General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Prime Minister has an instinct. When anything occurs that has anything to do with lawbreaking or rorts his instinct is to duck, weave, deflect, cover, abuse, evade, and play for time. We have seen that instinct again in the last week or two with Pansy Wong. We have been told that the Prime Minister has instructed his erstwhile Cabinet Minister to go away, say nothing, not show her face here this week or next week, play it out, reach out for Christmas, and wait for some report that should take about 10 minutes to write but is seeming to take longer than that. She has been told not to front, not to explain, not to answer any of the questions that the media reasonably seek answers to. She has been told to keep everyone in the dark and hope it goes away.

The Prime Minister has done this before. He did it with Richard Worth. He said that Richard Worth was not as bad as that, and that Phil Goff was really mean to Richard Worth. He said absolutely nothing for a while, then he sacked him. He did not give a reason. A guy was sacked with no reason given. It was a case of duck, weave, and give no answers—just make sure that plenty of ducking and weaving goes on.

He has another trick. His other trick is to invent new rules. We saw that trick with Bill English. Bill English was caught with his fingers in the till. The Prime Minister did not say: “Bill, you are naughty.”; the Prime Minister said that the rules were wrong. He said the rules were confusing. No other Minister was confused. No Minister in the previous Government, or in the Government before that, was confused. But Mr Key said that Mr English was dealing with confusing rules, so Mr Key was going to change them, and he would save taxpayers money while he did that. A year on, we know that the taxpayers’ money was not saved. We know that ministerial houses cost more, not less. He used deflection to try to get through another problem with a rort.

So too with Pansy Wong. Pansy Wong went offshore, broke international travel rules, and confessed to doing so. Do members know what the Prime Minister said? He said the rules were wrong and therefore we needed to get rid of them. He said we need to gross up those travel perks into salaries and there would be no rules to break. Therefore, Pansy really did not break any rules, because we should not have had any! That is how the Prime Minister works. The Prime Minister has always worked that way. He always decides to rewrite the rules rather than front up to the fact that someone has broken them.

In this case, it is absolutely clear that they have been broken. How do we know? Pansy Wong said so—that is called a confession. There is also a bunch of website evidence—that is called irrefutable evidence. But Mr Key does not think that; Mr Key thinks that the thing to do is to go away, sit down, hide, say nothing, answer no questions, wait for a report, and reach for Christmas. It may be that Pansy Wong herself wanted to leave Parliament. That is certainly what a fellow called Whale Oil Beef Hooked thinks, and he is the son of a former National Party president. It is certainly what a person who wrote to me anonymously yesterday said. He—or she—asked how long it took Pansy Wong to resign after she was asked about her husband’s rorting of the travel scheme, and said that they believed it was 10 minutes. That is what that anonymous person said.

Certainly, at the top of her first press prelease she said she was resigning from Parliament. But then she said that she did not mean that; she was resigning just from Cabinet. I wonder whether the Prime Minister got to her and said that she could not resign from Parliament any time soon because he was going to have a holiday in Hawaii, and he was not having it messed up by some by-election in Botany. I wonder whether he told her to go away, say nothing, play for time, and reach for Christmas. There is an awful lot of holiday period, and they should be able to get themselves well into the new year. He will come back from Hawaii and think about it then.

That is what is going on. That is how the Prime Minister deals with his own rorts. When he said he had a certain number of Tranz Rail shares, and it was then discovered that he had more and that he bought them while he was asking questions about Tranz Rail when he was in Opposition, he said he was sorry. He said he forgot. When it is discovered that his blind trust has 20/20 vision, he says that it has not. He says it is legally, theoretically, absolutely blind. In practice it is true that everyone can see straight through it, but in theory it is blind, so that is OK! Let us not worry about it! The Prime Minister has an instinct, and the instinct is to not tell the truth.

Last night in the House Labour members were gloating about their fantastic success in the Mana by-election. They said: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. But I think that that arrogance—and, frankly, the speech just made by Pete Hodgson—shows that Labour has learnt absolutely nothing since its defeat in the 2008 election.

I would like to be helpful today, so I will explain to Labour what a 6.6 percent swing to the Government means for that party. With information from the Parliamentary Library, I remind my colleagues that Labour would lose half the constituency seats it currently holds if there were a 6.6 percent swing to National. Let us go through the affected members: Clayton Cosgrove, Chris Hipkins, Nanaia Mahuta, Brendon Burns, Iain Lees-Galloway, Parekura Horomia, Grant Robertson, Ruth Dyson, David Cunliffe, and Trevor Mallard. Every one of those 10 members opposite would be goners if the result in the Mana by-election were translated into a general election.

