General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Come election day, New Zealanders will have a very clear choice. On one hand, they can vote to continue the stable and competent governance that this Labour-led Government has given to the country for the last 6 years: 260,000 additional jobs; an unemployment rate amongst the lowest in the Western World; growth rates amongst the highest in the Western World; a net New Zealand debt that is headed for the first time to zero; and a Government that has shown concern to invest in the critical areas of looking after our elderly, providing quality education, and providing quality health.

On the other hand, they can opt for a New Zealand First - National coalition. The performance and track record of such a coalition in the late 1990s was an absolute disaster. It was a Government that underperformed, and a Government in which the leaders of National and New Zealand First could not get on together; their egos were too large. It was a Government that had record-high unemployment figures, that slashed social expenditure, that ran down social infrastructure, that gave us the INCIS debacle, and that fell apart in disarray. The same components are still there on the other side of the House.

On election day, New Zealanders have another clear choice. They have the choice between the competence and good judgment shown by Helen Clark and the bumbling incompetence and the flip-flops of Don Brash. Don Brash is the man who said at the time of the foot-and-mouth scare that we should have covered up that threat—a step that would have totally destroyed our credibility as a trading country, a step that would have irreparably damaged our interests. Don Brash made that comment, and the National Party’s spokesperson on agriculture is putting his head under the desk, because he knows that what I have said is true.

Don Brash is the man who went to Australia and described his own country—this country—as just another small, broke Pacific island. Don Brash is the man who said, against 80 percent of New Zealand public opinion, that we should have gone to war in Iraq, and that we should have committed our troops there. Don Brash is the man who left New Zealand the day after the Boxing Day tsunami to lie on a beach in Hawaii for 2 weeks. He said nothing. He then came back to New Zealand to criticise the hard-working New Zealanders who had been trying to alleviate the destruction and human misery caused by the tsunami. Don Brash is the man who could not remember that he had told American congressmen that the nuclear policy would be gone by lunchtime.

That man has no credibility. He has even less credibility when we see him as the man who came into this Parliament as a man above politics, a man of principle—who then flip-flopped on every principle he had ever believed in. He was against the “Cullen fund”; suddenly he was for it. He was for selling off State assets; suddenly he reversed his position. He was the man who said a National Government would repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday pay; suddenly he reversed his position.

Don Brash was the man who told us that before Christmas we would have a Budget with tax cuts—and John Key said the same thing—but within a week he had retracted that completely. The reason was that the OECD came out with a statement that made it clear such tax cuts would be grossly inflationary, which is something, of course, that Don Brash had said all the way through his term as Governor of the Reserve Bank.

There is a very clear choice on election day: New Zealanders can go for the sort of social support and targeted assistance given to ordinary hard-working families through the Working for Families package, or they can go for tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the elite that Don Brash and John Key represent in this House.

I am proud of the fact that we have a Working for Families policy that will dramatically lift out of poverty the number of children currently living below the poverty line. I am proud of the fact that in my electorate the Working for Families package on 1 April this year gave ordinary working families with three kids an extra $55 a week. The Aussie Budget came out—a $22 billion package—and gave ordinary working families just $6 a week.

Before I deal with that last vicious attack from a tired old party’s nominal leader, I want to address the issue of the Civil Aviation Authority. In the last 12 months an increasing number of people have been expressing grave concern about alleged conflicts of interest in the Civil Aviation Authority and the operations of its director. The close relationship between John Funnell, President of the Aviation Industry Association of New Zealand, and John Jones, Director of the Civil Aviation Authority and former Aviation Industry Association president, has been causing concern both within the Civil Aviation Authority and outside the authority. Questions are being asked about whether the director has broken the very Act he is supposed to enforce. The New Zealand Airline Pilots Association has formally raised this matter with the Minister responsible for civil aviation, but the Minister has done nothing except announce an internal inquiry, led by Jones himself.

But one can always tell when the two tired old parties have their aspirations for re-election somewhat upset by the polls. We have just heard a frenetic, nervous, embarrassed speech made by the member for Mt Roskill. He knows full well that Labour is in deep trouble and deep decline, as is National. Last year they were 45 percent, as was Labour at the start of this year. All of a sudden they are both in the 30s, heading to the middle and low 30s. Do members know what that means? It means it is a three-horse race. It is a three-horse race, and the third horse—the horse with all the money coming on its back—is New Zealand First.

The previous speaker had the effrontery to mention the INCIS debacle. He knew full well that INCIS was inherited by the coalition Government in 1997, that it was already in place under the previous National Government, but he got up and said it, anyway. He planted it in there to try to leave the impression we were responsible, in the same way that he did in the last campaign. In the last campaign he tried to say that there were more murders when New Zealand First was in office than in the previous year—

Jill Pettis: What about Tau?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is not market day today. The fish wife can make all the noise she likes, but market day is on Friday. I can tell that those members are nervous. The reason is that they have tired old leaders who are out of touch. They never hold a public meeting. When was the last time Helen Clark held a public meeting? When was the last time Don Brash held a public meeting? [Interruption] No, they never do that. It is always some captured, tied audience—one they can control. But in New Zealand First we go out and confront Mary and Joe Bloggs on the streets, in the hamlets, on the country roads, and in the country towns, and it is paying off. We are getting audiences of between 750 and 800 people at our country meetings. We got almost 800 in Wanganui. What a shock that was to the fish wife from Wanganui. The paint stripper!

