General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I have previously personally congratulated the Hon David Cunliffe on his elevation to the Labour leadership, and I have now got the opportunity to publicly say to David Cunliffe “Good luck for the ride you have ahead.” I say that with some reservation because within 48 hours it looks very much to us as if it is just another David, another day, and another step to the left, as we see the disloyalty in the Labour caucus slowly beginning to foment.

I was just looking across the House at the front bench and thinking “What is going to be different next Monday? What is going to change next Monday?”. First I looked at the Hon Annette King and I thought that, no, you cannot bring back the man ban and get rid of Annette King. That just would not be compatible. Miss Ardern falls into the same category of protection. The man ban is on; therefore, they survive on the front bench. Then you go across to the other end and you look at Mr Twyford, and there is quite a dilemma in trying to assess what is going to happen, because we saw on TV one shot of him with Grant Robertson at his headquarters on Sunday and then, miraculously, moments later he was in the shot with David Cunliffe in Auckland. So he has got a fifty-fifty chance of surviving.

Then there is, of course, the inexplicable elevation of David Parker to the deputy leadership. We know what happened. There was a call for nominations for deputy leader, and there was a deathly silence. And then David looked up from inside his papers and said “What about me?”, and that was it. It was declared and the job was given to him.

Then there is Grant Robertson. Well, he is like Shane Jones. They both performed very well. They went around for 3 weeks saying what great buddies they all were, how much they appreciated each other, how much they admired each other, and how much they wanted to work with each other. So he has to stay and so does Shane. Mind you, I will say this about Shane. I think that if he just holds his water, all is going to be his before too long. I think the way he connected with the public was quite extraordinary—quite worrying, in fact, for someone on this side of the House. He is a man of extraordinary talents when it comes to communicating with ordinary New Zealanders, and I think that, within time, quite clearly, many of his colleagues, many of the 28 colleagues who did not vote for him, are going to come back to him.

That leaves just one possibility as a dead cert to be dropped off the front bench, and that is my Canterbury colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. This comes as a deeply disturbing thing for me because Clayton Cosgrove has spoken in the House 21 times since the beginning of 2012—not a bad sort of record for substantial speeches in the House. In every one of those speeches he has mentioned my name multiple times. It is almost a fixation that the poor man has. In the imprest supply debate he mentioned my name six times. In the Environment Canterbury bill debate it was five times. There are many threes, there are many fours, and there are many fives. I got mentioned six times in the Canterbury schools debate.

But, somewhat inexplicably, he mentioned me five times in the debate on the State-owned energy companies and the delay of the sale of Mighty River Power—five times. Then when it came to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill in Committee I got nine mentions—nine mentions. These were 5-minute speeches and I took up most of them. In the Address in Reply debate this year he outdid himself. In the Address in Reply debate he outdid himself. It was a 10-minute speech, and I got 11 mentions. That is one a minute. It is quite clear that the man thinks of nothing else but me. Clearly, he is a man who does not have his eye on his policy portfolio issues and who has a certain fixation with me, which is worrying because the deputy leader once had one of those as well.

This is a party going to the electorate promising to raise taxes for New Zealanders, promising all sorts of regulation of food price, for example, and regulation of taxi price, and increasing tax rates on anything other than personal income tax. And then there is this extraordinary thing where Labour says that it is going to extend Part 6A, the vulnerable worker provisions, of the Employment Relations Act. I want to know whether Mr Cunliffe is going to extend Part 6A to his own caucus.

It is very, very interesting, when the balloon rises, to hear from Gerry Brownlee, counting references to his good self in my colleague’s speeches just to ensure that he is being given the appropriate weighting. Where is the National front bench? He may be big, but he is not that big.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know that it is not appropriate to mention members’ absences from the House, but it should come as no surprise that when that member is on a speech, no one is here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part did not help the Minister himself. The member knows full well that that is not appropriate, but I am not saying that he did. He knows the rules and he will act responsibly.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. We have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact of the matter is that Mr Cunliffe did not offend the rules of this House—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member resume his seat. [Interruption] Would the member resume his seat. That is exactly what I said when I responded to the point of order. The member was quite within his rights in the way that he referred to “Where is the front bench?”. The member should listen before he rises to his feet. Would the Hon David Cunliffe please start his speech again.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, look—Labour is off and running. We have declared that the election campaign has started now and the National Party is rising to the occasion. Look at those members—such a bundle of energy!

💬 Hon Member: That’s their A-team.

That is the A-team. If the cap fits, wear it. We are ready to run because this is actually a very serious debate between a Labour Party that is revved up and ready to go to protect jobs, grow the pie, and close the gaps. And on that side, what have we got? Good old-fashioned crony capitalism.