But it is worse than that. I asked the Parliamentary Library to provide the percentages of the swings in every single by-election during my lifetime, and I managed to get through the 16 by-elections and to compare them with the Mana result. I found out that when National was in Government, in Taranaki - King Country there was a negative swing of 18 percent; in Wellington Central it was minus 3 percent, and it was minus 8 percent in the Selwyn by-election. I went all the way back to Timaru, where there was a 16 percent swing against the Government. I can go back to Christchurch Central in 1979, where there was an 8.5 percent swing against the then Rob Muldoon - led Government. I can even go back to my own constituency of Nelson. There was a by-election there in 1976—a similar time, after Robert Muldoon had been elected—and in that by-election the National Government went backwards. In every single by-election for 35 years the swing has been against the Government. So a 6.6 swing to National is an incredible result for Hekia Parata and the John Key - led Government.

Let us look at the history of Mana. We can go back through the 2008, 2005, 2002, and 1999 elections. I can find no result in seven electoral reports that shows anything less than a 3,500 majority for Labour in that seat, which makes the “1080” result—appropriately named—a truly remarkable result.

It is interesting: what did the president of the Labour Party say about the Mana by-election? He said that Labour supporters have to look a little bit aghast at the result. But what did Phil Goff say? He said it was a resounding victory. I have to say that a resounding victory of a 6.6 percent swing against the Labour Party actually shows just how out of touch members opposite are.

The reality is that that by-election was a ringing endorsement of Hekia Parata as a fantastic candidate and member of this House. But, most important, it was an endorsement of a Prime Minister who is focused on the issues that matter—not the sort of stuff that Pete Hodgson talked about—and a Government that is delivering for New Zealand in some of the most difficult economic times. I simply say to Labour members opposite that rather than the rhetoric we get of “We won. You Lost. Eat That!”, it is time for Labour to learn some lessons, because the Mana by-election was a rejection of the Phil Goff - led Labour Party.

I will make only two comments in relation to that speech made by Nick Smith. One is a quotation from Hekia Parata: “I don’t do runner up.” Three times out of three she has done runner-up, and she needs to learn that.

The other comment, which leads into the substance of my speech, is to ask what the swing will be in Botany. What will the swing be in Botany? We hear that the Botany committee of the National Party is already meeting to canvass possible candidates.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: If it’s 6.6 percent the Government will be all right.

Nick Smith says the swing in Botany at the by-election will be 6.6 percent away from National. That may be true; frankly, if that was the case, it would still be a very safe National seat, so I will not get too anxious about that.

I want to know from the Prime Minister why he is protecting Pansy Wong. Why is he hiding her? Has he approved as the leader of the National Party a trip out of the country for her as opposed to a ministerial trip? I want an assurance that if she is out of the country, she is not out of the country on taxpayers’ funds again. Wherever she is, it is time for Pansy Wong to front up.

I was critical of the reaction of my colleague Chris Carter around this building, but people could not say that he did not front up. He fronted up. He was hounded and he fronted up time and time again. All we are asking is that Pansy Wong fronts up two or three times and answers questions.

Without wanting to reflect too heavily on the independence of the chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission, I say that I do not accept that an independent inquiry has been set up. The Prime Minister undertook that there would be an independent inquiry into this matter, and it is my opinion that no independent inquiry can be headed by someone who is of the same political party as the alleged offender. It is my view that it is time for a Queen’s Counsel—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I caution the member not to bring the Speaker into this debate, because he risks getting his information incorrect. It is just not done to bring the Speaker into the debate.

The chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission, the Speaker, has not yet made public who is doing the inquiry. If an independent Queen’s Counsel, or similar, is looking at this matter, if a proper forensic accountant, independent from a major company, is looking at this matter and doing a public report, then I welcome that. If I have my facts wrong, if I have missed the announcement that this is occurring, then I apologise. But it is important that this matter is seen to be independent. The Prime Minister promised an independent inquiry. I am looking forward to seeing that inquiry and seeing the results.

But in the interim, Pansy Wong should not be protected by the Prime Minister. A true leader would make the MP front up. I well remember one occasion when I was involved in a scuffle in the lobby. I got the very clear advice from the Prime Minister to front up by lunchtime. I think it is fair to say that at lunchtime the following day a press conference was put together fairly rapidly in Taupō. I fronted up and answered the questions. It went on for about an hour outside the baths at Taupō. It gave the public of New Zealand, through the media, an opportunity to question, an opportunity to ask, and an opportunity to get the facts of the matter out.

What is the tendency of the current Prime Minister? He says to go and hide—as he does. He tells Pansy to go and hide, to not front up, to not tell the truth, and to not make it clear to the public of New Zealand that she has been rorting and that he knows about it.

Last Friday submissions closed on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We heard this afternoon from the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, which is hearing submissions on the bill, that over 3,000 submissions have been received on the bill and that 521 New Zealanders or organisations have asked to submit personally. I pay tribute to those people who are prepared to engage with parliamentarians, to take their time and to make a submission.