Jill Pettis: Stand somebody against me.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The louder they shout, the more indicative it is of their nervousness. It is like a barometer measure of failure. Both National and Labour are trying to call it a two-horse race. If they even dream that it is a two-horse race, then they had better wake up and apologise, because we will have a three-way fight in this election. We will have a three-way contest. Already it is a three-way race for the party and a two-way race for the leadership—Helen Clark and me. One has got to know this game, to be experienced, and to know where the parliamentary toilets are, before hoping to lead. That is why it is a two-horse race. I know that Helen Clark has never campaigned well. She hates the public. She goes for the photo opportunity. She has the media taking photographs, and they call that an event. But she never goes out and campaigns, so it will be a free run.

Darren Hughes: What about Don Brash? What does the old bloke do?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He does not campaign, either. Don Brash cannot campaign, because he has a problem with delivering speeches. Basically, he cannot remember what happened yesterday. He does not know what happened last year. As a consequence, when he is asked questions about what his party’s policies are, he does not know the detail. He is a great plagiarist, but when he is asked for detail he does not know.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not hear the point of order until there is silence. I remind members that points of orders are to be heard in silence.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I want to make two points. Firstly, I say in response to that speech by Winston Peters that Standing Order 116 seriously constrains me, and I will stay so. But in respect of the comments made by Phil Goff relating to Dr Don Brash and the tsunami, I seek the leave of the House to table a statement made by Dr Don Brash with regard to the tsunami. On 27 December—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I have not finished yet. How can members object?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member gave his explanation of the tabling, and there was an objection.

GERRY BROWNLEE: No, I did not. I did not finish.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is required to give the explanation tersely. I have ruled on it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member I remind him that I have ruled on the previous point of order.

I now seek leave to table a document that clearly shows that Dr Brash spoke about the tsunami 2 days before Helen Clark even knew about it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

New Zealanders have a choice. They have a choice between a Prime Minister they know, Helen Clark, who tells it how it is and who makes difficult decisions, and a National Party leader, Dr Brash, who hides his agenda. Dr Brash makes vague promises. By contrast, the Prime Minister’s commitments are stated and, differently, they are budgeted for.

In May 2005 Dr Brash began backtracking on his famous tax cuts before Christmas, and he said: “We have got to work through these numbers carefully to make sure they will add up. We hopefully will have to deliver on them”—the policies—“and we will announce our policy shortly, within the next few weeks.” That was a few weeks ago; there is still no detail. There are only billboards saying: “Tax. Cut.” Right, so the choice promoted by Dr Brash is for people to get a tax cut, but to face automatic cuts in the services provided by taxation.

The problem is that Dr Brash hides the details: what tax cuts and for whom? Will they be $6 a week as the Australians got, $23 a week for those on $30,000, or $33 a week for those on $100,000? The problem is that New Zealanders do not know the details. Dr Brash loves working in the dark. He wants to keep the agenda hidden. We do not know with what we are comparing our targeted package, Working for Families.

The exemplar family, Sale and Barbara, earn $52,000 a year. We should note that Barbara is not being forced out to work to get the support she needs. Sale, in working 40 hours a week, is paying a mortgage of $385 a week. He has three children aged 5, 9, and 12. That family’s increases, through accommodation supplement and family assistance, will equal $169 a week by April 2007—or, if we want it closer, $139 by April next year. Right now, the family has benefited by $55 a week. Under Dr Brash it would be $30 a week, which would make little difference to the lives of Barbara and Sale, but $169 a week will make an enormous difference. I would rather opt for the detailed, budgeted, and already partly delivered commitments of the Prime Minister than those vague, hidden promises of Dr Brash.

Dr Brash is even more evasive. We have no detail on those tax cuts promised before Christmas. We have no detail on what will be cut to pay for those tax cuts. Tax cuts of $30 a week would cost $1.9 billion a year. I ask Dr Brash where the details of those tax cuts are.

There are hints of what might come. Dr Brash said in May 2002: “For my part, I don’t care who owns the schools.” For me, a person who has worked in education all her life, education is a service; it is not a product. It is not baked beans. It is not out there to be owned or to be profited from. It is a service delivered to our country. But Dr Brash would want to abandon our equitable education for all. He would go down the Australian route where 40 percent of schools are private, as against our 4 percent.

The conflict in the National Party is always apparent. Dr Brash does not care who owns the schools, but will he undertake to guarantee the provision for the Special Education Service that I know Mr Key is always asking even more for? Will he guarantee the extra staffing delivered by the Minister sitting in front of me, the Hon Trevor Mallard, to schools over the last 3 years for the already increased workload that has been alluded to by Mr English? We need transparency; we need details.

