General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. There could not be a greater contrast, in these very difficult times, between the positive and strong leadership from John Key and the desperate, the divided, and the dysfunctional Labour Party.

Members opposite just do not seem to get it that here we are facing the worst global downturn since the Great Depression and the biggest natural disaster this country has faced in half a century, as well as the awful mining tragedy at the Pike River mine. Now, more than at any time, we need strong, disciplined, and focused leadership. The Labour Party has proved in the last fortnight that it cannot manage itself, let alone govern this country. Let us look at the contrast.

Over the adjournment period the Prime Minister announced business and employment assistance for Christchurch. The Minister of Finance, Bill English, announced the delivery of more efficient and better public services. Gerry Brownlee announced decisions about Christchurch and the Government’s recovery plans for that city. In just 6 weeks, exactly today, since that massive quake struck Christchurch this Government has been focused on what matters: getting people’s water back on, which is now at 100 percent; getting people’s houses connected back on the electricity, which is now up to 99 percent; getting thousands of new heating systems so that people will be warm for winter; Anne Tolley is working on getting our schools up and running, and children back to school; and getting the sewerage fixed, which is back up now to 94 percent. It has been a sterling effort. I am proud of this Government and I am proud of those people doing the hard yards in Christchurch getting that city rebuilt. I compare the progress with cities like Kobe and San Francisco, and I say that we compare very well in the progress that we have made in just 6 weeks.

I note that there has been a new word added to New Zealand’s vocabulary—munted. I think it is because the people of Christchurch are too polite to use the f word when they describe buildings that have been wrecked. “Munted” is the perfect word to describe the Labour Party. Over the adjournment Labour has been dysfunctional, it has been divided, and it has been distracted. We have seen the Labour Party president attack the leader. We have seen MPs and candidates see that Goff just does not cut the mustard and has not managed things properly. We have seen torch-bearers for the left describing the Leader of the Opposition as the walking wounded and a Clayton’s leader.

It has become worse this week with Labour manipulating its party list. What does that say about the standard of the list that Labour does not want the next five people on the list back in Parliament, or are things so bad that those former Labour members do not want to be associated with the Labour caucus opposite? What is going on in respect of MMP is underhand, it is a rort, and it makes a farce of MMP. If Labour has so little confidence in its list, perhaps it should let those slots go to parties in this Parliament that have competent, fresh, and talented people who want to make a contribution to this Parliament. On the National list we have at least a dozen who would be up to the task of making a contribution.

Then we had the ridiculous spectacle of David Cunliffe demanding the resignation of the Minister of Finance over finance company collapses and the cost of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme. We would think these problems were of Mr English’s making. I remind members opposite that 36 finance companies had gone to the wall even before we came into Government. I commend Bill English and Simon Power for doing the hard yards without focusing on blaming the previous Labour Government.

How fascinating that the member who has just resumed his seat, Nick Smith, spent his whole time talking about the Labour Party, never once defending the Government’s record on the economy, when we have 180,000 people unemployed. National’s mishandling of the South Canterbury Finance collapse is a disaster of epic proportions, and New Zealand community assets will be flogged off to pay for it. Bill English and his mates turned down recapitalisation offers, which, on Treasury’s own documents, would have limited the liability to around $500 million. The actual tab is $1.2 billion, and rising.

What company’s chief financial officer would have made a $700 million cock-up and kept his job? He has bet the company, he has beggared a whole year’s Budget round, and he is still sitting there and blaming the Labour Party. He is blaming the Labour Party despite the fact that he signed the thing in and he extended it in the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme even though John Key says he had Treasury in his office week after week, month after month, since the day he was elected, telling him that South Canterbury Finance was a dog. But he rolled it over again in the deposit guarantee scheme.

We know that Fran O’Sullivan is no apologist for the Labour Party, but she says it is risible that the Government did not simply pull the plug when the finance company’s auditor, Ernst and Young, ran the ruler over it. I refer to her article in the New Zealand Herald of 1 September. She said: “Instead, South Canterbury became the beneficiary of an extended government guarantee—extraordinary given that KordaMentha had been advising the Government on South Canterbury since mid-2009.” She says that the Government could have mitigated the Crown’s overall exposure by putting South Canterbury Finance into statutory management months ago.

And we would add that the Government could have limited it later if it had accepted one of a number of bids for recapitalisation. Now, the Government may have been worried about an Australian merchant bank owning part of it—why, I do not know; it is supposed to be trans-Tasman friendly—but it cannot possibly object to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or Ngāi Tahu buying a slice, because they are not going anywhere. They were prepared to share the risk, but Bill English wanted all the risk for the taxpayer. Now the Government is sucking on a $1.2 billion kumara because it had pride and misjudgment, and it came before a big, big fall.

I want to know how bad those members’ mathematics is, and why, but I also want to know what pressures were brought to bear on the Government for that colossal cock-up. I suspect that there were various constituencies in members’ ears asking “What about our debt?”. Why was it that when the recapitalisation discussions were going on, on 31 August, the Government insisted the company be thrown into receivership to wipe out all the equity holders but was happy to extend the debt guarantee so that every deposit holder did very well—and some did extremely well, especially some of the institutional senior debt holders. They made a killing at the taxpayers’ expense while mum and dad Kiwi are picking up the tab and now are faced with the prospect of privatisation to fill in the hole.