The ACT Party is the only party in this Parliament that opposes this bill. We believe that the consequences of this bill passing will be irreversible and of major constitutional and economic significance. A lot has been said about access to beaches, access to boating, and shipping rights. But what probably few New Zealanders understand is that this bill proposes the potential for a massive transfer of economic wealth to a few select iwi. That transfer will come at the expense of other iwi and other non-Māori New Zealanders.

There is not full awareness of the provisions of this bill among the New Zealand public but that awareness is growing. If there had been full awareness, notwithstanding the 3,000-plus submissions that were received, there would have been many thousands more. I sense growing awareness of the provisions of this bill as I walk around my local electorate—the Tāmaki electorate—as I did on the weekend. I spent some hours walking around Tāmaki, distributing fliers advertising meetings that I was holding in St Heliers and Kohimārama last Monday and next week. When I spoke to people in the streets I said I was delivering a letter about the provisions of the Government’s changed position on the foreshore and seabed legislation. There was a keenness to take that letter from me, a keenness to learn more.

I take this opportunity to address specifically the National members of Parliament in the House, because I want to say to you very clearly that although the emissions trading scheme has done your party some damage, it is absolutely nothing in comparison with the damage that the passing of this bill will do. If you do not understand that, if you do not appreciate that, then you are not actually listening to the constituents.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member should not be addressing the Speaker like that. The use of “you” and “your” in this House refers to the Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise.

A number of provisions in the bill are of concern to the ACT Party and to the 3,000-plus submitters on this bill. A cursory analysis of the submissions, which have now been made available publicly, shows that probably in excess of 95 percent, if not 98 percent, of the submitters on this bill oppose all or part of it.

Let us look at some of the issues. As I say, we have discussed and canvassed the issue of free access to fishing and free access to the beach. What concerns the ACT Party is a provision in the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act that prohibits those people who have gained customary title to foreshore and seabed reserves, those who have gained that interest, from charging for the use and occupation of that foreshore and seabed reserve. Let me quote from the provisions of section 40(2). It clearly states that the applicant group or the guardians of a foreshore and seabed reserve are specifically prohibited from charging for the use or occupation of that reserve. Where do we see those provisions in the existing bill? We do not see them.

Let us hope this bill is not passed—let us hope the Government sees sense—but if it is passed, then when it comes before a court, as it surely will, what will the judge say? The judge will look at the preceding legislation and see that a provision that provides for free use and occupation of a reserve has been taken out. The judge can only assume that that has been done deliberately, and that it has been done with the full intention of this Parliament and, certainly, the full intention of the National members of the Government.

What else concerns us? There is a provision in the bill for an iwi or an applicant group to enter into an agreement with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General tried to be quite cute yesterday about that issue, but there is no other provision that enables an Attorney-General to do a direct agreement, produce an Order in Council, and have it signed into law by the Governor-General. Thank you.

I wish to make some comments about the Pike River mine explosion. I know that everyone in this House will join with me in expressing very sombre thoughts at this time for both the families of the miners and the miners who are trapped in the Pike River mine near Greymouth. There are 24 New Zealanders, two Australians, two Britons, and one South African. Indeed, a family from my electorate in Foxton have their son trapped in the mine. Tony and Christine Hoggart from Foxton are down there waiting for any news on David, who is a 33-year-old. I have been speaking to them and I know that Parliament will join with me at this very difficult time for all of those families.

We have a very close-knit mining community in New Zealand, and particularly on the West Coast. I am sure that anyone who watched the video footage on TV last night realised it was a very large explosion; it was a very sombre moment. It is amazing to think that Daniel Rockhouse and Russell Smith were able to walk out of that mine, and that gives us a glimmer of hope. Drilling has confirmed, however, that the situation in the mine is very unstable; there is carbon monoxide and methane, and very little oxygen. It is a bit of a bleak outlook and, indeed, I read with interest the comments of the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, who was down there yesterday. We are now in our fifth day of this terrible situation. When we think about it, both the Government and all New Zealanders hope for the best, but I guess we need to plan for the worst. Currently, 65 rescuers who have all the expertise and 30 logistical support personnel are on site. Backing up that support we have the multi-agency and organisational support based in Greymouth.

Flowing from this event of course are the thoughts from international shores and also the support given. As we speak, that support is coming from Australia. It has sent a robot, which it is due to arrive shortly or may even be on site. A back-up robot is coming from the United States, as well. So there is very strong international support for what is a very dreadful and awkward situation.

We can only imagine the feeling of those families who wait for any news. Of course, the Prime Minister has been down there a couple of times to support those families and support the community. We have the Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, down there on site, and we also have the West Coast - Tasman MP, Chris Auchinvole, down there.

It is interesting to note that there is a huge amount of community support in that area. I was interested to hear that students from the local polytech who had just recently passed their certification to become chefs are now churning out 100 meals a day for people involved in this incident. Apparently there is a lot of home baking rolling in, as well.