Would the cuts to fund that $1.9 billion each year come from health? Dr Brash wants a health system only for those who can afford private health insurance. He said: “I have had private health insurance for a long time. I want the choice of having faster health-care than is available in the public health system.” So Barbara and Sale would face losing $169 a week under the Working for Families package and maybe gaining a miserable $30 a week—we do not really know—through some tax cut, but they would have to use that $30 to pay for private schooling and for private health insurance.

Today I want to ask two very important questions of public interest. The first question is: why was the Labour Party president, Mike Williams, present at a meeting in Dr Michael Cullen’s office last Tuesday? The second question is: why did the then Acting Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, arrive unannounced at the Auckland chamber of commerce on Friday morning to apologise? I will ask question No. 1 again: why was the Labour Party president, Mike Williams, present at a meeting in Michael Cullen’s office? The reason I ask is that it was actually a meeting between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, and a number of interested parties who are concerned about the lack of progress on Auckland roading. They included Michael Barnett from the Auckland chamber of commerce, Tony Friedlander from the Road Transport Forum, and a number of other people.

But there was one obvious exception to the group of people at that meeting, who should not have been there: the Labour Party president, Mike Williams. Now, was it a meeting with the board of Transit? No, the board of Transit was not asked to be there, but Mike Williams, the Labour Party president, is on the board of Transit. In case members think the Government will tell us that it was not a politicised position, I am happy to give them an explanation soon, with some details that I will be tabling later, to show exactly how politicised it was. At that meeting Mike Williams made a complete clown of himself. I want to report what the letter written by Michael Barnett, from the Auckland chamber of commerce, to Michael Cullen 2 days later stated. Michael Barnett stated—and I will table the letter—“We left the meeting disappointed, believing that we had been totally misled.” That is what he stated.

Michael Barnett went on to state that at an early point in the meeting it became very clear that the Transit board member Mike Williams, who actually was not there as a Transit board member—he was there as the Labour Party president, to shore up support—did not accept the evidence of huge slippage in Transit New Zealand’s time lines. What that group showed the Ministers, quite clearly, was that a number of projects that had been earmarked by Transit as being good to go back in December 2003—and Labour members should listen to this—have still not been started. Mike Williams told the meeting that, yes, they have, and then he left early.

Mike Williams then did something else that is despicable. He leaked the meeting—it was a private meeting—straightaway to Brian Rudman of the New Zealand Herald. He said that Michael Barnett had turned into a pussycat, and that the outcomes were bizarre. It states in the article that Michael Barnett had emerged from the meeting mewling like a pussycat. That is absolutely not true. The egg was on the face of Mike Williams, because he had got it wrong.

Jill Pettis: Oh, ha, ha!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Jill Pettis is laughing. If she is laughing because I am wrong, then what about question No. 2? Why, the next morning, did the then Acting Prime Minister show up unannounced at Michael Barnett’s office at the Auckland chamber of commerce, at 100 Mayoral Drive? He was surprised at that, and asked why the Acting Prime Minister had come. Michael Cullen said that he was there to apologise. He told Michael Barnett that he was there to apologise not only for Mike Williams’ behaviour and his lies at the meeting, but also for the fact that he then went ahead and leaked it to the New Zealand Herald journalist, as well.

Those are two questions that this House cannot let pass. If we are to see our roading so politicised by the Labour Party president taking such a level of control in the decision making, then it is time Mike Williams went. He has already been enough of an embarrassment. He is on the Auckland Regional Transport Authority board and the Railcorp board, as well as the Transit board. Here is an absolute Labour Party plant controlling the lot, and he has to have the then Acting Prime Minister show up and apologise for his behaviour. That is what Michael Barnett says; that is what it states in the letter.

The Auckland chamber of commerce has tabled a list of all the roading projects. I will not go into them in 5 minutes—time does not allow me to. But the list shows that they were good to go in December 2003—projects like the Manukau extension to State Highway 20. Has it started yet? No. And the Mount Roskill extension? So Mike Williams told the meeting lies. Michael Cullen knows that he did. Here is the man who is on the board of Transit, and he has single-handedly stopped State Highway 20 from going through Helen Clark’s electorate. Why? Because the issue has been politicised. Helen Clarke says that over her dead body that road will get built.

I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a letter from Michael Barnett, chief executive of the Auckland chamber of commerce, to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, dated 2 June.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The second document is a press release from the Auckland chamber of commerce 2 days later, stating that Auckland’s transport crisis needs actions, not bully-boy slogging.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The third document is a table that was presented to the Ministers at the meeting, showing the various projects and the fact that they have not yet started, despite the fact that Mike Williams claimed they have.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

That was the most unbelievable speech I have heard in this House from Maurice Williamson, the man who would be leader of the National Party. He is a bitter and twisted back-bencher—a man who sat in this House as Minister of Transport and did nothing to solve the chaos that is Auckland roading. One thing I do know is that this Government is absolutely committed—and not all of us are comfortable with it all the time—to sorting out the mess in Auckland, which is effectively a traffic disaster. I applaud my colleagues for doing that.