People out there might ask: “Is this a big problem, really? How big is this?”. Well, the difference between what the Government thought it was going to pay and what it has ended up paying is, wait for it, a whole year’s Budget round of new money. Seven hundred million dollars is the amount that John Key just announced he was cutting out of the Budget, to make the blackest zero Budget in decades, and $700 million, ironically, is the amount it has lost so far, over and above Treasury’s own estimates of its liability—it is a $700 million mistake. Who else survives a $700 million mistake in the real world? People get sacked for less than that. Why is Bill English still sitting there? Jami-Lee Ross would have been sacked from the council if he had made a $700 million mistake—they would not have let him near a $700 million cheque.

💬 David Shearer: Just as well.

Just as well! Can members imagine Mr Quinn making a $700 million mistake? Well, I can, but I cannot imagine him having the cheque book. Bill English has made a $700 million mistake. Has John Key defended him?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s fixing up your mess!

Oh, our mess? Who signed it in? There was a bipartisan agreement on the deposit scheme, but National signed it in.

Goodness me! What a lot of nonsense from the member opposite, David Cunliffe. What I find more interesting is seeing who got to lead the general debate for the Opposition this week, after weeks of speculation about leadership. David Parker had a half-page write-up in the New Zealand Herald at the weekend, and there was one column for David Cunliffe on page 3—one paragraph—and a big half-page on that other chap from Wellington—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Grant Robertson.

There were three lines for David Cunliffe at the bottom of an article in the fourth section—the business section. What has been embarrassing for his leadership potential was his ridiculous call yesterday for Bill English to resign. David Cunliffe was pressured a bit and he then called for the whole Government to resign. Simon Mercep says David Cunliffe is a man who can cope under pressure! David Cunliffe got pushed on from calling for Bill English to resign to calling for the whole Government to resign. That indicates the real level of dysfunction in the Labour Party and how the members are managing the party’s own internal problems.

We have seen it all before. I have lived it many times when I was in Opposition. I know exactly the dynamic that is going on in Labour now. As there are uninspired beat-ups on potential leadership candidates, those who have seen themselves as the heir apparent for the last 2 years can see the poisoned chalice slipping further and further from their grip. That explains so much of Mr Cunliffe’s quite bizarre behaviour in the last while.

It is not just Mr Cunliffe; Phil Goff joined in the story that the whole Government should resign and that we should have a snap election. Well, “Make my day!” was the message from members on this side of the House. Phil Goff quickly reeled himself back in.

On Monday night Labour launched its big campaign to stop asset sales in New Zealand. It was about 7 p.m. after the news cycle and hardly anyone was at the meeting. Labour wants to stop the asset sales. The reason people were not there is that Phil Goff and Annette King were in a Government that sold $9.5 billion of public assets. Phil Goff was first up to sell New Zealand Steel, Petrocorp, and the Health Computing Services in 1988. Then Annette King and Phil Goff while in Government sold DFC New Zealand. Do members remember that? Then Phil Goff and Annette King sold New Zealand Post. Do members remember when the Crown owned New Zealand Post, over 20-something years ago? Well, Phil Goff and Annette King sold it. Then they sold the Shipping Corporation of New Zealand and Air New Zealand. Then they sold huge amounts of Landcorp and, goodness gracious, they sold the Rural Bank. Phil Goff and Annette King then sold the Government Printing Office and the National Film Unit, and then they sold State Insurance—

💬 Chris Tremain: What, 51 percent or—?

No, they sold the whole lot—$735 million. They sold the Tourist Hotel Corporation. Then Annette King and Phil Goff sold the New Zealand Liquid Fuel Investment and Māui Gas for $350 million. Then they sold Telecom.

Phil Goff does not ever want this Government to sell a quarter of anything, but he was happy to sell all of Telecom to majority foreign owners for $4.25 billion. Then only a few weeks before the election, he was prepared to sell the forestry cutting rights for just short of a billion dollars.

It is little wonder that no one can take that voice of the past seriously when he and his deputy were in a Government 20-something years ago that sold $9.5 billion worth of public assets. Labour members are grasping for any issue to try to cover up Labour’s lack of policy, lack of cohesion, and lack of commitment to dealing with the issues that really matter to New Zealanders.

We have not seen anyone from the party opposite really focusing on what matters to New Zealanders, which is getting the cost of running their businesses down and job creation.

Tony Ryall was the second speaker from National we have heard in the general debate, and neither of them referred to their management—or, as we call it, mismanagement—of the economy, because the news is so bad. The National Government was elected on the promise to close the wage gap with Australia, but it is growing. The National Government was elected on the promise of creating a stronger and brighter future for New Zealand, but it has become dimmer. The National Government was elected on the promise to cause a step change in the New Zealand economy, but we are in a second recession, or close to that. The National Government is so fixated on Labour that it does not get on and manage the economy as it ought to.

