Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I continue from what I was saying last night in endorsing the very fine sentiments that were outlined in the Prime Minister’s speech, in contrast with the behaviour of Dr Brash and members of the Opposition, who have done their darnedest to talk down the promise, the talent, and the worth of our economy. Obviously, we have been saying, and will continue to say at every opportunity, that one should not believe “Dr Doom” or the lost tribe of the National Party. The economy is doing exceptionally well. GDP is racing ahead. Business profits are exponential. Growth is unrivalled. Investment beggars belief. We are continuing to search for more and more people to fill the growing number of jobs. Our international credit rating sees us enjoying a mouth-watering status in the eyes of our competitors and other members of the OECD.

A particular point was made last night in relation to the value we place on families and young people, and no one has done more damage over the last few months to the aspirations of young people than Mr English, who has been wandering around dashing their hopes and undermining the examination system—English by name, gibberish by nature. He has been doing everything he can to alienate parents from schoolteachers. Why? When he had the opportunity to develop a system and to promote it, he failed. The reality is that the system we have implemented and are promoting, and that we will continue to adequately fund, is an investment in our young people.

What did we hear from Mr English during the election campaign? It was that he would have no bar of alleviating the student loan burden. Why? His reason was that he doubted whether students could handle the money. That is an obvious indictment on the man, and the less we see or hear from him in the education sector, the better it will be for our children.

What else have we seen? A key element of New Zealand’s identity, a key element of our national personality—that is, our status in relation to nuclear matters—is being constantly either undermined or confused by members of the National Party. Next, I have decided—certainly in the far north—that “Nats” stands for “nuclear at torpedo speed”. We will not agree to weaken or unravel our very proud antinuclear legacy.

What else have we heard in relation to negativity? We have heard a monstrous, unsubstantiated attack on the credibility of our leader from members of the National Party, when all they need to do is look at their own behaviour and what they are doing to their own leader. He is dog-tucker.

This Labour Party pledge card is a dishonest piece of paper that has on it a dishonest photo, and a signature that counts for nothing. The Labour Party is a party that has plundered the public purse with breathtaking arrogance. Don Brash was right when, square in the eye, he said to Labour yesterday: “Pay the money back.” Two official bodies, the Chief Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission, have referred this dishonest piece of political campaigning to the police. It is the first time in the history of New Zealand that a political party has been referred to the New Zealand Police for overspending in an election.

Mike Williams has confirmed that this pledge card was funded with taxpayers’ money, and that Labour has done it before. Dr Cullen confirmed how Labour has funded its pledge cards in the past. He said that Labour had done pretty much the same thing in 2002, and questions were not raised. That is the argument that Mr Hodgson raised on radio today. Well, of course no questions were asked, because no parliamentary logo is on the card. It has written on it: “Authorised by Mike Smith”, the secretary of the Labour Party, and “160 Willis Street, Wellington”. Who would have thought that that was taxpayer-funded? But now we have found that Labour has plundered the public purse again and that it breached the electoral spending limits last time, as well. Had Labour been caught by the electoral officials, it would have been found to be over the limit last time as well as this time.

I want to ask about another dishonest Labour Party publication that was sent to nearly every home in New Zealand within days of the election. It is another dishonest brochure that has in it another dishonest photo. The photo bears absolutely only a passing resemblance to a person who has been investigated by the police at least twice and found wanting. It is another piece of expensive party political propaganda, funded by the public, and this party in Opposition asks whether it was declared as an election expense. Distributed to just about every home in New Zealand, was this declared as an election expense as it was plundering the taxpayers’ purse to put the Labour Party back in office by yet again breaching the spending limits in this country?

Here is the real dishonesty. When the Government knew that the Auditor-General was on to its game, the Prime Minister was pretty tricky. She did not want to meet with him. She did not want to know. But the Government had constructive knowledge, because Minister Hodgson confirmed today that Minister Mallard and “Minister Simpson” met extensively with the Auditor-General to discuss his concerns about parliamentary party advertising. So nobody in this House should try to tell me that Helen Clark did not know what the Auditor-General was on about.