In the last week we have seen handouts to Rio Tinto over the top of Treasury advice, personally orchestrated by the Prime Minister. We have seen Skycity, where the Government has mortgaged proper process in order to protect a casino and problem gambling is on the rise. We have seen the second-biggest corporate bailout in New Zealand history with the Chorus deal at $600 million. Those members cannot have it both ways. Either they got it terribly, terribly wrong and Kiwis are not hooking up to their ultra-fast broadband, or they have just done another sleazy deal for their mates. The one that cops it for me is snapper. Something so humble as the mighty snapper reveals what this National Government is all about. Hail-fellow-well-met has been laundered into good-fellow-well-kept.

This is not a Government focused on building a strong economy that works for Kiwi families; this is a Government focused on feathering the nests of its own big-business backers—shame! And there is Minister Bridges, the helium balloon with the perpetual grin, flying too high to the sun. How long will it take for the balloon to pop? He has never seen a province he could not drill. Well, we are going to take the smile off his face, and what about the smiling faces behind and beside him? You know, I think they must be reflecting on the Government’s economic credibility. That is why they are so happy. They are reflecting on the fact that in 4 years they have never run a surplus. How many? Zero. How many deficits under Labour? None—nine straight Budget surpluses. National—four straight deficits.

Here is another fact they do not like to admit. In the last 30 years economic growth and job growth have been higher under Labour Governments than under National Governments. Labour is the party to manage the economy. Around and beside me—with much more yet to be announced; there is more good news—let me draw attention to the Hon Shane Jones. He has better business networks than the entire National front bench. There is the proudly pointy-headed David Parker—

💬 Hon David Parker: Thank you.

—thank you—who knows more numbers than Bill English has had hot lunches, right? And Grant Robertson is at the front of the scrum, handing it out to those guys, with Clayton Cosgrove, Annette King, and Jacinda Ardern in support. No wonder they are looking forward to the fight. No wonder they are all here, brimming with enthusiasm.

This is a Government that looks like a third-term Government in its second term. This is a Government on its way out. And we are a Government on the way in, which is why from next week there will be a shadow Cabinet and, soon, a new Cabinet. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kei konei ahau e tū ana. Kei konei mātou o te Pāti Māori e tū ana i roto i te Whare Pāremata ki te rapu i tētahi kaupapa hei whakakotahi ai i ngā iwi o Aotearoa. Nā te mamae me te pōuritanga o Ngāi Māori i te tāhaetanga o te takutai moana, i pupū ake te riri i roto i a tātou. Te riri ki te Kāwanatanga, te riri ki tēnei Whare Pāremata, te riri ki ngā ture, ngā kawa, ngā whakahaere o tēnei Whare e pupuri ana i te tikanga Kāwanatanga mō Aotearoa whānui. Nā roto i tēnā riri ka tipu ai te kaupapa o te Pāti Māori.

Nā ō mātou whānau, hapū, iwi, ō rātou wawata, tūmanako ā-tikanga Māori, i whakatō ki roto i te Pāti Māori hai kawe ki roto i tēnei Whare. Nā, e te rangatira, ko tēnei te tīmatanga o te Pāti Māori me tō mātou hīkoi ki te whai i ngā kaupapa Māori mō tēnei Whare, mō tēnei Kāwanatanga. Anei ahau. Anei mātou o te Pāti Māori e tū atu nei hai māngai mō rātou, hai māngai mō ā tātou tīpuna, hei māngai mō ā tātou tamariki, mokopuna, whakatipuranga. E tū Māori ana mātou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. I am standing here and we of the Māori Party are standing here in Parliament House looking for a forum that will unite the tribes of New Zealand. Because Māoridom was hurt and saddened by the theft of the foreshore, fury welled up in us at the Government, at this House of Parliament, and at the laws, protocols, and procedures of this House that hold Government practice for New Zealand generally. The ideology of the Māori Party blossomed out of that indignation.

Our families, subtribes, tribes, their aspirations and expectations, and wise Māori lore were planted in the Māori Party to bring these forth into this House. This, then, is the genesis of the Māori Party and our journey to pursue Māori matters for this House and the Government. Here I am and here we are of the Māori Party standing before you as their representatives and as representatives for our ancestors, children, grandchildren, and the ones to come. We represent Māori.]

I want to tell you something about the Māori Party. Its members are unashamedly Māori. We are unashamed to say who we are, where we have come from, and whom we represent. We are a small party but we are a Māori Party. We are not encumbered by a caucus that puts Māori issues in a box. For us, every issue is a Māori issue. We are not encumbered by a caucus that will give lower priority to those issues in that Māori box, unlike this party over here that is making that noise. And when we measure Māori issues, we are not encumbered by having to consider those issues from any other viewpoint than our own Māori kaupapa.

When Ruatoki was raided by the police, as mandated by the Labour Government of the day, we did not have to negotiate our position with anyone else but Tūhoe. We stood by them. We continue to stand by them today. When injustice is present in our justice system, we do not have to ask permission to speak out; we speak out about the issues that we see. When the people of Mātaatua waka were faced with the Rena disaster, we were first there to voice our concerns over that issue. When our whānau are being disproportionately affected by the impacts of poverty, we move to action. We established the Ministerial Committee on Poverty and secured $1 billion worth of support for them. When the rights of Māori are threatened, we will be there. We will be there, and no one can stop us from standing by their side.