It is also important to realise that New Zealand has a long, very successful history in the coalmining industry. An incident like this is dreadful for the industry and also for New Zealand, but we will recover and we will learn from it. The Prime Minister has said that there will be an inquiry. There may end up being several inquiries—I do not want to pre-empt those—but it is worthwhile drawing the House’s attention to Government order of the day No. 26 on the Order Paper where there is a bill under my name, the Inquiries Bill, which is intended to replace the current Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. The bill modernises that Act. It might be that the Government at some point in the near future chooses to make progress on this bill. In conclusion, my heart and thoughts go out to those family members.

New Zealand women want some answers. They want some answers, and they want the Prime Minister to help them find those answers. They want to know where Pansy Wong was when she was supposed to be defending the rights and the responsibilities of New Zealand women in her role as the Minister of Women’s Affairs.

We have heard today that since Pansy Wong has been Minister, she has been in China on six occasions. There were six occasions between November 2008 and 10 September 2010. That is how many times she has been in China when she should have been here in New Zealand defending the decision of that National Government to close down the pay and employment equity unit. Where was she when that unit was being closed down? As the Minister, she should have been in Cabinet arguing against that, but perhaps she was over in China aiding and abetting her husband’s private business opportunities, instead. Where was she when her Government decided not long after she went on the private trip—the taxpayer-funded private trip to do private business in November 2008—to stop pay equity audits for school support staff and for social workers? That is another decision she should have been fending off in her role as Minister of Women’s Affairs.

Where was she when her Government decided to scrap the contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund? That move will disproportionately disadvantage women, who we know, because they earn less during their lifetime, are absolutely dependent on superannuation funding for the future. Where was Pansy Wong standing up for New Zealand women when that decision was made? Perhaps that was during one of her six trips to China while she was Minister.

When were those six trips to China? We know about the November 2008 one, because Pansy told the Prime Minister about that. She said she was there, with taxpayer funding—her husband was using taxpayer funding—to aid and abet his private business opportunities. So we know about that November 2008 trip. But she was back in China in April 2009. Then she was back again in August 2009, just a few months later. She was back again in China in June 2010, back again just 1 month later in July 2010, and then again in September 2010.

I think that New Zealand women are looking to the Prime Minister to stop hiding Pansy Wong, and to have her come out and answer questions about why she was in China so many times, and for five of those times on ministerial visits—five of those times were on ministerial visits. I would like to know where she was when her ministry was advising the Government that its bill that extended unfair dismissals to all workplaces was going to disproportionately affect women because of the breaks they have in employment. As for the fourth week of annual leave, which most women will find attractive to cash up because they earn less then men do, where was she when her ministry was trying to convince the Government not to do that, on behalf of New Zealand women workers? Where was she when early childhood education funding was cut by her Government? Was she there advocating for the interests of children and women as the Minister of Women’s Affairs, or was she in China aiding and abetting the private business interests of her husband?

Those are the questions, I say to Mr Key, that New Zealand women need to have answers to. Pansy Wong was supposed to be advocating for New Zealand women in New Zealand to try to make sure that women were not disadvantaged during this recessionary period. She has failed, and we know that she has failed in that because the Global Gender Gap Report, which came out just a few months ago, told us that New Zealand has started to slide backwards internationally in terms of where our women in the workplace stack up in that report. We know that she has failed because the Human Rights Commission recently published a census on women’s participation and, again, we see the slide backwards for New Zealand women, and this was while the Minister of Women’s Affairs was where? Six times she was in China, then she was in Australia, also in the United States, and also in Japan. She needs to front up and tell New Zealand women and the New Zealand public what she was doing on those trips, which were approved by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister confirmed for us today that he approved on 11 occasions—11 occasions in 2 years—for the Minister of Women’s Affairs to be not in New Zealand defending women’s interests but overseas.

I start by picking up on the contribution of my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy. I take this opportunity to extend my thoughts and my prayers to the West Coast community, particularly the families of the miners in the Pike River Coal tragedy as it continues to unfold. No one can really imagine how frustrating it must be for the families as they wait. It is day 5 today. A number of rescuers have been there right from the start of this tragedy, wanting to do something, yet everyone has had to wait until we ascertain the extent of the situation and ascertain what can be done without further endangering life. It is a difficult time for all, and I extend my thoughts to the community.

I want to comment on the kiwifruit disease, which was in the media over the last couple of weeks prior to the Pike River Coal tragedy. I do not think that its place in the media has been surpassed because of that tragedy; it has been surpassed and the disease is off the pages of the media because we have made progress and have some action under way. First, I commend the maturity and cohesion of the industry that I had to deal with. The fact that we were dealing with such a united industry made the issue of firstly establishing the extent of the incursion relatively easy. Although I know that everybody jumped to conclusions about how the disease got here, it may take us some time to be sure as to when it arrived. I guess at this stage it would seem that the disease has certainly been here for a number of years. We have now found positive testings on pollen dating back to 2007. So it does not look as if it is a recent incursion, which is what the Opposition seemed to be almost gleefully hoping for.