In the face of criticism that the National Government has fiddled while the economy has burnt, National has now come back with a plan to sell part of the State-owned enterprises, particularly part of the electricity-related State-owned enterprises. We heard the list from Tony Ryall, and he still does not get it. The sale of Government-owned infrastructure assets with monopoly characteristics results in overseas ownership. The profits flow offshore, and there are increased prices to the cost of consumers while the infrastructure is run down. That was the experience with Telecom and New Zealand Rail, and that will be the experience in respect of the electricity companies if the Government sells them. They are two sides of the same coin. If the Government strengthens the private sector ethic in respect of those State-owned enterprises, they will both cut costs and increase prices to the maximum.

We know that the electricity market is uncompetitive. There were $4.3 billion of excess profits stripped out of it. The Commerce Commission found that out just after Labour left office, when the commission reported back on the inquiry we had started. Since then the Government has done nothing, and prices continue to go up. We have a flat economy. We have flat demand for electricity, yet dividends go up and prices continue to go up. The sale of electricity State-owned enterprise interests will put up electricity prices.

It is fair to question the economic mismanagement by the Government. The latest example we have is South Canterbury Finance. Yes, it came into the guarantee scheme. No one is complaining that it came into the guarantee scheme.

💬 Paul Quinn: You put it there.

No, we did not. But then the liabilities grew by hundreds of millions of dollars, because the Government let that risk grow, despite the fact that it admits that it was warned by KordaMentha and others that the liabilities were growing and South Canterbury Finance was being mismanaged. Then when the issue came to a head, the Government had the ability to make the losses lower than they have been. It could have put South Canterbury Finance into statutory management. Sandy Maier, who did that for DFC, was there to manage it. He could have done it, as he did for DFC. Fran O’Sullivan has made that point, and it is fair. Further than that, the Government could have had the liabilities capped at about $500 million by accepting the offer from third parties to recapitalise South Canterbury Finance. But no, Bill English and John Key knew better than to do that.

What has been the outcome? It is $1.2 billion of losses, instead of $500 million of losses. There should have been only $300 million of losses, but the Government let the liability grow from the time that South Canterbury Finance came into the guarantee scheme until it went broke. Even putting that aside, the Government caused an additional $500 million worth of losses.

This Government has no plan. That is why we have an economic malaise. That is why we have unemployment going up. That is why we have a $16 billion deficit, which is equivalent to 9 percent of GDP. The Government should not blame the deficit on the Christchurch earthquake. The Treasury re-estimation of the future economic progress of this country shows that more than half of the problems and deterioration—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Two-thirds.

My colleague says it is two-thirds—arise from factors other than the earthquake. The earthquake is cover for the Government to blame everything on that. The global financial crisis is also blamed. Other countries like the USA and the United Kingdom are popping out of the recession when New Zealand is going back into a second one, or is so close to doing it that it does not matter. We are in an economic malaise because the Government does not have a plan for the country. It knows about only one thing: tax cuts. Economic policy should be much broader than just tax cuts. Even in respect of the tax cuts, the Government got it wrong, because so much was directed to the same small proportion of our population who will get the money if they sell the State-owned enterprise shares.

I begin by expressing my regret at the circumstances that led to the resignation earlier today of the Hon Darren Hughes as a member of Parliament, and wishing him well for his future.

I feel a little bit like the gap between the two opposing forces at this stage, because I do not want to join the debate that has been taking place; I want to talk instead about a significant announcement made earlier today that will have vast positive implications for the recreational hunting sector in New Zealand. I want to talk in particular about the decision to establish a new Game Animal Council as a statutory body. The idea was borne out of two confidence and supply agreements by United Future with both the previous Labour Government and the current National Government, and is the end of a long progression of events that have had a very positive outcome. I acknowledge at the outset the four Ministers of Conservation under both Governments, and a variety of other people who have played a role in bringing things to the stage they are today—in particular, the Hon Margaret Austin, who chaired the original consultation panel established in 2006, for the work she did, and Garry Ottmann, who chaired the establishment committee that was set up after the 2008 election to oversee the development of the council.

We have now probably the most significant development for recreational hunting in New Zealand since the passage of the Wild Animal Control Act over 30 years ago. I have had some people say to me that the completion of this exercise is really the culmination of work that was under way at the time that Fish and Game was established as a statutory body in 1990. We will now see a process whereby deer, chamois, tahr, and pigs will be taken out of the status of being pests, and treated as game animals, and they will therefore be able to come within the ambit of the Game Animal Council and managed as such. The good news is that access to the game animal resource will remain free for all New Zealand hunters. We will finance the arrangement by a levy on the trophies taken by overseas hunters coming to this country, plus a very small Government contribution.

This is a win-win, because it enables the growing hunting sector—the commercial hunting sector, recreational hunting sector, and those who come from overseas—to enjoy what they do best to therefore help manage the resource, which in some people’s eyes does have a pest status. It is also good news for our environment. I welcome the support we have received already for this initiative from a number of organisations that have an interest in this area. I am very disappointed that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has chosen to take a negative and somewhat inaccurate view of things. This is not about charging New Zealand hunters for accessing a resource they have always enjoyed; in fact, the price will be borne by offshore hunters who come to this country.