So I stand here today to say how proud I am to be part of a kaupapa that prioritises the aspirations, tikanga, and desires of the indigenous people of this land. I am proud to say that in everything we do, we are Māori. I tell you this because I am sick to death of hearing people debate Māori issues in a box. Generation after generation of our tīpuna have represented us in this House and have had their voices marginalised. I have seen this happen in every shape, every sphere, and every space in the political system. We had to fight the system in order to maintain our culture. We had to fight for our language. We had to fight for the Tiriti o Waitangi. We had to fight to maintain our Māori seats. This is not about fighting for fighting’s sake; this is about fighting for survival.

The job of the Māori Party is clear. As members of this House, we have a responsibility to support Māori issues. I want to say that the Labour Party had a huge opportunity to move forward our journey as Māori. It was an opportunity that it misused and overlooked. Despite what Shane said to me on Twitter this morning, which I put down to a basic need for my attention, he is part of my community. He is Māori, and he could have been the first Māori leader of the Labour Party, and thus possibly the first Māori Prime Minister. That opportunity was wasted, and despite my feelings about that party, I am sorely, sorely disappointed that Labour did not take that step for the Māori people. This is from the very party that claims to hold Māori aspirations on high.

What that tells me is that the Māori Party, although small, still has a very important role to play in keeping Māori issues in front of minds and in front of the House, because Labour cannot and will not do this for Māori. Tēnā koe.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On the point of survival, we have just heard from what must pass as the ethnic equivalent of Māui’s dolphin—an endangered species that is nice to have but will struggle to survive. Set-net bans will not save that particular group of people. Māoridom no longer wants a gerontocracy. Māoridom does not want, for example, that person who currently chairs—if I can call the Māori Party Maui’s dolphins, I can call the current chair of Māori Television, former National Party MP Georgina te Heuheu, the moa of Māori broadcasting. She must go.

But on the point of going and resignations, no one deserves more attention than Mr Steven Joyce, the laundryman on the seventh floor of the Beehive, with a laundromat that has laundered taxpayers’ largesse No. 1 to the media company of which he was a former shareholder. As if that in itself was not a sackable offence, the man goes on to wear that stunt as a crowning glory. Then, just to show that he does enjoy his actual appellation—i.e., that he is a slugger; focus on “slug”—he turns round today and defends a $1 billion interest-free loan to further cronies of his, Chorus. But to top it off, he goes to the blackjack table and hands over $400 million to the casino.

Where there is a pool of liquidity that the State has ownership over, you will find that parliamentarian slaking at it. That is why he deserves the moniker “The Lizard” or the “Reptile of Parliament”. He has the feature of being utterly cold-blooded. He wonders about only one thing: money. He is disdainful of the community, sneers at our regions, and is scornful of levels of propriety and integrity that should belong to a person in this House of such seniority in the Cabinet. That man is a confluence where personal affluence has become political effluence. Up and down this country we remind New Zealanders that in his hands if you screech loud enough or if you yell loud enough, you will be paid out. That will not turn round the 154,000 New Zealanders who have been left on the scrap heap or the 45,000 New Zealanders each year who find that the only succour available to them is a trans-Tasman flight.

I actually do think that Bill English is an old-time patrician. I can see a little bit of Holyoake, a bit of Birch, and a bit of Bolger in him. But in that man, Steven Joyce, I see the servant of Caesars Palace. He will not uphold the standards of this legislature. He is fast and loose with the most sacred of responsibilities: being a good steward of this House’s reputation and maintaining high levels of probity. He enjoys being known as the slugger of his party. Well, I was probably going to give that to Gerry, but given that I am quite partial to him from time to time, I do not want him to think of me as regarding him as an insect when there is a far better candidate to be known as very reptilian, cold-blooded, and driven only by personal gain and commercial accumulation. That person, I say to you, has sold out the regions, has sold a pup to the Māori Party—which will soon disappear—but, most important, shows an utter disregard for the day-to-day woes that afflict our families and our households. And somehow he wears that knowledge with a mask of pride, a perpetual sneer. I look forward to the opportunity, once we have settled our roles on this side, of wiping that sneer off his face and wiping the smirk off the pup of Tauranga’s face. That is the level of commitment we bring to our job. Kia ora tātou.

I watched the news on TV this morning, like the rest of New Zealand, and it got me thinking about Team New Zealand and Oracle Team USA. When the winds did not cooperate and the boats could not sail, I immediately thought of team Labour and poor old—young old—Chris Hipkins. He is obviously very, very upset to have been dumped from being chief whip to chief nobody. But can he be surprised when, characteristic of the disunity on that side of the House, Mr Hipkins had opined on Television One: “David Cunliffe has been working for some time now to destabilise the current leadership. He worked to destabilise the last leadership. And I think it’s time to call him out on that.” Well, look what happens when you call to account the latest leader of the Labour Party. You get dumped. I guess it gives new and pungent meaning to the term “What goes around, comes around”.