I am here to raise just two points today. Don Brash is going to trot around this country over the next couple of months, saying that he should be Prime Minister.

Gerry Brownlee: Who?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Exactly! Who is Don Brash? Is he a 61-year-old conservative bureaucrat, struggling to establish an identity for himself? Is he a monetary manager, fixated on interest rates and monetary policy? Is he a lame duck leader of a party trying to drag itself from the 20th century into the 21st century? Well, I do not know whether he is any of those three. I think he is a man who lacks judgment; a man who does not live in the real world. I say that because many people who know him reasonably well—and we can only make an assessment from this side of the House, having watched him operate as Reserve Bank governor for many years—Brian Rudman being one of them, say that it is as though the mistakes and excesses of the past 20 years have passed Don Brash by unseen. He has learnt nothing from the mistakes of the 1990s.

He lives in a world where he thinks private health insurance and private schools will deliver to this country. Well, wake up Don Brash! This country has rejected the privatisation of health. We have rejected the privatisation of the education system. That is why we kicked the National Party out of power in 1999. That party had its chance. It tried all those experiments through the 1990s, and they failed. Did Don Brash learn anything? No, he did not. He still says: “I don’t care who owns the schools.” He still says: “Most schools are privately owned and operated, and I would be happy to have that.” He says: “I have had private health insurance for a long time. I want the choice of having faster health-care than is available.” Well, someone who is 65 years old, on a fixed income, and facing a huge increase in his or her private health insurance premium learns the realities of the private health system. We need someone who lives in the real world, and Don Brash does not.

My first question about him was whether he lives in the real world. The second question is whether he has any judgment. Here is the question I put to Gerry Brownlee: how many New Zealanders would be dead if Don Brash had been Prime Minister of this country when the Americans went to war in Iraq? How many New Zealanders would he have killed by committing New Zealand to a war that we deem unnecessary, one that could have been prevented?

Dr Wayne Mapp: Same number as Australia.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Wayne Mapp is quite happy to have New Zealanders killed in Iraq. That is a man who probably would want to be a Minister under Don Brash. He is another person who lacks judgment.

The next serious issue is biosecurity. In fact, it is a more serious issue, because biosecurity is more important for this country than our military security. Do members know why? It is because one outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease could effectively undermine this economy. Some nutter, and I hope we catch him and string him up, perpetrated a hoax on this country.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right—in the Prime Minister’s office.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Gerry Brownlee is clearly someone who is out of touch with the real world. Down there in Fendalton there are a few like that, and Gerry Brownlee is one of them. Gerry Brownlee thinks we created a hoax. I tell Gerry Brownlee and Don Brash to wake up.

Gerry Brownlee: Was it a hoax? What a convenient hoax it was.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well, yes. Don Brash has poor judgment.

The issue that I wish to talk about today, on behalf of New Zealand First, relates to the future of New Zealand and just where New Zealand is going, and I would like to do so without indulging in the old two-party engagement across the floor of the House, whereby those members spend all their time attacking each other, without giving us any policies. If New Zealand is to move ahead, into the future, bearing in mind that we are the only First World country with an agricultural base, we have an obvious need to decide what the size of our population should be. I believe that none of the other political parties has even bothered to consider the road that New Zealand should take for the future, or the size of our population and our population growth.

Gerry Brownlee: Set it out for us—you know.

DAIL JONES: Obviously I will set it out for Mr Brownlee because he would be incapable of even thinking of a problem, let alone coming to an answer to it. I know that Mr Brownlee would like to have more cafes and more coffee bars in Fendalton than we can possibly sustain, but we in New Zealand First are concerned about just where we are heading.

Our election policy makes it clear that we intend to stop the knee-jerk annual immigration planning and start working on 10-year and 25-year plans for New Zealand. We want to establish long-term labour market demands and import the skills needed, if sufficient New Zealanders cannot be trained. We want to target people with the skills needed, and ensure that migrants have jobs to go to. We want to consult New Zealanders about the make-up of those people coming here, and we want to introduce a targeted programme aimed at retaining skilled New Zealanders and encouraging others offshore to return. What should the population of New Zealand be? Under New Zealand First, the people of New Zealand will be given the chance to say. That decision will be made not by the Prime Minister, not by a group of Ministers, not by the news media, not by a newspaper editor having a bad day, and not by a political commentator. In a rather original way, we will consult the people of New Zealand.

Currently we have in this Parliament a number of select committees, some of which are an absolute waste of time. We have a “hate speech” select committee at the moment. We have to be careful what we say in this Parliament—[Interruption] I tell Ms Pettis to be careful what she says. It might be hate speech, and then she will get a rap over the knuckles and be fined. What a ridiculous select committee! Another select committee is looking at our constitution. New Zealand First wants to make sure that the people of New Zealand are consulted about where we go, and a select committee to look at where we are going would be a very good way, in my view, of letting members of Parliament know what the people of New Zealand think.