It is about a better way of managing a resource. It is a better way of ensuring that those New Zealanders who like to go out and enjoy the great outdoors and hunt those animals are able to do so in better surroundings. We recognise that a significant number of New Zealanders are in that category. The original panel received over 4,500 submissions arguing for this very proposition. All the consultations, discussions, and meetings that have been held up and down the country with interested parties during the establishment committee process have shown very strong support for the initiative.

Today is the culmination of a process that has been under way for a very long time. It marks a new dawn for those who enjoy hunting. It is part of the New Zealand heritage for many New Zealanders, and it will be welcomed up and down New Zealand. Once and for all, it ensures that the interests of the recreational hunting sector and the burgeoning commercial hunting role, plus some of the more exclusive lodges, will get a say in the policy and management of the resources, which they have always argued for. This will lead to better information and a much safer environment all round, and it will also ensure we are able to deal with the fundamental problems that have led us for so long to treat those animals as pests.

Perhaps in an oasis of calm in the political storm around us, it is timely to take the opportunity today to celebrate this positive initiative, to acknowledge the work of those who have brought it about, and to wish the council well for its future.

It is very important that when a world event comes to Aotearoa all dimensions of our Aotearoa identity are put on show, so I have no doubt in my mind that the current Minister of Māori Affairs, a very important figure in te Ao Māori, means well when he seeks to project the identity of the people for whom he has, if not a literal, then a figurative, responsibility through the political process. As much as it pains us to be accused of making a mockery of a small hapū in Ngāti Whātua, the notion that a plastic waka—a “Tupperwaka”—is a suitable vessel to reflect the aspirations, the dreams, of day-to-day Māori families living in Auckland, and throughout New Zealand, cannot go unchallenged. It may come to pass that the notion of a “Tupperwaka” is a Walt Disney creation. I have listened to “Goofy” over there, and to “Mickey Mouse”, straight out of Disneyland; we have learnt to tolerate those contributions. I will not debate who National believes is “Goofy” or “Mickey Mouse”. Its members will make that decision when they make up their list. But I can tell the House that a few of the people on that list will be on the plastic fantastic out of this joint, because they will no longer have a future amongst that particular waka.

I need to come back to what is really serious about this debate: Māori unemployment is out of control. Māori achievement, in terms of our young men and women in Tāmaki-makau-rau, is worsening by the year. The sense of hopelessness and depression amongst ordinary families as they struggle to pay their bills is deteriorating. But what do we hear as to how those people might be uplifted through the World Cup experience? We hear that $2 million will be used to make a “Tupperwaka”, and that it is likely to be then dismantled or destroyed after it has been used for 17 days. Well, I know that the former Minister of Māori Affairs and his friends cannot actually divide 17 into 2 million, but it adds up to a substantial amount of money each day for a pitifully low return, and it is nothing to do with what young people want to show on behalf of their country. What about the thousands of artisans, and the thousands of people doing voluntary work or lowly paid work in art, culture, recreation, and entertainment? Not a sliver of opportunity has been given to them to participate in a non-contestable process. No, they will be served up this garish image, as if somehow all we can develop for Aotearoa, in order to project ourselves to the rest of the world and to introduce some indigeneity into that projection, is a plastic, ill-conceived, hastily executed waka.

This diminishes the concept of waka. In the north, we have the true tohunga who has revived waka, Hector Busby. Was he given the opportunity? Were his people given the opportunity to participate? We could actually have had something that reflected authenticity.

💬 Paul Quinn: You’ve got my waka—Mātaatua. Bring it back!

I realise that upon hearing the word “authenticity” that man breaks out in boils; those boils are in a very, very large mouth. It is not my problem that those members do not care about authenticity and identity. Those members belong to the National Party yet they try to pretend they are Māori, so they have a deep, DNA-based problem, anyhow.

No, it is a reasonable criticism to make. At a time when thousands of garden-variety Māori families are struggling, all they can hear about from the Minister of Māori Affairs is a plastic waka and a Clayton’s seabed and foreshore. In addition to that, even if they have not got enough kai on their table in Tāmaki-makau-rau, they can look at the Auckland Harbour Bridge on one day per year and see a flag fluttering.

These are trinkets; these are empty symbols. These are not the sentiments of the finer qualities that New Zealanders should be proudly projecting to the rest of the world. Only Hosea Gear and Piri Weepu being in the All Blacks will show there is Māori pride in the World Cup. Kia ora tātou.

Anybody who clapped for that speech from Shane Jones has to be off the planet. After the troubles Labour has gone through in the last week, we would have expected the leader and deputy leader to be on their game, up front in the general debate. But who do we have? First of all, we had the Hon David Cunliffe, and we have to be very careful about how we spell that. Then we had David Parker, the quiet one. I remember when I was a lad, listening to the wireless on a Sunday morning, and hearing the story about quiet ones. Then we had Shane Jones. I always thought Shane Jones would make a great leader of the Labour Party. I asked myself whether we really want Phil Goff to go or whether we want some new leader. I thought to myself that it would be a scary thing to have a new leader going into an election. We would not know who we would have. Well, I tell members this: bring it on. Let us have Shane Jones, let us have David Parker, and let us have Mr Cunliffe from New Lynn, even though he lives in Westmere, that real posh place of Auckland.