Actually, I am quite keen to get a new education spokesperson. I would like Grant Robertson, but then so did the caucus, apparently, and it did not get him either. When Mr Cunliffe said he was not out for retribution, it is a bit like Larry Ellison saying that he is really relaxed about how well Team New Zealand is doing. It should be taken with a grain of salt.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Or like you saying: “Charter schools won’t teach creationism.”

Thanks to that member for bringing me to my next point. When we announced partnership kura yesterday, we announced the facts of them. For the first time, the latest Labour leader actually remarked on education “It is to use no facts whatsoever. It is to say they are unaccountable.”, when, in fact, they are going to be reporting four times a year to the Ministry of Education, which is not required of schools. They are going to be monitored not only by the Education Review Office but by the Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua Authorisation Board. The latest Labour leader said that they were going to be businesses, but, in fact, four are charitable trusts and one is a private training establishment. The latest Labour leader said that they would not be meeting the needs of those we are targeting, when, in fact, they are required to have 75 percent. So if that is the kind of reliability that we can expect from the latest Labour leader, then I think we will continue to see the disunity of the mob opposite.

On this side of the House we are focused on an education policy. Indeed, my colleague the Hon Anne Tolley has indicated today that we are interested in education all over New Zealand’s system, both in schools and in prisons, and in how we make sure that people are skilled for the workforce and for the economy, about which the latest Labour leader speaks but has no policy as to how it is actually going to be achieved. Guess what! Education policy is not about closing schools, as it was under that party. You actually have to educate young people.

If that Opposition would like some example of how to work together, perhaps its members could look at yet another initiative of this Government, called Excel Rotorua. It is an innovative approach to raising achievement that relies on a community working together—something that the Labour Opposition might need to take heed of. It puts children at the heart of the attention, it encourages the leaders and the teachers to work together, it engages parents, and it focuses on a result and outcome, which is that every young person will be successful.

💬 Sue Moroney: Then they lived happily ever after.

Well, the prospects of living happily ever after under this Government are so much higher than under the approach of the disunited rabble and the latest Labour leader on that side of the House. I opened my remarks by commenting on the fact that Chris Hipkins has been removed from the whip’s role and has instead been replaced by greater stridency, uninformed by thought. If that is the characteristic of the Opposition, then we can look forward to increasing disunity.

One of the things that I do want to comment on—because, again, on this side of the House we actually do require meritocracy and we have not had to resort to silly policies about how the Labour Opposition might increase the number of women in its party. In fact, we are about to celebrate Suffrage Day tomorrow. What we will be focusing on is encouraging more qualified, intelligent, articulate, capable, and competent women of the kinds we see here on this side of the House, who can win elections because they have policies. They understand that the country—

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

I will change gear a little bit, and I apologise to those who love the fray for not slagging anyone off in this speech. I would like to speak on the theme that was just raised by the previous speaker, the Minister of Education, about suffrage. This week we will be celebrating 120 years of women being able to vote for members of this House, and that is a significant event for this country.

I really want to honour the work of our foremothers and remind us all of their struggle to be able to improve the dignity of women in this country. There are really well-known women who were at the front of that movement—Kate Sheppard, Meri Te Tai Mangakahia—but there were thousands of women behind them, fighting for 24 years to be able to get that vote. It was 24 years after the first article that raised the possibility of women in this country getting the vote before we actually got it. There were 31 petitions brought in front of this House before we managed to get the vote. There were seven bills that were voted down before the eighth bill was finally passed. Women were ridiculed, women were attacked and vilified for this work, but they kept going because they believed in a woman’s right to vote and they believed that women being able to participate in this system would make our society a better place.

And yet it was not until 1919 that women were actually able to be representatives in this House, though I do need to acknowledge that Māori women gained the ability to be represented in the Māori Parliament much before that, in 1897, and there certainly were parallel processes happening. But the first woman who was elected to our Parliament was Elizabeth McCombs in 1933. In 1949 Iriaka Rātana was the first Māori woman elected. Then we had a big gap before Georgina Beyer, the first transsexual woman, was elected in 1999 and Luamanuvao Winnie Laban was also elected as the first Pacific woman. Maryan Street, who is still here, was the first out lesbian in this Parliament. Pansy Wong in 2006 was the first Asian woman—

💬 Melissa Lee: 1996.

—sorry, 1996. Thank you. Mojo Mathers was the first deaf woman to be a representative in this Parliament in only 2011.

It has been a long history in terms of getting representation and having our diversity represented, and we still have a long way to go. In the early 1940s, about 50 years after women first got the right to vote, there had been only two women elected. When we reflected again in 1984, when the Women’s Electoral Lobby was set up, there were only eight out of 92 seats in this House filled by women. The progress did not happen automatically. The struggle has continued.

Thousands of women in this country have kept up the fight for improving the dignity of women and women’s representation going through that whole time, and women are still fighting. They are still fighting for safety. They are still fighting for equal pay, just conditions, and a fair share of labour and representation. I do have to say that this Government is failing to deliver on their full human rights. It is failing to protect and promote women’s human rights on those issues.