It also means that it is probably going to be easier to deal with the situation in that if the disease has been here for that long, it may not always manifest itself with the severity with which it has manifested itself this year. That seems to suggest to us that in fact the industry as a whole has been managing the disease over other years almost inadvertently because it did not realise it was coping with Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae at the time. Last week we managed to get an arrangement whereby a $50 million package was delivered, with 50 percent from Government and 50 percent from the industry. That money is being spent as we speak, particularly in the Te Puke region, where there is an aggressive pruning campaign under way in an attempt to contain this disease, contain the amount of bacterium that is associated with the rapid manifestation of the disease, and get things under way so that control into the future is possible.

There has been some nervousness amongst my primary sectors as we have moved to look at the best way we can manage our borders. We have been talking to the industry about the need for a much closer engagement through Government industry agreements, whereby we can facilitate better protection at our border but at the same time ensure that when incursions occur we will have a better way of managing those incursions. The only way we can develop those protocols is by knowing what is important to the industry. I take this opportunity to congratulate the kiwifruit industry. I particularly acknowledge the work of Lain Jager, chief executive of Zespri, Peter Ombler, president of New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers, and Dr Barry O’Neil, who has been the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s leading official in this response. All of them have been superb to work with, and I think that is why we have got the situation to where it is today.

It would be inappropriate if I did not finish this contribution by taking the opportunity in respect of the Mana by-election to congratulate my parliamentary colleague Hekia Parata on a superb campaign.

💬 Chris Hipkins: The runner-up.

She was the runner-up, but I remember the Labour Party saying that the by-election would be a test of the National Government’s policies. We proudly went into the Mana by-election and took the chance to take that test to the voters of Mana, and we saw a 6.6 percent swing in favour of the policies of the National Government. That is why we are pleased with the result, and that is why we are very pleased to come a very close second.

Why is Pansy Wong not taking a call in this debate and fronting up to this House to explain her misuse—

💬 Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening very carefully to this debate. Other speakers have been much more careful when referring to an absence or otherwise of a particular member—

I did not refer to her absence.

💬 Hon Simon Power: Excuse me, this is a point of order. The member referred to her absence from this House. Other members have not made that mistake in their contributions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point of order is quite correct in that it is out of order to refer to the absence of any member from this House. The point has been raised, and I have listened to members skirting around it. Members need to be careful not to talk about the absence of a member from this House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarification, I ask whether you are ruling that it is unacceptable to challenge another member for not taking a call.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not out of order to say that a member has not taken a call, but members should not say a member is absent from the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think if you reflect on what I said, I asked why Pansy Wong had not taken a call in this debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have not ruled that out. I have just alerted members that they must be careful not to refer to members’ absence from the House. Members can question why a member has not spoken in a debate.

Why is Pansy Wong not taking a call in this debate? Why does she not come here and say why she misused her parliamentary travel allowance? She has not taken a call in this debate, and the public of New Zealand are entitled to know why she is not fronting up and explaining what she has been up to, and why John Key is telling her to duck the questions, not front up to the media, and not answer the media’s questions. The amount of money we are talking about is not insubstantial. I went back and looked at Pansy Wong’s international travel expenses in the time that she has been a Minister. I looked at her 11 overseas trips in the 24-odd months that she was a Minister—that is a trip nearly every 2 months, on average—and she spent over $180,000 taxpayer dollars on her international travel.

The public of New Zealand are entitled to hear her explanation for why that is so. They are entitled to hear whether she was doing business on her husband’s behalf in China and asking the taxpayer to pay the bill for that, yet not fronting up to the public of New Zealand to say why she thinks that is acceptable. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to tell her not to front up.

But that is the pattern from this Government. Its Ministers take whatever they can, until they get caught. It is National’s “self-help, help yourself” philosophy to governing. While they are picking on beneficiaries and telling them to go out and get a job, they are busy helping themselves to every possible taxpayer allowance they can get hold of, and when they get caught, what do they do? They duck for cover. What does John Key do? He advises them to duck for cover, to not answer any questions, to not say anything, and, particularly, to not make him look bad. That was John Key’s advice to Pansy Wong. It was: “Stay out of the way; don’t make me look bad.” But that is exactly what Pansy Wong is doing. She is making John Key look bad, because every one of those 11 overseas trips that Pansy Wong took was signed off by John Key. Every single trip that Pansy Wong took as a Minister has John Key’s signature on it. He said it was all right: $180,000 of taxpayer money was spent by Pansy Wong on her overseas travel, and every dollar of it was signed off by John Key.