I suspect that many of the members of Parliament who make speeches about our population, do not actually get out there and meet some of the people of New Zealand who are concerned about what is happening to this country. It is very easy to say, and we all say in the Christian way, that we should love our neighbour. But in New Zealand today we are never quite sure who our neighbour is or who our neighbour is going to be, even with the best intentions in the world. We as a Parliament have a responsibility to make sure that some steps are taken in that way.

Another problem we have with population growth and the number of people coming here is with regard to our environment. Many, many years ago when I was beginning to take an interest in politics I had a look at the Values Party, in 1973. One of the policies of that party concerned population control and population growth, because that is the essence of our country’s environment. What is the greatest danger to the environment? It is humankind; it is the number of people we have in the country. The sad thing about the Green Party today is that it takes no notice of the number of people coming to New Zealand, and that is totally contrary to that basic requirement of a proper environment policy—namely, how many people we have here. The Greens are not greenies; they are virtually green-less in that respect. As the population expands, one of the issues that arises—it arose in the early 1970s, and I, as member of Parliament, dealt with it in the 1975-78 years—is the question of nuclear power. The more people we have coming into New Zealand—[Interruption] and the Greens can disagree—the more the cry is: “Let’s have nuclear power.” I am opposed to nuclear power in New Zealand.

Darren Hughes: Really?

DAIL JONES: Yes. But maybe some of the other members of the Labour Party support it, and maybe the Greens support it. There will be greater and greater demand for nuclear power with the more and more people we have living in New Zealand. However, New Zealand First says that we should have a look at this issue. One of our policies is to have the greater use of public referenda and consultation by way of referendum on that type of issue.

Is it not amazing that in New Zealand First a British immigrant and an immigrant from Pakistan are always going on about immigration, yet New Zealand First tangata whenua members sit there with their gobs shut. It is a bit ironic, but, never mind, those tangata whenua know their place, and clearly it is at the back of the room.

I say to National members opposite, in particular, Don Brash: “Put on the flak jackets, fellows, and all of the protection jackets you can find.”, because if, by some absolute miracle, a number of new National MPs should come into this Parliament—although I think the chances are pretty slim, as New Zealanders become exposed to the absolute lack of policy from Don Brash or any of his other hangers-on—those few new MPs will be shocked when they realise what the radical, true agenda of the National Party is. It will be 1990-91 all over again, when some hapless National MPs came into this place and suddenly realised what the real agenda was. In 1990-91 it was division, factions, and leaking to the media all over the show. I predict that is exactly what would happen again, because I know from listening to the radio this morning that a candidate is out there representing the National Party who does not have a clue about what National is doing about tax policy.

By accident this morning I had the occasion to listen to the third-time running candidate in Whanganui when the announcer from the Hāwera radio station asked him: “So when is the tax policy going to come out?”. He answered: “Well, we were told a couple of weeks ago that it was coming out in a couple of weeks, and a couple of weeks is up next week, so I guess it will be next week.” It just goes to show how uninformed those poor, hapless sods are out there in the rest of New Zealand and how much they know about what Don Brash has got planned about tax. Don Brash will sit on this tax policy for as long as he can, because he will not want New Zealand to get a hold of it too quickly. Once New Zealand realises the extremity and the radical nature of what that man is proposing with tax and other financial matters, they will be mortified.

The general public of New Zealand contains some who might be soft Tories. Some of those Tory candidates out there think: “I’ve got her vote”; “I’ve got his vote”, and they are votes from whom one would call soft Tories. When they realise that Don Brash has put the family silver back on the market again, they will be horrified. They will be banging on the doors of National Party candidates, and those hapless, naive, innocent candidates will not know what has struck them. They do not understand the hard, cold reality of politics. They do not know that Don Brash will say anything to get elected, and then have no accountability, once he is elected.

There will be huge dissent out there in the community, particularly from Grey Power. That is not a group that is easily hoodwinked, but I have to say I am warning Mr Brash that if he sells Kiwibank, which he has said he will do, then Grey Power will be on to him like a rat up a drainpipe. Grey Power will leave no stone unturned, because it knows the value of Kiwibank. Grey Power and other organisations that care and advocate for people out in the community will be horrified when they come to learn the full extent of what Don Brash wants to sell.

I quote from a lecture he gave in 1996, which is not so long ago, and it shows his philosophy has been fairly constant: “There is clearly scope for further reform … The Government still owns major trading activities which could, in principle, be privatised.” Some of those trading activities are things that New Zealanders call their own. They are things that they have taken to heart, like New Zealand Post and the Accident Compensation Corporation.

I always marvel at the avian-like warble that emanates from the member for Whanganui. Thank goodness it cannot be replicated ever again, any time or anywhere in New Zealand.

Today I want to talk about the mess that this Labour Government has made of health. Dr Jonathan Simon, one of New Zealand’s most eminent general practitioners, said in the New Zealand Herald the other day: “When we look at the significant investment in the health sector over the past four years, it is devastating to see how little effect it has had.” That is hugely serious, given the $3.5 billion that this Labour Government has put into health, much of which has been wasted. As Dr Simon said: “Pouring more money into the system without significant functional change is like pouring water into a coarse sieve.” That is exactly what this Labour Government has done over the last 5 years with health.