In terms of equal pay, the Government has been given the opportunity to revise the legislation—and the Equal Pay Amendment Bill in my name would have done that in a very minor way—but the Government refused to do it. In terms of pay equity, we know that in the case of the carers bill, which would have provided for some pay equity, the Government went back and changed legislation to deny that ability. It has failed to take action, which has resulted in the unions having to spend some of the union fees of the lowest-paid workers in this country on trying to get equal pay for women. This country can do better. Women deserve equal rights, and we will continue that struggle.

What an extraordinary start for so-called team Cunliffe: 11 votes in support out of 34 from his caucus. That is less than 33 percent—less than 33 percent. In our two leading paper editorials, from the New Zealand Herald we had “ ‘Peace’ is clearly not breaking out as Mr Cunliffe predicted on Monday.”, and the Dominion Post said that Team Cunliffe shows “signs some of his crew are thinking about abandoning ship.”

What a contrast. Over the last few weeks we have seen Dean Barker and his crew on Emirates Team New Zealand show a magnificent lead and wonderful teamwork, Kiwis have revelled in the great win by the All Blacks over South Africa—29-15, extraordinary teamwork—and, of course, under the superb leadership of Tana Umaga, Counties Manukau, or the Steelers, have for the first time in the history of the world won the Ranfurly Shield. This Saturday, when they meet Waikato, every man, woman, and child, potato, carrot, and onion in Pukekohe will be rooting for them. What fantastic community cohesion.

So the spoiler in all this has been the circus of the three self-styled stooges, David Cunliffe, Grant Robertson, and Shane Jones, proselytising their wares up and down the length and breadth of New Zealand and out-promising each other. For the ordinary Kiwi it has been like being incessantly irritated by mutant ninja mosquitoes and not having enough powerful repellent to get rid of them. I have heard reports that the irritating sound alone has resulted in a serious syndrome known as “Labour Leader Election Fever Torment”—acronym “LLEFT”. Thank goodness it is over. But, of course, the nightmare scenario is that it all could happen again very soon. I am told that a full bite from one of these three results in the victim’s systematic, bloody exsanguination. There is blood everywhere, and there is no evidence that it is going away.

But Mr Cunliffe’s ultimate cunning plan, however, is to lurch the Labour Party so far to the left that he and his surprise deputy leader, David Parker, will morph with their Green comrades into “Russel Cunliffe”, “David Norman”, and “Metiria Parker Turei”—a frightening political mutation, unable to be put down by any toxic substance known to man. As I hear from constituents up and down the country, it means putting the straitjacket of unions on enterprise and productivity. It means a capital gains tax with a very imperfect, inefficient design. It means profligate spending at a time when New Zealand is just coming out of a world recession.

The trouble is that it gets worse and worse. One of Mr Cunliffe’s many promises included senior appointments for Grant Robertson and Shane Jones. Well, Grant Robertson is not deputy leader any more, and will Shane Jones be allowed to regulate the price in supermarkets, as he promised on the hustings? I can tell you that every producer in Pukekohe had a deep shiver rattling round their spines with that thought.

But the ever humble Mr Cunliffe is apparently sorting it all out—all the promises, all the dissenting. He can see that if he cannot unite his caucus, he must mutate with the Greens, bring in Winston Peters to assist in showing him how to get in front of a mirror, and distinguish the difference between “caucus” and “Chorus”. Mr Cunliffe has 70 percent of the union vote, the caucus will chorus agreement, the unions will chorus agreement, and the Greens will chorus agreement. Team Cunliffe will leave the station united, because the dissenters will have jumped in front of the train. They could not bear the nightmare. The deceased cannot chorus disagreement. Meanwhile, the John Key National Government will get on with running the country and growing the economy.

Let us get serious about the real Chorus, because when the chair of Chorus rang John Key last December to complain about the Commerce Commission’s draft decision to drop the price of copper, she found a very receptive ear. And what story did she tell the Prime Minister? It was that when Chorus negotiated that deal with the Government for ultra-fast broadband, it had forgotten to factor in a fall in the price of copper in what was a well-signalled Commerce Commission process that was already in Steven Joyce’s legislation. Maybe Sue Sheldon also told the Prime Minister that Chorus had got a big shock when it had worked out that the price that it had negotiated for the roll-out of fibre was not going to be enough to fulfil that contract, or so it claimed, and that it might have to go back to its shareholders for more capital. But then she must have put her hand out and said: “Well, Mr Prime Minister, you have to give us more money. It is your broadband scheme, your baby. It was one of your main campaign pledges that you won the 2011 election with, and unless you bail us out and keep the price of copper high so we can continue to make big profits and keep our shareholders happy, your precious programme will be in big trouble.”