What happened here was that that party opposite has got so used to breaking the rules and ignoring the law that it just did not get it when it came to this credit card. This is the Prime Minister who was investigated for art fraud. The police said that there was a prima facie case. She was as guilty as guilty, but it was not worth investigating her, because of her position. The police knew about the Prime Minister’s involvement in the motorcade. The Prime Minister never talks to the police. She never answers their questions. She only sends a statement. I wonder what she will say about her involvement with this dishonest little card—$420,000: 20 percent more spending on the election than Labour was allowed. Do not tell me that this has not had a material impact on the election campaign, the closest election campaign we have had in a generation in this country. Labour members should not stand here and say that the fact that they deliberately breached the law had no impact on the general election. That party stole the election by stealing money from the taxpayers. The Labour Party plundered money from the taxpayers. That is what the Labour Party did. The Prime Minister knows that it stole $440,000.

How much did this publication cost? I ask Mr Mallard how much this cost.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How much did yours cost?

Hon TONY RYALL: I say “cheers” to Minister Dalziel. I will shout her a drink if she tells me the truth. Tell me how much this cost. I will shout Lianne Dalziel a drink if she tells me whether this is included in the Labour Party’s campaign spending as well.

That party opposite is doing everything to try to muddy the waters on its electoral spending. We saw exactly that on “paintergate”. Remember: “Oh, oh, who’s complained?”. It was all about the person who complained. When that was tired it was: “Oh, oh, the law’s confusing—who knows?”. But the law was not confusing. That is what the Labour Party is arguing: “The law is confusing.” The law is not confusing, it is absolutely clear.

How about this complete fabrication on National Radio today? Minister Hodgson said that one cannot go to the electoral officials and get an indication on whether something is included in the spending. He said that one cannot go to the officials. He said: “I went to the officials once and I was declined.” That is what he said on the radio; members heard it. The fact is they have been giving opinions to political parties in the election campaign like they were going out of fashion, and the Labour Party is caught on the skewer. It has used taxpayers’ money to fund a dishonest little card with a dishonest photo, trying to tell New Zealanders what its commitments were.

But let us just look at these two cards. I tell Minister Mallard that we have a card paid for by the taxpayers. And we have a card that Minister Mallard’s party now admits was paid for by the taxpayers. What does the card state? It states: “Authorised by Mike Smith, 160 Willis Street”, the secretary of the Labour Party. That is an election expense. No one complained about the public use of taxpayers’ money with this. None of us thought there was public money involved, because it was authorised by Mike Smith. If it was public money, why would it necessarily carry an authorisation? And, there was no crest on the card. So that was another piece of dishonesty by someone involved in this campaign. Where was the parliamentary crest that should have been on this card if it was a taxpayer expense?

Hon Member: Because they are used to lies!

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, someone is used to lies, but we are not allowed to say it in the Parliament. But I have to say this. This party opposite should take Don Brash’s advice and pay the money back. It should go and see its mates. Helen Clark came to Parliament to soak the rich and has spent most of her time in Parliament sucking up to the rich. She should go and see them.

Darren Hughes: That is not even original.

Hon TONY RYALL: No it is not, but it applies. But here is a promise, and here is the credit card. I will tell the member this. That party opposite has plundered the public purse with breathtaking arrogance—$450,000. How many operations could that have paid for? How many Child, Youth and Family Services carers could that have paid for—how many services for New Zealand from this dishonest little card from that dishonest party opposite?

What a bitter, twisted little speech that was from a member who is now entering his seventh year—his third term—in Opposition. He represents a National Party that has never performed worse in the history of this country and that has not one but four pretenders to its leadership. He is the member who claimed just a few minutes ago that Labour was the first party to be referred to the police for overexpenditure. Members will remember that just before Christmas the National Party was referred to the police for overexpenditure in breach of theBroadcasting Act. That member cannot get a basic fact right. In fact, he cannot lie straight in bed.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He is not straight!