There is no doubt that the system it has created has been absolutely characterised by massive bureaucracy, by waste, by poor productivity, and by unfulfilled expectations. Labour went around in the 1990s raising everybody’s hopes, saying that for a little bit more tax it would do all sorts of wonderful things and fix health and education. It certainly raised the tax—by $10 billion. But in terms of health, what has it done?

Let us have a look at the bureaucracy alone. The Government created 21 district health boards with three sets of extra committees, then it created the 77 primary health organisations with these other committees, 12 in each one of them, so 77 times 12 is the number that this Labour Government has created. This is not to mention the Ministry of Health, which the Minister said would be decreased by 25 percent when there was devolution of care to the 21 district health boards. What happened? The ministry increased by 25 percent. That is the very bureaucracy that this Labour Government has created, and it is causing the huge problems of lack of productivity in the sector.

The real agenda is to nationalise the New Zealand health scheme, just like the British National Health Service, which has 1.3 million employees. It is the third-largest employer in the world, second only to the Chinese Red Army. The first-largest employer is the Indian Railways.

That is the direction this Labour Government has set for health services in New Zealand—massive, complicated bureaucracy that is wasting a huge amount of money. The tragedy is that it has added another $3.5 billion, and there is no measurable improvement in health outcomes. I asked the Minister of Health today whether she could name one measurable improvement in health outcomes, and she could not. She absolutely failed to do that.

Let us look at the primary health organisation experiment. We have 77 primary health organisations, with a budget of $1.7 billion, and there has been no measurable improvement in health outcomes. Let us see what the research from Victoria University has shown, and I quote: “Concerns were raised by some informants about the targeting of increased funding with claims that it had been imprecise and that money had been wasted on those who could afford to pay, while affordable care was not as available for some groups who did not meet increased funding criteria.” That is what the Labour Government has created. It has created a situation whereby the Helen Clark’s or the Don Brash’s of this world get increased subsidies, which they do not need, to go to the doctor but the mother of three who has cancer does not receive the appropriate choice of drugs to help her breast cancer, and that is particularly serious.

Let us look at the 77 primary health organisations again. We know that two-thirds of them have fewer than 70,000 people involved and the Labour Government is propping them up. It costs three times as much to perpetuate this monster per primary health organisation.

What an appalling speech made by National’s spokesperson on health! Again, he did not give us one policy. The country is getting agitated, with only 16 weeks to go. I ask Dr Hutchison when we will see any policy. I think he needs to talk to Dr Brash—the voice of ignorance, narrow political advantage, and selfishness. And that is what we will see if, heaven forbid, National gets traction on the election campaign, which is already under way. He believes, and he says, two different things. He will use any populist tactic in his grasp to try to divert attention from his real plans.

What underlies all of this? We hated the 1990s. Dr Brash will not declare himself, but he has no other option but to go back to the divisive tactics of the 1990s. When will we hear about the promised, yet to be delivered, tax cuts? When will National be honest with us? Will families see those cuts on their tables by Christmas, or will they see a little, wee Budget by then? Dr Brash and John Key cannot even agree, so there is fat chance we will see either. Families will simply get a lashing of baloney on their Christmas table, from a mean old rooster. National’s leader just fails to reach agreement and fails to show leadership. His approach is becoming manifestly clear. We are seeing mean-spirited, divisive, and, yes, racist approaches—and all so long overdue.

We have a poster in our electorate, already called the “Orewa billboard”, that talks about beaches in our beautiful lakes district. It states “Iwi Kiwi”. Apart from boring the public stupid, it is raising heckles in our fair-minded community—a community whose members are inclusive, sensible, and fair-minded New Zealanders. The Opposition, again, by putting up that billboard in Rotorua, shows that it does not understand tātou, tātou—we together. We do, at home. The billboard is going down like a lead balloon.

Let us go to the tax cut bribes. The Opposition will stoop to anything to show a point of difference, just for power. It is hungry and greed for power. Dr Brash has been known to say: “We can win if we play our cards right.” Politics is not about a card game; it is about real policies. National is getting desperate and it is getting low. At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Rotorua, John Key played off the tertiary sector, and the chief executive officer of our polytech institute came out and said: “Stop being dirty and playing politics with the tertiary sector. It is damaging to the good work we’re doing in our community, getting second-chance learners rolling back into education.”

I want to talk about the $1.9 billion that we know those proposed tax cuts will cost. What will that mean for Rotorua? It will mean that we will not have our sewage subsidisation scheme or safe drinking water schemes, that we will not have the Sustainable Farming Fund, and that there will not be any long-term funding commitment to restore the health of our lakes—and I will tell our community that, because it really cares about the well-being of the lakes in our district.