John Key bought that line, as we know, because he came out of the blocks in December saying that he did not like the Commerce Commission’s draft decision to drop the wholesale price of copper from around $37 to around $9, and he would not rule out changing the law to ensure that it did not happen. That is what this Government is proposing to do: change the law or force the commission to do its bidding, all to prop up Chorus, a private company, to protect the Government’s broadband scheme. It is crony capitalism. It is corporate welfare at its absolute worst. Government intervention can be justified when a vulnerable part of your community is disadvantaged, but not when a corporate makes a phone call for a bailout.

What is really extraordinary is that when John Key was asked about this last week, he said that Chorus would go broke if the Government did not intervene. Well, somebody is telling porkies here, because the Chief Executive Officer of Chorus, Mark Ratcliffe, said that Chorus is not going broke. It has just posted a $171 million profit—$95 million to shareholders. Is there not a requirement that if your company is in trouble, then you have to disclose that to the New Zealand Exchange? This was a big deal, so who is telling the truth: the Chorus chief executive officer or the Prime Minister?

Then there is the gross abuse of powers in intervening in a Commerce Commission process. Amy “I’m not listening to any of you” Adams announced a review that is not actually a review. It is an extraordinary abuse of process. It is bringing forward a review that was supposed to occur in 2016, but it is going to take only one little matter, that little matter of the pricing of copper, and leave everything else out. It is anti-competitive and it could be illegal.

And then there is the building community opposition to what the Government is doing. Ultra-fast broadband was always meant to be for 75 percent of New Zealand households, but that leaves 25 percent of New Zealand, those living in rural and poorer parts of the country, who will never—never—get ultra-fast broadband. And this Government wants all of them to pay more for their copper broadband than they should. It is just rubbish, and it is discriminatory. The coalition against the copper tax is right to push hard.

What is even more interesting is the unprecedented criticism against the Government by Vodafone, one of the very big telecommunications company players. It has come out with some of the most strongly worded criticism ever heard in the industry, standing up to the Government. John Key can protest all he likes. He can call everyone else wrong and all their reports wrong, or call them misinformed—whatever it is that he does with everyone—but I tell you this: no one is denying that the amount that Chorus will get out of his intervention will be between $500 million and $600 million in Chorus shareholders’ pockets. The irony is that 2 years ago, when Chorus bid for the broadband contract, it had a fierce competitor. Vector bargained really hard, and many said that it should have got that contract. Vector based its price on the assumption that the ultra-fast broadband would have to compete with a rapidly falling copper price. Vector knew what the score was. Why did Chorus not?

The Commerce Commission should be allowed to get on with its job. The Telecommunications Act changes by Steven Joyce 2 years ago were done in a huge rush, but carrying out a short-term review on one moving part of a whole system to fix a political problem for the Government is not a solution. There needs to be a real, comprehensive review according to law, and Labour will undertake that.

I would like to begin by acknowledging previous speakers Jan Logie and Minister Parata for mentioning the women’s suffrage celebrations. It is, indeed, 120 years, and 120 years ago there were no members of Parliament who were women; now we have 34 percent. Sixty years ago I think it was about 5 percent of parliamentarians who were women. Now 56 percent of tertiary graduates are women; back 120 years ago I think we had only about 30 percent. So we have actually seen increases in women’s participation, and I celebrate that.

Earlier this year I took part in the Global Summit of Women in Kuala Lumpur. Although many in the Opposition actually talk about how badly we do in terms of pay equity and the gender pay gap, it was nice to note that in a global sense, New Zealand was up there with the best in the world and we were seen as a role model. So I would like just to note that.

I would like just to reflect on the very public and very elaborate sort of election campaign that the Labour Party put on to choose its new leader. I begin by wishing David Shearer well. I am sure that now there are not people sharpening their knives to stab him in the back, he can actually sleep better. I wish David Parker congratulations on his new leadership—oh, sorry, David Cunliffe. There are quite a few Davids—sorry. I send David Cunliffe my best wishes for his leadership. It is very confusing, because there are so many potential leaders out there and we do not quite know how long this one will last.

I have been acquainted with Mr Cunliffe for quite a few years in my former career as a television producer, meeting him at many ethnic events. I always enjoyed our conversations. I always thought of him as a pretty decent bloke. Why would he not be? He has diplomacy as one of his credentials, having actually been a former diplomat. But I hope his leadership lasts longer than the one enjoyed by Mr Shearer. As I understand, two-thirds of his caucus are ABCs—“Anyone But Cunliffe”—and they did not support him. To be frank, I was a little surprised that he did not actually choose Mr Robertson as his deputy in a gesture of goodwill and harmony. But perhaps, as Gerry Brownlee mentioned, when the call went out for deputy nominations, nobody actually put their hand up. Maybe Mr Parker just got it by accident. But, anyway, congratulations, and I hope you actually last a little while longer than Mr Shearer’s leadership.

One of the things that is certain is that Mr Cunliffe cannot run his own party—so far, anyway. So he certainly cannot run the country. It is that simple. If you cannot control your party, you cannot run the country. The New Zealand public are not simpletons. They recognise that the Labour Opposition lacks the ability through its backstabbing, factionalised division within its own party, which is so obvious to all of us.