Hon PHIL GOFF: He cannot be straight. I have learnt one thing in politics, and that is to be wary of the claims and the rhetoric of the self-righteous. That member is as self-righteous as any member in this House, about everything from sex offending to you name it. We know a few things about the self-righteous. We remember the saga of Graham Capill, the most self-righteous of all the leaders of political parties, and how hypocritical his self-righteousness was.

We have just seen a piece of hypocrisy and self-righteousness about overexpenditure. I have in my hand here the National Party pamphlet from the last election, entitled What National Stands For. What is important about it is that it has a parliamentary crest on the back, and that parliamentary crest shows that this pamphlet was paid for with taxpayers’ money. This pamphlet—doing exactly what the Labour pledge card does—is paid for by the taxpayer, and it was put out in a little bag before the election to all constituents. That is a classic case of double standards and of hypocrisy.

If only it ended there, but we have seen much, much more of that. Three weeks before the election Katherine Rich put out a statement, under the parliamentary crest, asking for the support of superannuitants on the basis of the National Party policy on tax cuts, paid for by the taxpayer, and again in breach of what National members have just been talking about. Is this National Party, which is complaining about the funding of Labour pamphlets, the same party that had billboards—paid for by the taxpayer—go up all over this country? Is this the same National Party? Is that another example of hypocrisy? Of course it is an example of hypocrisy, and there is so much more we could use by way of example. National Party members put out a questionnaire to constituents and asked them to send back a letter in the reply-paid envelope—paid for by the taxpayer—telling them how they were going to vote. The questionnaire asked constituents who they were going to support in the next election. If that is not politicking, what is? And who paid for it? It was the taxpayer. That is an example of more hypocrisy.

But hypocrisy is not just a feature of the National Party. When I came to the House yesterday, Rodney Hide was on his feet talking about the Government plundering taxpayers’ pockets. I have here an advertisement that appeared on 15 September 2005 in the Dominion Post. That was 2 days before the election. The advertisement states: “What ACT brings to Parliament”. That was put out under the parliamentary crest and paid for by the taxpayer. What hypocrisy we have heard from the Opposition over the last few days! If that were not enough, I have another advertisement here, showing an image very similar to Rodney Hide, leader of the ACT party, which is the two-person party in this House. One could reflect on this picture and put some black crosses through the photos that appear on it. There were eight members, but there are not as many as a while ago. This advertisement does exactly what the pledge card does. It sets out what ACT stands for and its promises on tax, crime, health, and so on.

If those members do not like the rules that exist in the House on expenditure, then we should change the rules, and we should change them for everybody. But let us not have any more of the double standards and the hypocrisy of saying that what Labour is doing is wrong, when in fact those members have been doing the same thing time and time again to even greater levels.

We saw another example during the campaign in the secretive and surreptitious campaign of the Exclusive Brethren in support of the election of the National Party. I know why the National Party wanted to keep that secret. Who in that party would want the public to know that a small group of religious extremists—a sect—was supporting their party for Government? The National Party did not want the public to know, to the extent that Don Brash said to the listening audience of Newstalk 1ZB that he did not know who had put out the pamphlets. He said he did not know. Two days later he owned up on student radio that he had known all along. He had been meeting with representatives of the Exclusive Brethren on several occasions. They had told him they were putting the pamphlets out. Don Brash deceived the public of this country. He was caught out. He was not telling the truth. Those were dirty tactics. That was an attempt to steal the election. But the attempt was not good enough, because that dismal National Party remains in Opposition.

When one looks at the National Party, one sees what a dismal party it is. It is a party that is reduced to trying to talk down the country and to talk up recession. No wonder Don Brash was decried by the Sunday Star Times as “Dr Doom”. This is the man whose only contribution to his own country was to try to talk it into recession and talk down how well it has been doing. The National Party is in an appalling situation. Just look at it. John Key was at the Taupō meeting. He told the media that one of his senior colleagues had been dumping on him, saying he was ambitious for the leadership. What naivety! I ask Gerry Brownlee who that was. It was Gerry Brownlee who was doing it. But it was not just him; it was also Bill English. It was the two of them. But then I might be falling short, because that great friend and ally of the National Party Rodney Hide said there were three or four traitors in the National Party.