I want to go even further. I want to go even further, and it is about the waka. It is about contemporary art, not the sort of art that we all know Mr Jones likes to watch. It is not that sort of contemporary art. It takes leadership to see beyond the sort of stuff we are hearing from Shane Jones—actually, the “Three Amigos”. Those members are the “Three Amigos”. When I think of the contemporary art in this country, I think of guys like Shane Cotton and I think of guys like Parekōwhai, who are brilliant artists. Then I hear from Shane Jones, who wants to go backwards instead of going forwards. I tell members something that we should all put out: come the Rugby World Cup, if we ever see Shane Jones or any one of the Labour caucus having a free beer inside that really nice waka, well, I will be damned; I will come straight back here and tell the nation that they are a pack of hypocrites—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having suffered an invitation to sit before for using the word “hypocrite”, I ask you to please invite the member to withdraw that term. There was nothing hypocritical about what I said, and I will be there as a Golden Oldies Rugby Festival player.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I was listening very carefully to what the member was saying. He did not actually call anyone a hypocrite; he said that if—if—certain members were to have a drink in this waka, he would come back down here and accuse them of being hypocrites. He has not done that, so I cannot really call him to order. He did not accuse anyone in this House of being a hypocrite.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that. I say that I will come back here and maybe I will not use the word “hypocrite”, because that might be a bit too harsh, but I will certainly tell the nation what these guys got up to. They have not supported anything to do with the Rugby World Cup. This is the one opportunity this year, in a year of heartache, that we have to celebrate this nation, and all we hear from the “Three Amigos”—the “Three Amigos”—is nothing short of a traitorous act on our nation. We should be proud of our nation. We should be proud of our culture. I apologise if I have ruffled anybody’s feathers—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need any assistance. Members must not accuse another member of being traitorous. On this occasion I think the member has gone too far. I ask him to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw and apologise. It is not on. Maybe members opposite would have got to their feet earlier if I had not helped them. It is like this: support our nation, support the Rugby World Cup, and support our people. This is about all of us in this country—Māori, Pacific Island, Pākehā, you name it, whatever we have in us.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: We’re all in the same boat.

We are all in the same waka. I realise why some members across the way do not want to be part of the game, why they do not want to play the game, but it is time for us to get on board with each other and play the game together.

There is no justification for the Intelligence and Security Committee to hold secret hearings on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. The whole process around this bill has been a mockery of open government. The first bit of the process was similar to many bills. On 18 December a small advert was put in the newspaper public notices calling for submissions by 18 February. But most people do not follow the public notices every day. They rely on finding out from the parliamentary Internet what is happening to bills and when submissions are due. However, nothing was on the parliamentary Internet. Some very frustrated people phoned me and I informed them that they could make submissions by 18 February. I presume some did, but when I asked today who had submitted, I was told by the committee that “This is a secret.”

There is no need for this secrecy, and it departs from the normal practice of select committees, which is for the media to be notified which submissions are coming up the next day so that they can plan which sessions to attend, along with the general public. Of course, this time nobody other than the submitter will be allowed to attend, and even the submitter is not allowed to know who else has submitted on the bill. If submitters want their submission known, they have to go to the effort of promoting it to the media, as the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions did today and as I will also be doing. However, as anyone who has ever attended a select committee knows, a lot of the value in submissions lies in the exchanges between the submitter and committee members, where the submitter’s points are elucidated and are often taken by the committee, which is convinced to amend the bill accordingly.

When asked to provide a reason why the hearings were to be in secret, John Key said yesterday: “Bluntly the reason for it is there are holes in the current legislation—now we can have that debate in the public about what those holes are or we can take submissions from people and we can fix them.” The obvious answer is to ask why not do both—have a public debate and have hearings, which should be in public—or is the Prime Minister advancing some strange argument that there is currently some limitation on the SIS powers that is not publicly known, and that if this became known in committee hearings, terrorists might use the knowledge of those limitations to escape detection between now and the third reading of this bill in Parliament? It all sounds weird, but this whole process of avoiding public hearings is very weird.

In my opinion the real reason is that the SIS and the Minister in charge want to avoid any serious public scrutiny of SIS activities and the laws that govern their operation, and any real debate in Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee can get away with this because it is not a select committee of this Parliament but a statutory committee made up of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and their appointees. There is no evidence that the committee’s scrutiny of the SIS is anything but perfunctory. Its report on last year’s SIS financial review was simply that it had no matters to bring to the attention of the House.

