement—yes, it is modest but it is an improvement nevertheless—in employment. That is what this Government stands for. Kia ora.

Kris Fa’afoi’s chances of winning the Mana by-election just went up even further. Every time Hekia Parata stands up in Parliament, or shifts so that she is sitting behind somebody who is speaking, Kris Fa’afoi’s chances of winning the Mana by-election go up just a little bit further. The people in Mana, like the rest of New Zealand, know that they were sold a lemon at the 2008 general election. All of the promises that National made are being broken right, left, and centre; it had no intention of keeping them. Hekia Parata thinks that if she just screams a little bit louder about how proud she is of all the promises that National has broken, then somehow the people of Mana will be gullible enough to vote for her and put her in as their member of Parliament. They are not as gullible as that; they are not as stupid as that. They know that National has not delivered what it promised. They know that they are not better off under National.

There is no ambition for the people of Porirua under this National Government. Phil Heatley wants to take away their houses. The old people in Porirua who have lived in those State houses and who have raised their families in those State houses will have them taken away by Phil Heatley. They will have their houses taken away from them. I say to Phil Heatley that they are not just houses; they are homes. People have lived in those homes for many years, they have raised their kids there, they have neighbours whom they have known for most of their lives, and their kids have gone to the local school. It is not just a house; it is a home. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Phil Heatley thinks that it is acceptable to throw them out of the houses that they have lived in for all that time. Hekia Parata has said nothing. She has said absolutely nothing about Phil Heatley’s plan to throw State housing tenants out of their homes because he wants to give them to somebody else.

Phil Heatley claimed that the previous Labour Government was a slum landlord. What has he done since he became the Minister of Housing? He has cut funding. He has cut funding for maintaining State housing since he became the Minister. I bet very little money is going into redeveloping State houses in Porirua, just as very little money is going into redeveloping State houses in my electorate just across the hill in Rimutaka. In fact, National has abandoned a whole lot of State houses. The houses are now in such bad nick it will not put tenants in them. Instead of doing them up, it has just abandoned them altogether. It is leaving them completely empty. That is what this Government thinks is the priority in housing: turf people out of their houses, turf them out of their homes, and then leave the houses empty. That is this Government’s housing strategy and it is an absolute disgrace.

The people in Mana will know. They will pass judgment on this Government in another 2½ weeks, and the judgment will be clear. They have had a gutsful of the broken promises. They have had a gutsful of being told that they were going to get a Government that was ambitious for New Zealand. It was going to turbocharge the economy. Do members remember that? National was going to turbocharge the economy. What has happened instead? Unemployment has gone up. Bill English called the unemployed collateral damage. That is what Bill English thinks about the people who have lost their jobs. Those people are National’s collateral damage. National does not care about the people who have lost their jobs because of its bad managing of the economy.

It does not care about the people who feel betrayed that it broke its promise not to increase GST. What did John Key say? He said that if National did a halfway decent job of managing the economy it would not need to increase GST. Either John Key was not telling the truth, or he has admitted that National has done an appalling job of managing the economy. He said that if National did a good job of managing the economy, GST would not go up. GST has already gone up. Less than 2 years after National became the Government, it put up GST. It is another broken promise to add to the long list.

National said it would not cut education funding. It should tell that to the parents in my electorate who send their kids to kindergarten, because the Rimutaka Kindergarten Association has lost $1 million in funding. It has lost $1 million in funding at the hands of a Government that said it would not cut funding for early childhood education. That is exactly what it has done.

Across the board the communities are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the effect of the Government’s funding cuts. Our elderly are struggling to make ends meet because of the rising cost of living. What does the National Government do? It cuts their home help hours. It cuts their home help hours, which will ultimately lead to more old people ending up in hospital. It is a Government that is already out of touch with ordinary working New Zealanders like the people who live in the Porirua Basin in Mana. This Government is out of touch.

I guess it is up to the Government member for the electorate of Kaikōura to have the last word, and I have to say that the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill was the winner on the day. When we stop to look at it, we see that it truly paints Labour in the colours that it stands for. It is red-faced, it is all over the show, and it is not presenting a unified face. At a time when it should be unified and focused on the challenges ahead, it is divided into factions, and it is dysfunctional. When we stop to look at Labour in that light, we see its true colours.

Let us have a look at Labour when it was in Government. It is very good to see what actually happened in the dying days of that reckless, overspending Labour Government. One of its leading bills was the Electoral Finance Bill. What was its aim? It was to divide and rule. It was to control. When we look at the way it was responded to we see that it really wound up the people of New Zealand. What did the foreshore and seabed legislation do? It divided New Zealand. Again, Labour was going to divide and rule. What we are seeing today around the Rugby World Cup bill is no different from what we saw in the dying days of that Labour administration.

So what are we seeing today? We are seeing exactly the same thing. Let us reflect on it. Earlier in the year we had that bus driving around the country. It was painted red and had the words “Axe the Tax” on it. What was Labour going to do?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: The blunderbuss!

Yes, it blew up in Labour members’ faces. They are now in a cleft stick, in the sense that within their own numbers they cannot actually make a policy decision. Again they are divided.

A couple of weeks back we had the unbelievable audacity of Labour doing the work of the unions. It was doing the bidding of the unions and working against the economic best interests of New Zealand. It backed the unions and backed the Australian initiative to create chaos and mayhem in our remarkable film industry. When we look at the track record we see nothing but chaos and confusion around Labour. I believe that that is a strategy Phil Goff is employing to maintain the leadership. Obviously, the state of confusion is the key to his leadership and his survival.

So what conclusion do we come to? When there is a lack of leadership there is confusion. I and other members on this side of the House in Government say that New Zealand deserves better. Two years ago the people of New Zealand made the best choice of their lives and that was between two very stark contrasts: a focused, grounded National Government and a confused and dysfunctional split Labour Opposition.

Let us talk about the positive things that the Government is doing. I may run out of time in doing so. We are building a brighter future for all New Zealanders, which is very important. We are rebalancing the economy, with 75 percent of New Zealanders paying 17.5 percent tax. The Budget will deliver, over 4 years, 170,000 jobs and an increase in wages of $7,000. In health we are transferring as much as is possible of taxpayers’ dollars to the front line to deliver better medical outcomes for New Zealand. And, of course, the main policy in education is improving plain-language reporting to parents in order to improve achievement in literacy, writing, and numeracy for our children, which are musts in a modern economy.

Then we have the incredible efforts and strategy in infrastructure. The wisdom of this Government to put commissioners into Environment Canterbury will show a very good dividend for this country’s economy going forward. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is an amazing strategy. It took backbone, courage, and clarity of leadership. In the research and development field, the 2010 Budget provided science and innovation grants and vouchers that will certainly help our businesses to compete globally. Our free-trade agreements are working very well, and we are looking forward to the Trans-Pacific Partnership coming to fruition. Of course, there are modifications to the Resource Management Act and business compliance to make sure that businesses can survive.

New Zealanders can have confidence that they are in good hands. The Government is doing a fantastic job. We are aware today that Labour is totally dysfunctional.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.