What is he telling Pansy Wong now? He is saying: “Whatever you do, don’t say anything. Don’t tell the public of New Zealand what you did while you were travelling on their dollar.” I say to Pansy Wong and John Key that that is not good enough. When it is the taxpayer dollar they are travelling on and spending, they have an obligation and a duty to front up and explain what they have been up to. It is not acceptable for Pansy Wong to travel overseas on the taxpayer’s dollar to further her husband’s private business interests. It is simply unacceptable, and it is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to tell her not to front up and explain what she has been up to. But it is the pattern of this Government and its Ministers to help themselves to everything they possibly can—right from the very beginning. In fact, before he was a Minister, Bill English was doing everything he could to extract the maximum dollar out of the taxpayer for his house in Karori. Phil Heatley did everything he could do to extract the dollar out of the taxpayer to pay for wine at National Party functions and to take his family away on holiday. The “self-help, help yourself” philosophy is alive and well in the National Government.

What about Richard Worth? Why did John Key lose confidence in Richard Worth? He never said, did he? Mr Key was the man who would set a new standard for ministerial performance, and new benchmarks, but I ask what happened with Richard Worth. He did not meet the standard, but John Key never said why. He was never willing to front up and say why, and that is what we are seeing in the Pansy Wong saga—the Government: not willing to front up; John Key: not willing to front up; and Pansy Wong: not willing to front up. It is not good enough.

Tomorrow is 25 November, a day referred to as White Ribbon Day to mark the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Many MPs are wearing the white ribbon today as a personal pledge to always speak out against violence towards women and children.

The story of the white ribbon has its origins in Canada, where in 1991 a group of Canadian men began a campaign to urge men to speak out against violence against women. The White Ribbon campaign was a direct result of a massacre of 14 women by a lone gunman in Montreal, Canada, 2 years previously. The white ribbon gathered momentum in Canada and, in 1999, the United Nations General Assembly declared 25 November the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

The white ribbon has become a symbol for that day, but there is much more to the story of the origins of 25 November, a story that is not well known in New Zealand. It is a story of the Mirabal sisters—Minerva, Patria, and Teresa—who were citizens of the Dominican Republic. Their story, which is over 50 years old, needs to be told. The three sisters and their husbands opposed the dictatorship of the day. Minerva became particularly passionate about ending the dictatorship and, with her sisters, formed a group of opponents to the regime, known as the 14th of June Movement. Within that group they were known as “The Butterflies” because that was the underground name that Minerva was given. Two of the sisters, Minerva and Teresa, were incarcerated and tortured on several occasions. While in prison they were repeatedly raped. The sisters, however, persisted in speaking out to end the dictatorship.

On 25 November 1960, when the three sisters were returning from visiting their husbands, who were imprisoned at the time, their car was stopped. The unarmed sisters were beaten to death, and their car was pushed over the side of a mountain to make it look like an accident. After the death of her sisters, the surviving sister, Dedé, became active in politics, fighting for the rights of, and the elimination of violence against, women, and fighting to further democracy in the Dominican Republic. She brought up her sisters’ children and founded a museum and library in the home where the three sisters had been living at the time of their deaths. She was determined that their memory live on.

On 17 December 1999 the United Nations designated 25 November, the anniversary of the murder of the Mirabal sisters, as the annual date for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. The date of 25 November is in commemoration of the Mirabal sisters: Minerva, Patria, and Teresa. The day, of course, has become well known as White Ribbon Day, and marks the beginning of 16 days of activism against gender violence. I pay tribute to the three women—Minerva, Patria, and Teresa—who, because of their activism, experienced violence while they were alive and, ultimately, violent deaths.

I heard about these three sisters when I attended a women’s empowerment conference recently in Istanbul, and I met Minerva’s daughter, who is a member of Parliament in the Dominican Republic. I was very moved by the story, and I returned to New Zealand determined that these three sisters and the part they played in 25 November be acknowledged.

Tomorrow New Zealanders from all sections of society will unite against violence in New Zealand. Today I acknowledge also the many cross-party groups in Parliament, where MPs join together in a non-partisan way to work together for a common cause. The newly formed cross-party Commonwealth Women’s Parliamentarians is one such group. I am co-chair of this group, along with Carmel Sepuloni. I know that all members of our group stand with me in acknowledgment of the Mirabal sisters, and in utter condemnation of violence of any form against women and children.

Family violence in New Zealand is far too common, with one in three women reporting being abused by a partner in their lifetime. That is totally unacceptable. Family violence is not limited to any one gender, religion, culture, or income group. I pay tribute to the many individuals and organisations who work in this area. I add that I absolutely support the Violence Intervention Programme operating in our district health boards, where females presenting to hospitals are questioned about family violence. The fact is that many, many women are just waiting to be asked.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He mihinui ki te whānau whānui o Te Tai Poutini, tēnā koutou katoa. I give acknowledgment to the West Coast families.