The committee, under its legislation, is quite capable of meeting in public by agreement amongst its members, as it certainly should in this case. By imposing secrecy on the hearing of submissions on the bill, the committee is reinforcing the major point in the Green Party’s submission that we should not be giving the SIS more powers to intrude into the private lives of citizens when it is such an unaccountable organisation in virtually every respect. This contrasts with the police—the agency responsible for detecting all kinds of crime, including politically motivated crime. We would not dream of holding all the hearings on a police amendment bill in secret. This raises the question of why we need the SIS when the police are quite capable of catching terrorists, saboteurs, or anyone who might be a danger to our national security. The police are much more accountable to Parliament and the people.

Before I call the next member, I say to members that during the general debate, to have a member to read a speech word for word is somewhat troubling. I do not want to prevent members from doing it, but this is the general debate and the contribution was not that technical. I am sure that a very experienced member like Mr Locke does not really need to read it word for word.

I want to focus on a few things that matter. We have lost a lot following two major earthquakes—homes and businesses—people have lost family members, and many things have occurred. Across my city relationships have been ruined and people have lost loved ones. The most horrific things I want to talk about are the things that matter. My uncle not only lost his home, his business, and members of his own family but also saw three people killed in front of him. For him the earthquakes we have gone through have been horrific. We have broken water supplies, broken sewer pipes, and rather dodgy electricity. We have had some schools destroyed, as well. But in all that adversity that Cantabrians have seen, there have been some funny things. Cantabrians have comedy in adversity. I must admit that one of the great things I have seen is a video clip on YouTube called “There is a fraction too much liquefaction”. I encourage as many members as possible to see that video clip and the comedy that exists in times like this, which helps some people get through.

The people of Canterbury are strong, resilient, and optimistic. Yes, about 5 percent of Cantabrians have decided to leave the city and they may not come back for some time. There may be about 15,000 or 20,000 people in that situation. About 40,000 people went away for 2 to 4 weeks and have come back to the city. Some may not be able to return safely to their homes. My city is broken but not beaten. Parts of it are even munted. “Munted” is a great new term, and the Hon Nick Smith referred to it earlier. There are two different flavours of “munted”—there is “munted” and “mega-munted”. “Munted” is a great word that is often used in Christchurch to describe things that are so broken they cannot be fixed. I am told that “munted” is officially in the Oxford Dictionary and it will continue to be so. It will be referred to as a common phrase used in Canterbury. We have met some great people and personalities in relation to our earthquake. In particular, I refer to Mayor Bob Parker and his orange parka, which is now so famous it has its own Facebook page. This is another example of the differences that occur in Canterbury.

The Crusaders are back winning again. They are not playing in Christchurch yet but they are training there. Richie McCaw is back training again in Christchurch—a very good sign as we lead into the Rugby World Cup. Our professional netball team, the Tactix, are back, and they won their first game.

💬 Todd McClay: Who’s going to win the World Cup?

Of course we are going to win the World Cup. I can tell Mr McClay that as long as Mr McCaw is back and fit we will win the World Cup. For Cantabrians sport is an important thing. Some people say sport is a very important matter, but in Canterbury it is not a matter of life and death, it is more important than that.

In other parts of Christchurch and in other parts of Canterbury there is a thing called quake normality. In the western suburbs of Christchurch, the bars, the restaurants, the garages, and the shops look like everything is back to normal again, but on my side of town, in the eastern suburbs, that is not so. Thousands of people have been busy working, putting in emergency power cables so we can have power for the winter, and fixing sewer lines and water pipes so we can drink the water and actually be able to flush our toilets at some stage in the near future.

I want to thank a few people. I thank the contractors, partly funded by the Government, who have fixed the road humps and the road bumps to help things get back to normal; the churches that have housed, counselled, and fed people; and the food banks that have given out thousands of food parcels. I want to make particular mention of one gentleman called Kerry Bensemann and 0800 Hungry. It is New Zealand’s largest food bank, whose own buildings have been destroyed in Wainoni, but which has given out over 6,000 food parcels in the space of the last month. I was blessed over those few weeks, with some colleagues of mine, to spend time handing out hundreds of those food parcels. To the consternation of the Labour Party, we do get out and work in food banks. I want to mention the Hon Rick Barker, in particular, who put aside political aspirations, I thought, and came to Christchurch and did some good work in my community. Although I was not quite sure what he was doing at the time, it turns out he was getting votes to be senior whip and it obviously was successful. I give thanks to the Salvation Army and to my senior whip, Chris Tremain, who despite turning up in Canterbury in Hawke’s Bay colours, black and white, which has to be seen as hostile, had the great pleasure of digging alongside me for a number of days, digging out Canterbury. I have now given him a Crusaders rugby jersey so he feels more at home and will be more welcome when he returns next time. I want to thank the builders who have been building chimneys and installing heat pumps, and the real army, which has given out 28,000 chemical toilets, including one to my own home, so people can have a functioning sewerage system.

During this time our Government has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in wage support, it has altered tax rules and benefit schemes, and it has improved and put in place an accommodation support package. We expect to spend billions of dollars over the next few years rebuilding Canterbury for the benefit of people. We have seen great support from the Government in terms of Mr Brownlee and his staff, who have been phenomenal as well, and in the next few weeks we will see the creation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, which will rebuild Christchurch the way we want it to be. Thank you.