Is this an Opposition that is preparing itself for Government? Is this an Opposition that is trying to work out forward-looking policies? Is this an Opposition that makes even the least attempt to be a genuine Opposition? No, this is a group of dismal, introspective people who are worried only about trying to seize the reigns of power within their own party—a party that is going nowhere. One cannot blame Gerry Brownlee or Bill English, because it was Don Brash himself who said that one does not get a second chance when one is a loser; one goes. And no loser survives in the National Party. Of course, Don Brash could take heart from the repeated denials of John Key that he is after the leadership. But was it not Don Brash who in April 2003 said he was right behind Bill English? He was right behind Bill English—with a big knife! That is what is going to happen to Don Brash. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. But who will wield the sword? Will it be Gerry Brownlee? Will it be Bill English? Will it be John Key? Or is there another pretender?

Some of the back-benchers sitting over there must watch with sinking hearts the incompetence of the National Party leadership and shadow Cabinet. They acknowledge that their nuclear policy was a disaster, that it was confusing, and that it lost them votes. But are they prepared to change it? Murray McCully wants to, but Lockwood Smith does not. Lockwood Smith stood up at the caucus meeting in Taupō—Gerry Brownlee was there; he heard him say it—and said that if the policy was changed then he would resign. Well, that is another reason to change the policy. That would be a very good thing.

Finally, I come back to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister provided us with a clear vision and a detailed policy agenda for the next 3 years. She made the point that we are not a status quo party, and we are not. We are here to make a difference. We are here for a better, stronger, more prosperous, fair, and inclusive New Zealand. We will do that by transforming the economy. We have made a good start. We are doing it in my portfolio of trade, and I hope that the National Party will be supportive of that. We are doing it by building a country that has regard to the need for the security of families and for opportunities for them. We will also see further progress on the Working for Families policy. We are creating a country where we can be proud of our national identity and our culture, proud of being an inclusive and harmonious multiracial society, and proud of the role that we as a country play in the world.

Would someone please get that man a happy pill. He really does need a bit of anger management, or certainly some sort of pill, and I am sure that there are members in the Government who could help him out.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I point out that, following repeated requests on behalf of Nick Smith, that comment has been repeatedly ruled out of order. I ask that the member withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The Minister is correct. That comment is not considered to be parliamentary.

JUDITH COLLINS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the Hon Trevor Mallard taking personal offence at that comment?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the Minister was referring to the way in which the member referred to another member. I think the Minister was quite clear about that. Comments about taking medication have been ruled out of order on several occasions. I think the member should withdraw and apologise.

JUDITH COLLINS: I notice that you, Madam Assistant Speaker, did not pull up the previous speaker when he referred to Dr Don Brash with words other than his name.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Will the member be seated. That is a separate point of order. I have ruled on the point of order, and I have ruled on it as it is being heard now, and that is the correct one. If the member wanted to raise a point of order at another time, it should have been raised then.

JUDITH COLLINS: I withdraw, and do I also apologise to Mr Mallard?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member will apologise to the House. It is very simple. The member has been asked to withdraw and apologise to the House. That is all that is necessary.

JUDITH COLLINS: I withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

It was very good for Mr Hughes to come down here mincing along, carrying Helen Clark’s handbag. He has gone all bright pink now. Poor Mr Hughes. He should just come out and be straight. He needs to learn a bit from his colleague on the bench Mr Tim Barnett, who has always been very straight about himself. I think poor Mr Hughes should just come forth and be honest.

Who said this: “My signature is on it. I am accountable for it.”? Who said that?

Chris Auchinvole: Who was it?

JUDITH COLLINS: I thank the member for asking. It was, of course, the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark. When did she say that? She said it in May 1999 in her speech to the Labour Party conference. What was she referring to? She was referring to the little red card that was paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer. The problem was that New Zealand taxpayers did not know they were paying for it. It was just one of those little things. Now we are told that not only has $450,000 come from the taxpayer purse but the budget was overspent by that. The Labour Party spent 20 percent more than it was allowed to. It stole the election.