Having said that, I was a little taken aback last Sunday. I think all of us were waiting to see who was going to be the new leader of the Labour Party. While watching the television news, I was a little bit shocked—I think it was Carmel Sepuloni, a former member of Parliament, who went to put a lei around David Cunliffe’s neck, and he basically put up his hand to say no. I think there was also another Indian man who actually went to put a lei on him, and it was very clear that he put his hand up to say no. I am not a lip reader, but I could surely see him going “No”. I thought that was very, very shocking. How embarrassing for those people going there to congratulate him. And they were not some strangers; they were all wearing Labour rosettes. Obviously, they were party members, well-known to him, and he said no. I felt so bad for someone who should know diplomacy and who should be aware of cultural sensitivities. I thought that putting a lei on somebody was actually—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: It’s an honour.

—a sign of honour, a symbolism of honour, and he refused that.

So that is a sure sign that this is a party that does not understand cultural sensitivities, and it goes to the policies it has introduced, including banning foreign homebuyers. I know Opposition members have said that it does not mean New Zealanders who happen to be Asian. But it is not about Americans buying here; it is about Asian people buying here. But how are you going to tell the difference? If I walk around with a passport, will you be able to tell whether I am foreign or a New Zealander? Can you not tell that I am a Kiwi? Do I have to keep on explaining that? That is the kind of xenophobic policy that Labour puts forward, and then the xenophobic people, the racist people, will come out of the woodwork and actually make the lives of Asian New Zealanders hell in this country.

Labour does not support Asian people in this country, and I am ashamed that all Labour members would support a policy like that. The way that Labour behaves is actually shameful. But I congratulate the new leader. I hope he actually lasts longer than David Shearer.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This week we have seen yet another example of this Government’s failure to recognise that our economy and our well-being depend on a healthy environment. The Hon Nick Smith may have a lot of experience as the Minister of Conservation, but given his Government’s dig it, drill it, mine it, irrigate it agenda, which is its apology for an economic plan, the Minister seems to have conveniently forgotten what both he and the Department of Conservation are required to do by law, and that is to advocate for conservation and to preserve freshwater fish habitats.

The Department of Conservation has eight functions in section 6 of the Conservation Act, and one of them is “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources”. Another of those eight functions is “to preserve so far as is practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries, and protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats:”.

Yet what have we seen in the Hawke’s Bay, in the Tukituki catchment, in relation to the Ruataniwha dam scheme? We have the Tukituki River, which is ranked as nationally significant for its native fish and where there are eight of the 18 native fish species in the catchment that are at risk of extinction or their populations are declining. In terms of recreational fishing, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has said that the Tukituki is one of the two most heavily fished rivers, with the possible exception of the Tongariro, in the North Island. It is the sixth-most popular trout-fishing river in New Zealand. It is highly valued by Hawke’s Bay anglers because of its ease of access and because of the many opportunities there.

So when the Department of Conservation has a responsibility under the law for a river with these high values, then it should consider the effects of the dam scheme and the proposed regional plan on those values. That is what the department was doing in relation to the Tukituki catchment and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s proposals for plan change 6. Departmental staff put in quite a lot of time and effort to prepare a substantial 32-page submission, setting out their concerns on the adequacy of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s proposed water management regime and its approach to water quality. That submission expressed quite significant concern that the council was proposing to manage only one nutrient, which was phosphorous; that this was a new and untested approach in New Zealand; that it was not enough to protect the values of the Tukituki and its tributaries; and that it could lead to more algal blooms, which have been a major problem in that catchment in the low flows in summer.

The department also identified that with the regime the council was proposing and without controlling nitrogen—a key nutrient that leads to algal blooms—there would be potentially a 300 percent to 500 percent increase in nitrogen levels compared with current levels, which could have potentially unexpected ecological effects. So that submission went on and made a number of constructive recommendations that the board of inquiry that is considering the issue should seek further advice and seek an independent peer review.

Yet somehow, despite all the work done on the submission, despite the evidence of the Tukituki’s high value, and despite the department’s statutory responsibilities, this submission was not lodged with the board of inquiry. How and why was that decision made? It is very troubling that we see such politicisation of departmental decision making on such a major project, which will affect the health of rivers and communities in the Hawke’s Bay.

The Minister, Nick Smith, was talking nonsense yesterday when he said that because the submission was in his name, the department therefore needed to be careful when making such submissions. The submission that was lodged was in the department’s name, not in the Minister’s name. It was in the name of the director-general.

The reason, I suspect, that that submission was not lodged was that this Government is not interested in good policy. It is not interested in robust debate. It is not interested in its views being challenged or its irrigation agenda being challenged. It wants to tilt the playing field in favour of development. We are seeing that with the muzzling of the department here and with the Minister’s colleague the Hon Amy Adams doing her best to gut the principles from the Resource Management Act and tilt that Act in favour of more development and away from the environment. This Government is bailing on its responsibilities to the environment.