Today is the day that the Government-appointed Welfare Working Group reported, at 2 p.m. this afternoon. The theme of that report is: “Any work will set you free, even if you have a full-time job already as a mother of a one-year old baby.” The Green co-leader Metiria Turei and I were keen to engage with this group, but after registering at its national forum we were told that we had to be deregistered on the grounds that the group was too full, although many people who attended this event said there were empty seats. However, despite being marginalised at this juncture, we have closely engaged with the debate.

Like all citizens of any status, we were more than welcome to participate at the Alternative Welfare Working Group, established by the community. The Alternative Welfare Working Group heard submissions on what it was like to be out of work, poor, and stigmatised, and on what might be done to improve people’s lives and job opportunities.

Meanwhile the Government’s Welfare Working Group, in its new report, suggests that it is not listening to the voices of community advocates who have long-term experience of youth unemployment and other forms of unemployment, the domestic purposes benefit, the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit, and other challenges. Paula Rebstock from the Welfare Working Group has made some strong statements that suggest that cost cutting is driving this agenda. Of course, she has not said that the Government has asked her to cut costs, but she has constantly made statements about how many billions of dollars welfare will cost us if welfare numbers continue to rise.

This working group appears to assume that benefit numbers rise because people become benefit-dependent. Its numbers appear to be based on the nonsensical assumption that no one who goes on welfare benefits ever comes off them. Its unspoken dog whistle is that beneficiaries and the poor are the problem. It fails to recognise what many people who already know they are poor know—that there is a job shortage and that is not their fault. We have up to 60,000 people out of work. That is an increase of up to 44,000 people in the last 2 years. Benefit numbers rise in a recession and they also rise with an ageing population. When one in five people experience disability there will be more people spending some time on a benefit.

However, most people spend less than 1 year on a benefit. Most people would love to have a job that paid more than the benefit and that they could manage as well as their family responsibilities. Nobody feels great on a benefit, because even if they are unwell or doing the best possible job as a sole parent, they are stigmatised, and that is as demoralising as their poverty. The Welfare Working Group is not helping to resolve any of the pressures on those people by making them the problem.

In every recession, as regularly as clockwork, the Government initiates a review of welfare focused on blaming the poor. In the United States it is called the Wisconsin Model, and now David Cameron in the UK is bashing the poor, as well. Both models involve cost cutting and beneficiary bashing. They use sophisticated 21st century language to do so. They involve the Orwellian double-speak of “helping” solo parents into work by cutting food to their children, and sanctioning the sick and the disabled as a burden to society. The role of the Welfare Working Group is to dog whistle the message to the general population that many beneficiaries are the undeserving poor who, through a lack of moral fibre, have fallen into dependency and are staying there by choice. All rigorous socio-economic analysis tells us that this message is trotted out in every recession and that it is nonsense.

The big spin today has been about a small part of the report, which looks at investing in youth. We applaud this approach; we believe in investing in youth, and no one will dispute that. But the solution the Greens have for youth is education, training, and job creation. That is why we in the Greens developed the Green New Deal to help address the recession and create meaningful jobs. In practical terms, the Greens are also keen to restore the training incentive allowance eligibility criteria for tertiary courses, so that solo parents—especially younger ones—can get education and training to help them find quality work, rather than being shunted off the benefit to a lifetime of stacking supermarket shelves. The training incentive allowance worked for Paula Bennett; why can we not have it back?

We would remove all threats against sick and disabled people. We would provide genuine support and encouragement to them to show that they are valued members of society and are entitled to a benefit that supports them.

I join with my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy. People all over this nation, and without doubt communities around the world, right now are with the miners at Pike River and their families, heart and mind, who are waiting in such difficult and incredibly uncertain times.

New Plymouth mother Natricia Herk has flown down to Greymouth. Her son Daniel, a father of two, is one of the 29 miners. There were 31 men in the mine. Two men, Daniel Rockhouse and Russell Smith, escaped through a service portal, and walked 1.5 kilometres to safety. That leaves 29 other men—24 New Zealanders, two Australians, two Britons and one South African—who have not emerged.

It is certainly in the worst of times, such as this, that the best of communities pulling together is so important. Today we acknowledge the tremendous pressure facing the families of the miners and the people of Greymouth. We are thankful that technical expertise from around the country and around the world is focusing on the effort to bring the men out. A small snippet of hope occurred when a robot was sent into the mine to find out what the conditions were like, and it captured new images, including a miner’s helmet with the light still on. But, in contrast, we can imagine the utter disappointment that everybody at Pike River would have felt this morning that after the bore-hole was completed, the gas samples were off the limit, and it is still not safe to send in rescue teams. We are grateful that expertise from around the nation and around the world is contributing to the effort at Pike River.