I go now from the health of our lakes to the health of our people. If those proposed tax cuts are to strip out $1.6 billion, what will go? Māori primary health organisations will go. Dr Brash has been recorded as asking why we even need Māori doctors. He does not even understand about reducing inequalities in health. Well, we do, and we are proud of our targeted spending in health. Primary health roll-out will stop—simply stop. Dr Brash does not even understand what a primary health organisation is. Why does Dr Hutchison not take him aside and give him a decent speaking to? What about aged-care funding? Oh yes, the Opposition is promising lashings of money to aged care. How will it afford it with those tax cuts and that loss in revenue? “Be afraid.”, I say to those people over 50 in our community, “Be very, very afraid.” Not only will superannuation be affected but so will health services.

One knows one has the Government on the run when it gets out the C team to take calls on the Government’s behalf—tired old speakers like Damien O’Connor and the very sophisticated Jill Pettis, soon to be the former member for Whanganui. Her tongue should surely be bottled and sold as paint stripper. That is the sophisticated member from Wanganui.

Let us look at the line-up of reasons why this Government is in free fall. This is a Government that has lost 10 percent of its core support in the last 2 months and we are not even into election mode yet. Let us look at the Budget. That was a real winner, was it not. The Dominion Post headline summed it up beautifully. It screamed “Is that it?”. Poor old Michael Cullen’s blood pressure must have gone through the roof when he woke up on the Friday morning after that Budget. He must have scratched his head and wondered why he had created an expectation that the Government would do something about tax, when all it did was promise our poorest citizens a half a packet of chewing gum in 3 years’ time. This is a Government that is sitting on a surplus of $7 billion, and he wonders why people do not embrace it.

Then there is the Benson-Pope debacle. He is the only member in this House I can think of who has a mouth big enough to get a tennis ball in. Obviously, he found a soulmate at Bayfield High School. Then there was the Prime Minister’s speeding motorcade. This is a Prime Minister who went through Timaru township, scattering pedestrians like South American peasants, and she wonders why people do not like her any more. And to rub salt into the wounds, she is now hanging six good men out to dry, just for political expediency. Jim Sutton was in that car, and he was seen going through Timaru township. That is his home town, and he wonders why Jo Goodhew is overtaking him in the polls. She will be an outstanding member of Parliament; she is just waiting in the wings, and she will be here soon.

Then we have Lianne Dalziel, who told lies and was fired. Then we have poor old Dover Samuels, who just got caught short. Then, to top it all off, we have John Tamihere. He went public with remarks about tossers, queers, smarmies, and front-bums, and he accused Michael Cullen of being duplicitous—and the whole country agreed with him. Do people remember the cartoon? Lianne Dalziel was fired for telling lies and poor old John Tamihere was fired for telling the truth. We must spare a thought for poor old Clayton Cosgrove. He was dumped on by John Tamihere for starting a hate campaign against the Prime Minister; he should have been in the Honours List on Monday for doing that. Having stood by John Tamihere for year after year, Clayton Cosgrove was dumped on by him. Poor old Clayton Cosgrove does not need enemies when he has friends like that.

Just last week we saw the Government pass legislation whereby vicious thugs in this country can get compensation, and the Government has told victims that they have to sue for any money—and the Government wonders why it is lagging in the polls. I can tell the Labour members why they are lagging in the polls. It is because the public of New Zealand are sick of that type of duplicitous PC behaviour. They are sending a very clear signal to this Government that its number is up, and that Government members should start brushing off their CVs and looking for a new job. They should start looking for other jobs.

Darren Hughes: Speaking of CVs, what about your CV?

BRIAN CONNELL: I hear—what is his name—Mr Hughes calling out again. Why does he not go outside, put on a pair of long pants, and come back in again?

That speech had no vision and no nothing, and that simply tells us where the National Party is at the moment—nowhere, absolutely nowhere.

I want to talk about Dr Brash and how hopeless that crowd on the other side of the House is. Once again, the members opposite have turned their back on Māori. They have done it before and they will do it again, but they are quite happy to use Māori as a political doormat. We estimate that the huge cost to achieve Dr Brash’s call for tax cuts will be about $1.9 billion. So where will those members get that money from? How will they fund that revenue? Do National Party members know? Do they know what the policy is? I ask the back-benchers who are here at the moment whether they know what the policy is. No, they do not. I have it on good advice from a National Party back-bencher that they learn about the policy in the paper the next day. What does that tell us? It tells us that there is no unity in the National Party caucus. National members do not know the policy and they cannot respond to the issues that we raise, so they are just a hopeless crowd.

Anyway, I want to say that the National Party will raise the revenue for tax cuts by cutting services. It will do that through cutting social security, including New Zealand superannuation, health, education, defence, and law and order, which absorb 77 percent of Government spending. There is no room in the Government’s core spending for major tax cuts—no room, whatsoever.