The Alcohol Reform Bill is currently at the Justice and Electoral Committee. Submissions have been heard on the bill, and there is currently a hiatus. The public debate that was very vocal before the bill went to the select committee will soon be resumed, as the bill is due to be reported back on 11 May.

There are many issues with regard to this bill. It does not get the incentives in the right place, in my view, and I have been speaking about that for quite some time. If we believe for one moment that allocating to a dairy a certain amount of floor space for alcohol will change people’s drinking habits, then I think it is time to start at the start and completely rethink what the bill could realistically achieve. I do not think the bill even manages to identify the real issue that we have in New Zealand with alcohol, and that issue is, of course, binge drinking.

Much of the media focus on the bill before it went to the select committee was on the drinking age. As a result of that, much of the public focus has also been on that. Three options are likely to be put before this Parliament, and the age issue will, as is usual with alcohol issues, be a conscience vote. The first option is to leave the age where it is currently at, which is 18. I support that particular initiative. If we allow our young people to get married at 18, if we allow them to go off and fight in wars at 18, and if we allow them the great responsibility of voting at 18, then how on earth can we deny them the ability to have a drink at the age of 18?

Secondly, there will be those who want to raise the drinking age to 20. In fact, age is a complete red herring in this debate, and there are good arguments to have no drinking age at all. The debate will come down to whether the age should be 18 or 20, but we should consider this: there are respectable and responsible drinkers at age 18, and irresponsible drinkers at 18. The same applies at 20: there are responsible and irresponsible drinkers. The same applies at 30, 35, 60, 75, and, in fact, at 99, where we see people who have difficulties arising from the consumption of alcohol.

The third option is the split age: 18 years at pubs, and 20 years at off-licences. This option, really, is for those who want to have a bob each way, or who cannot make up their minds. Age is a red herring, and if we are to focus on the real issue, it is time that we looked at binge drinking and the things that will really work.

I can see only one good thing that has come out of the debate about this bill. That is the Keep it 18 campaign. Student politicians—as we all know from debate on other bills that have recently been before this Parliament, and will continue to be for some time yet—are hugely passionate. As we sit here today and have a boisterous debate—usually between the National Party and the Labour Party—we see that the smaller parties in today’s debate have taken a different line from National and Labour in what they have chosen to speak on. The Keep it 18 campaign could actually teach the parliamentarians in Parliament quite some lesson. The Keep it 18 campaign has been very sensible and reasoned. Most important, the campaigners have found a consensus, something on which they all agree, and they have worked very constructively towards a common goal. The Young Nats, Young Labour, ACT on Campus, and the Young Greens have joined forces to push the Keep it 18 campaign. They realise that age is a red herring, and they know that responsibility rests with them. They know that things do have to change in terms of binge drinking, and they have debated sensibly in this vein.

There is room in this Parliament, and in this nation, for consensus politics on some issues. The Keep it 18 campaign has shown us the way that we could move forward on a number of other issues, not just on the alcohol issue. We should be discussing in this alcohol debate the impediments that we should put on the consumption of drugs, alongside those on the consumption of alcohol. I think the really thorny problem that this Parliament has grappled with for a long time now—for decades—is that of superannuation. There are some issues where parties should agree on common goals, on common policies, and on how to move forward.

On 19 November last year a tragic event occurred on the West Coast. We had an explosion at the Pike River mine. There was shock, horror, and uncertainty as to what the result would be. Two people survived it, and we held out hope that maybe others would also. On 24 November, a second explosion occurred, at which time the people of the West Coast—families living in hope—realised that 29 more miners had been killed and were likely to remain in the Pike River mine until a recovery operation was completed. In the midst of that tragedy, I do not think any one of us would have guessed that within months we would have had a tragedy of far greater numbers over the hill in Canterbury.

None the less, on the West Coast much still remains unresolved. The recovery operation has been difficult, getting information from inside the mine has been difficult, and families have been put through a roller coaster ride of emotions. I cannot imagine what it has been like for them. This was New Zealand’s worst mining disaster since 1914, and there have been many rumours, much speculation, and many theories running around the West Coast since that time. However, people have lived in hope that the remains of their family members—their brothers, their husbands, their partners—could be brought from the mine. There was the transfer of the mine from the police jurisdiction into the hands of the receivers, and there was uncertainty about that, as well.

There was also the national memorial service, which John Key and other Ministers came to. Commitments were given to the families not just then but prior to that. John Key said: “I gave a commitment to the families at Pike River I’d do everything I could to get their men out, I stand by that.” And people held out hope that that would give them assurance. We had the national memorial service, then there was an announcement that the recovery would continue, and the Prime Minister said we would do our very best. He also said there would be a royal commission of inquiry.