We think about the people who are fronting the efforts to launch the search and rescue of the miners: Pike River Coal chief executive, Peter Whittall, and the Tasman area police commander, Superintendent Gary Knowles. These men, who have behind them an army of experts and teams of search and rescue personnel, are working with very anxious and distressed family members to keep them informed of progress. They also have to front up to the questions of the worldwide media every day asking why this happened, whether it could have been stopped, and what went wrong and why. Their No. 1 job right now is gathering data and coordinating the search and rescue efforts. I have been very impressed with their presence of mind in such gruelling circumstances—their expertise and professionalism is evident. We can have confidence in their leadership in such a crisis.

The time will come for all the questions that are being asked to be answered. Undoubtedly, there will be a full inquiry to discover the sequence of events that led to the explosion in the Pike River coalmine and to find out why those events occurred. But right now, we are focused on the most critical matter of being able to launch that search and rescue team at the moment it is deemed safe for those in the mine and for those seeking to save them. It is very important to support the families, friends, and community during this time.

Recently, I was speaking to a group of leaders in the energy exploration sector. There is a sense of affinity amongst prospectors and miners. These people work incredibly hard in demanding situations to harvest the earth’s resources for the benefit of our way of life for all people. New Zealand has a long history of coalmining, and an incident like this is the worst nightmare of those who work in the industry.

Taranaki, which is the energy province of New Zealand, is the centre of New Zealand’s oil, natural gas, and petrochemical industries. Almost 90 percent of the sector’s total nationwide employment is based in the region, which generates $740 million worth of gross national product. All of New Zealand’s producing oilfields and gasfields are located in the Taranaki Basin. They are predominantly located onshore, but there are some significant basins offshore that require offshore processing platforms. On my visit to one of those offshore platforms, I soon saw the teamwork amongst the men. One can soon see that they depend on each other, and one can see the professionalism they employ in maintaining their safety standards. They are a rare breed, just like the miners of the West Coast of the South Island.

Like the previous speakers, Jonathan Young and others in this House, and elsewhere, I also acknowledge the pain and distress of the miners in Greymouth, and also their families, their community, and those who are working on the rescue. We pray for them, and hope all will turn out well.

I turn my attention to another matter, which is simply to express what a special privilege it is to be a member of a minority ethnic group, and also to be those people’s representative in Parliament—to be here representing their interests. In that capacity, we all know the expectations that our communities make on us, and how often those expectations are quite unreal. Our communities follow our actions, they meet us regularly, and they get quite upset when we cannot manage their expectations, be in two places at the same time, or let them down by taking a position that is different to the one they might have taken. Whenever that happens we are required to front up, to explain, and to be accountable for what we have done or not done.

So I have some understanding of what Pansy Wong might be going through at this time, and what her thoughts might be. But I am also certain that she wants to front up, because she wants to meet the expectations of her communities, and she wants to explain and do what is right because that is what our communities have socialised us to do. I believe it would not take much for Pansy Wong to know how many trips she had, and for what purpose she undertook them. She will know on which trips her partner went along with her, which ones were private and which were not, and which ones were paid for and the way they were paid for. If she is in any doubt, then she can stop and consult her husband, her diary, her chequebook, her bank statement, etc. Within a matter of hours, I imagine—a day at most—it is a fair expectation that she would then understand exactly where she had gone wrong and could have breached the rules, and then she would be able to front up. So it is a fair question to ask why she is not here to explain what that might be.

It is time, really, for Pansy Wong to front up and explain, because in that way she could meet the expectations of her community, as well. But the only explanation we have is that she is not being allowed to do so. She has been asked not to do that by the Prime Minister, and one has to wonder why that might be. Clearly, the Prime Minister has asked Pansy to go to ground, not to make any statements at all, and not to explain. Indeed, in advising her to take that position, the Prime Minister has actually made matters worse for Pansy Wong, and that is doing more damage to a member of an ethnic minority group who is held in high regard by her own people. Matters are being made worse.

The Prime Minister also shows a glaring lack of understanding of minority ethnic groups—ones he visits from time to time—and their cultural expectations and cultural practices. So we are left to wonder why that might be so. Is the Prime Minister playing for time? When the matter was first raised, he ridiculed Pete Hodgson for raising it, and then asked for a report. Now he is questioning the rules, and I wonder what will be the next series of prevarications he might take. This is not leadership; it is not a demonstration of a set of principles by which the country should be run, and by which the Prime Minister and members opposite would like to operate. He is seeking to justify and soften up the public—certainly, soften up what the public feels. There is some kind of softening up of the public going on in his saying that she has paid a heavy price already, and saying that it is not his problem has a ring of repetition from the past, as does talk of high standards being let down.

Pansy Wong should be here explaining, not just her own actions in this particular case but her lack of defence for the position of the Office of Ethnic Affairs, and an explanation of why the Office of Ethnic Affairs is being downgraded. Why has she not raised that with the many communities she has been visiting, week in and week out? It is their view that this is a downgrade, and that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs has not fronted up. Her communities are left feeling that it is OK for her to front up just to sing the praises of these communities. But when she needs to take their interests further, and it is their expectation that she will do that, she has not. So this is a disappointment. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.