So where will National members get it from? Where will they get the revenue to pay the tax cuts from? Will there be a tax cut in Māori health, in Māori education, or in Māori television? Dr Brash is already on record stating that there are plenty of ways to achieve television broadcasting without having a Māori channel—so we know where that will go. Tax cuts would scrap not only Māori television but also the Ministry of Māori Development and Māori programmes, or does Dr Brash just strip away the number of workers that we have brought in? Will National members take it out of the numbers of nurses that we have put in? Will they take it away from the numbers of teachers? Will they take it by reducing police numbers? Tax cuts are too expensive and are designed to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

But what gets me is this: why did Tariana Turia vote against the Budget and, therefore, vote with the National Party? Is she also turning her back on Māori? I am quite sure that Māori listening to this debate will want to know why, because a vote against the Budget is a vote to support the National Party’s tax cut at the expense of services. If that is the case, that is indeed significant. The sheer impact of cutting services would harm the very essence of supporting mechanisms within the Māori community. The Māori Party vote against the Budget is a clear signal that it is voting against the Working for Families package—all targeted at those in need and at working families who earn between $25,000 and $55,000 a year.

Those families will be better off by nearly $100 a week. We are talking about an extra $100 a week that could go on extra food, or for the whānau and their school education. We are talking about extra money for whānau independence. The Māori Party vote against the Budget is also voting no to the $3.4 million funding to assist with programmes in Māori broadcasting. So I am in a quandary. I want to know, and I am sure that Māori members listening also want to know, why the Māori Party voted against the Budget, because we feel that a vote against the Budget is a vote against Māori and the services that Labour is providing—particularly the extra 7,500 cataract operations targeted at our kaumātua and kuia.

At the end of the day, under Labour, New Zealand is moving ahead. It is maintaining a strong and credible fiscal stance, it is being fair and inclusive, it is helping Kiwis build a stake in their country, and building the conditions for growth. How are we doing that? We are investing in health and education. Obviously, the Budget has committed over $1.9 billion in health over the 2008-09 years.

I should have taken a point of order before, but I will say it now. I could have assisted the Hon Maurice Williamson by telling him that I actually tabled those documents yesterday.

New Zealand’s education standards have never been so low. Our qualifications system is a disaster. We spend more than $8 billion on education. It is not Government money; it is taxpayers’ money. It is taken from hard-working New Zealanders to pay for education. The Education Review Office is charged with checking that New Zealand children get a good education. But this morning, in the Education and Science Committee during the estimates of the Education Review Office, in Vote Education Review Office’s statement of intent was a comment made by the Auditor-General’s office: “The ERO is still to clearly define what constitutes educational improvement in its statement of intent.” If the Education Review Office does not know what educational improvement is, how on earth can it monitor it?

Why does the Minister not do something about this situation? This Minister has overseen such a disaster in education, yet he will not listen to the very people who do know what is going on in education—that is, the parents. Parents certainly know what improvement in education is. They know whether their children are learning to read, write, and add up. They know whether their children are getting better or worse at it. The reason the Minister will not listen to parents, or give them choice or a say, is that he does not want to hear what they have to say.

A thousand and one randomly selected parents were given the chance to say what they thought in a Colmar Brunton survey taken in August 2004. The survey found, amongst other things, that 79 percent of parents—nearly 80 percent of parents—believed that schools should be free to offer an alternative exam to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Only 31 percent of parents said they had confidence in the NCEA. It is not just the NCEA’s scholarship that is a disaster; it is the whole NCEA system. We had a gold-plated international standard qualification in New Zealand bursary, and we have thrown it away. We had a good scholarship system run by the private scholarship trusts, and we have thrown that away. It would be very easy for the Minister to bring those things back. Let us start to put some rigour back into our qualifications system.

We have seen the chairman of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority depart and the chief executive depart, but the buck stops with the Minister of Education. Our New Zealand secondary education qualifications are just a disaster for the students, for employers, and for universities trying to sort out their intake of students.

We have seen damning reports all around. The State Services Commission report highlighted significant risks, bad advice, and sloppy policy. From there down we have had the Macleans College report, which said that the NCEA is in crisis. The Macleans College report showed that a student’s success or failure depended on which year he or she sat the NCEA and which school he or she went to. How unfair is that? This whole generation of students is going through this guinea pig system, and it is so unfair.

Warwick Elley, who for years has campaigned against the NCEA, has come out with another report, which states: “After 3 years of NCEA in operation, the upshot is a divided community. Many schools have boycotted the scheme, and many teachers who supported the idea have lost confidence in it. Meanwhile the university bursary examination has been abolished and replaced by something which will now be looked at with suspicion by employers and by universities here and overseas.”

The Minister said airily yesterday in the House that schools do not have to offer the NCEA. That is only true of schools where affluent parents can afford to have their children take Cambridge exams or International Baccalaureate. We should be offering choice to all parents, not just to affluent ones. Professor Alan MacDiarmid, a Nobel laureate, has said that the NCEA scholarship is a disaster for science in New Zealand. What puzzles me is that all these people who got where they are now because we had a rigorous standard in secondary school qualifications and exams—they got there because of those exams—now want to foist this politically correct, one-size-fits-all system on us. It is time to dump the NCEA.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.