Yesterday another huge blow was brought to the families and the community in Greymouth when the Pike River mining company held an initial hearing—the royal commission of inquiry has not yet started—and said: “Sorry, we don’t have money and we don’t think we can participate in this royal commission.” People were flabbergasted because in spite of the greater number of people perishing in the Canterbury earthquake—and we must offer our sympathies to all of our families over there—thankfully most, though not all, of those bodies have been recovered. But for the Pike River families on the West Coast, the bodies have not been recovered and the issue remains unresolved. They cannot have closure. One of the things they had hoped for—in fact, perhaps the only thing they had hoped for—is that something would come from this terrible tragedy. In the past the lessons of such tragedies have been transferred through into mining regulations—better knowledge, better practice. The reality, of course, since 1992, when the National Government was last in power, was that it did away with mining regulations. I am sure that that will be a matter for much debate and discussion when the royal commission hears evidence. The possibility that the Pike River mining company will not be able to present all the knowledge and all the facts that it has regarding the planning, the development, and the operations of the mine is shocking to us all on the West Coast and, I think, to most people in New Zealand. We need to absolutely be assured that all the company’s records, all its knowledge, and its employees, past and present, will be available to give information to the royal commission. It is essential.

Although much weight is put on the status of the royal commission, we have seen in the past, unfortunately, examples where even royal commissions have not concluded accurately the information.

So who will it be, team? Will it be the Bulls or the Crusaders? At Alpine Energy Stadium on Saturday night, I am sure the Crusaders will prevail. There will be a full crowd, and I will be there cheering along the Crusaders, who are not quite on their own home turf but not far from it. There certainly will be a very supportive team there behind the Crusaders on Saturday night.

But who will lead the Labour team into the next election? I wonder. Phil Goff did not lead the general debate this afternoon, so maybe he is resting up and getting ready. It could be Trevor Mallard, David Cunliffe, Shane Jones, Grant Robertson, David Parker, or even Damien O’Connor. I bet that that is the first time someone has mentioned Damien as a potential leader this afternoon.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use the member’s full name or title.

My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. That will be the first time that Damien O’Connor has been mentioned as a potential leader this afternoon, I suspect. But that member should know that he got a vote in a Colmar Brunton poll. In an electorate close to mine on Sunday, somebody voted for him to be Labour leader, so there we go—well done!

The headlines have said it all—dog tucker. When the media start asking the members of a caucus whether they support their leader, it generally means the leader is dog tucker. John Armstrong said it more kindly when he said that Labour has no one else it can believe in. In the meantime, all New Zealanders are watching every single one of the contenders, dissecting every single move they make and the words they say. They are looking to see whether there is any disunity, whether anybody is trying to undermine the other potential leaders, or Phil Goff. I wonder who Helen Clark is voting for. It is a bit like picking a team at playtime, where each of the wannabes lines up and gets his team to fall in behind him. I ask members to imagine the uncertainty of wondering how many people will get behind each leader, and whether one leader’s line will be longer than the other’s. In the case of David Cunliffe, he will think his line will be long, even though it may not be.

💬 Hon Simon Power: Mirrors do that.

Yes, that is true. There has also been the bizarre suggestion of a genetic remix, which is a bit like Stars on 45, I think, which was a group that sang a catchy mix of tunes. Anyway, this remix is about Jacinda Ardern’s looks, Trevor Mallard’s mongrel, Shane Jones’ blokeyness, David Cunliffe’s intellect, and Louisa Wall’s sportiness, although she is not here yet. Well, I think they might get the genetic remix wrong. They might end up with Mallard’s boxing prowess, Shane’s penchant for movie watching—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is doing it again. You must use the members’ full names.

I will. There is also David Cunliffe’s disconnect instead of his intellect, Jacinda Ardern’s ability to talk for ages and say nothing, and as for David Parker, well, he used to be referred to in his electorate as “David Who”, and that will make it pretty hard for people to pick him for Prime Minister. These are scary times in the Labour caucus, but there is one thing I can tell members: Phil Goff has won the poll. What was that poll? His caucus has voted for him to lead Labour to defeat. No one else wants that job.

In the meantime, in my electorate of Rangitata, people really care about the economy of this country and the economics of their own pockets. That really is No. 1 for them. In terms of the talk about South Canterbury Finance, largely by the Opposition, there is a different perspective so close to home, and there are some facts that I need to get on the record today. Our Government has been quick to act on some fronts, but it beggars belief to suggest that we were responsible for South Canterbury Finance going into the retail deposit guarantee scheme—that happened on the day we were sworn in. We cannot possibly have been that quick.

In fact, it became clear to this Government from mid-2009 that South Canterbury Finance was in trouble. The Government’s objectives were to create certainty for the 35,000 investors around the country, many of whom are in my electorate; to reduce wider disruption to the business community, especially in the South Island; and to minimise the cost to the taxpayer—and minimising the cost to the taxpayer has always been a priority. The reality is far from the rhetoric we are hearing from the other side of the House.

Mr Trevor Mallard has suggested that Treasury did not want to admit South Canterbury Finance but was pressured by the Government. What a load of codswallop! That is an incredible falsification, even by Labour’s standards. The scheme was designed by Labour; it was announced at the opening of the 2008 election campaign. Labour wanted finance companies in. That is why it charged them no fees, even when more creditworthy banks were paying. Total fees collected from the retail and wholesale guarantees have been around $500 million.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.