What is also troubling is that the suppression of the Department of Conservation’s draft submission has undermined, potentially, public confidence in the whole board of inquiry process—

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Unity is about great leadership, and great leadership unites a party. With this party, this John Key - led National Government is united in growing the economy. This John Key - led National Government is united in delivering better public services—

💬 Sue Moroney: It’s not working.

Oh, hang on, honey, because, you know, this is all really good news and I am actually speaking in English. This John Key - led National Government is united in providing fast and more efficient health services—so I know that you are going to understand me. This John Key - led National Government is united in improving the lives of our most vulnerable children, united in our efforts to raise achievement at school to five out of five tamariki, and united about great leadership. Leadership is about uniting a party.

Our economic growth agenda includes all New Zealanders, including Māori. The John Key - led National Government has done more for Māori than Labour did under its previous leader—the one before the last one. Under the leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, we have signed—[Interruption] It is really good news here; you need to listen. We have signed 21 deeds of settlement in 3 years, compared with Labour’s 16 deeds of settlement in 9 years. In 3 years we moved 33 agreements in principle, compared with Labour’s 25 agreements in principle in 9 years. We currently have five settlement bills in front of the Māori Affairs Committee, while the Ngāi Tūhoe claim is ready for its first reading. We have provided increased funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements, and this Government has directed considerable resources towards claimants so that iwi can hit the ground running.

We know that Treaty settlements provide economic stimulus, which boosts local investments, creates jobs, and lays foundations for future economic success. We know this to be true because Ngāi Tahu transferred its 1998 settlement of $130 million into locally owned asset portfolios of tourism, property, fisheries, and investments worth over $600 million. This John Key - led National Government is maintaining the momentum by ensuring high-level political leadership, kanohi ki te kanohi with rangatira a iwi.

Labour would take New Zealand backwards. Labour would render Māori shackled to the dependent ū of the Crown. Labour’s record between 1999 and 2008 was pōhara. Labour stalled investment settlements, averaging less than 1.8 deeds of settlement a year. Labour would not have resolved outstanding settlements until past 2020, if at all, stymying economic growth and paralysing Māori aspirations.

This Government is united under a strong leadership focused on economic growth. That is why this John Key - led Government will be the Government again in 2014. Kia ora.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate David Cunliffe on his election to the Labour Party leadership. He has his work cut out because most New Zealanders do not support Labour, and he appears to seek to turn Labour more to the left, but of course in doing so risks it moving away from the centre. National, on the other hand, is becoming more and more right wing, with its asset sales programme, charter schools, anti-worker and anti-unions legislation, pro - big business policies, laissez-faire immigration policy, and conservative economic policy. Neither party has a genuine plan to take New Zealand forward in the 21st century. New Zealand has underperformed over the last 30 years and more compared with similar countries because of a succession of underperforming National and Labour Governments.

As the political pendulum has swung from left to right many times, so too have New Zealand’s fortunes, and progress has been blunted, rather than enhanced. Only when New Zealand First has been present has there been anything done to stop the rot.

We have seen National’s Think Big era, under which the National Development Act was to be the Think Big saviour. In fact, it was used only once, and, in fact, Think Big was never really implemented at all. So much for its strategic approach to things—just another National Party election stunt. It has no genuine strategy other than to slash services, sell assets, and rely on the windfall of the Christchurch rebuild.

We have also seen a Labour Government’s massive, multimillion-dollar sell-off of public strategic assets, some of which a later Labour Government had to buy back, including New Zealand Rail and Air New Zealand. Labour implicitly acknowledges the mistake and now opposes more asset sales—for now. National wants to repeat the mistake with another round of shonky strategic asset sales, which will lose money for investors as share prices fail to meet expectations.

This is typical of the short-term, non-strategic thinking by both major parties. There are so many areas of poor governance by both parties that I would need several speeches to do justice to them all. Neither party seems able to formulate a strategic plan for New Zealand’s development in the 21st century. With National retreating to the right in its desperation to retain the Treasury benches and with Labour moving in the opposite direction, I think there is no real hope that New Zealand will see the magnitude of positive change that it now needs, as proposed by New Zealand First. This change is in social development, with special reference to education; in economic development, with special reference to regional development; and in sustainable development, so that we can turn round the disgraceful rate of degradation of our environment and learn to live, and live well, in the New Zealand that we should see as our heritage, and not just as a place to plunder and flog off natural resources to mates overseas.

It is time New Zealanders took a long, hard look at the country we now are, and also took a long, hard look at whether the two main parties are really capable of delivering what New Zealand needs. Their past records do not bode well for the future. Posing, posturing party leaders are not a good enough reason to choose either National or Labour. This is not the “John and Dave Show”, and it is not about doing deals in foreign boardrooms or trades halls.

New Zealanders need to look elsewhere to get the positive change they need. We are the only party that stands by the virtue of a society in which everyone gets a fair go. Ordinary people look at this place and shudder. They wonder who is actually on their side. Every day jobs go. Every day more land is sold to foreign buyers. House prices rocket. People wonder what they will be hit with next. People want some good news. We are the only party that can bring it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.