Then we heard from Mr Cullen—he is a history professor of course, so he would know this—who said that the Government has done that before. It has done it not just once but twice. That is about $1.2 million of taxpayers’ money. I wonder whether that was in addition to the amount that it overspent. I think the answer is yes. It is taxpayers’ money. The Labour Party has now confessed that in three separate elections taxpayers have unwittingly paid for that card and for everything else—the other pamphlets that came out in the week of the election—as the Hon Tony Ryall showed us today. What did Helen Clark know? Well, she signed the card. There is a photo that looks remarkably like she did about 30 or 40 years ago.

Gerry Brownlee: No!

JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Brownlee says “No!”. It was paid for from her office budget of over $400,000, which she does not seem to know much about. I think it is so amazing that Mr Williams—

Katherine Rich: That’s just the make-up cost.

JUDITH COLLINS: I say to Mrs Rich that that is very unkind; I think that is terribly unkind, but probably true. It is sort of like the Hon Pete Hodgson’s Kyoto Protocol promise. The protocol was going to make us half a billion dollars. It was going to bring that money into New Zealand, because Pete Hodgson had the deal for us. But what happened to “Mr Numbers Man”? I ask Mr Brownlee what Mr Hodgson is in charge of now. Can Mr Brownlee remember? It is something. He was in charge of the election spending. He was on the radio this morning, saying that it was all unclear.

Chris Auchinvole: “Mr Fix-it”.

JUDITH COLLINS: “Mr Fix-it”—he is a strategist, apparently. I thank Mr Auchinvole. I was having difficulty remembering which story he was talking about, because it is always half a billion dollars or something like that.

Colin King: Either way.

JUDITH COLLINS: Half a billion either way, as has been correctly pointed out. It is like that smear campaign undertaken by David Benson-Pope and Labour, when it sent out fake eviction notices to State tenants a few days before the election, telling them that if they voted National, they would be kicked out of their houses. What disgusting, foul behaviour! A lot of those people do not speak English very well, are frightened of the law, are old-age pensioners, or are without anything. That is what David Benson-Pope and this Government did to them. They did that deliberately.

The other question, as raised today by the Hon Tony Ryall, is how the Minister knew where those tenants all lived, and how he knew their names. Were the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s records and database seized and gone through by the Minister’s people? Did they do that? Did they get that information from the Housing New Zealand Corporation? It does not seem as though anyone who is not a Housing New Zealand Corporation tenant got that notice. That is what happened.

Jill Pettis: Most of us know how to use the phone book.

JUDITH COLLINS: What did the former member for Whanganui say? She said that they went through the phone book. Well, the phone book apparently states, according to Jill Pettis, whether a person is a State tenant. That is one of the new rings. We in Manukau City do not have that in our phone book. What happened there? There are some very good questions to be answered.

How about Trevor Mallard’s American bagman? Do members remember that? It was a great story; we are still waiting for it. That was the bagman. Now, apparently, it is a crime to be a member of a religious minority or an American—worse if one is both. It was great to hear Phil Goff talking today about this Government’s great multiculturalism and religious tolerance. We heard that, did we not? We heard that in full scream. Did Mr Goff once mention the trade unions? Trade union pamphlets went up and down the country to household after household, paid for by the trade unions and authorised by Darien Fenton, who just happened to be a Labour Party list candidate and who now sits in this House because of the work of that Service and Food Workers Union. How about that? Is that being taken into account? I bet it is not. [Interruption] If Mrs Pettis wants copies, she need not worry—I have copies.

How about the $15 million Working for Families advertising campaign to tell four out of five working families with children that they do not earn enough money to keep their own children without extra money from the taxpayers? That is a disgrace. Government members have started that campaign again because they have so much taxpayers’ money.

I say to my colleagues in Parliament that the culture of any organisation starts at the top. One does not go to an organisation and say that the person who cleans up sets the culture. The culture starts at the top, and the culture of this Government and the Labour Party starts with Helen Clark. She sets the culture; she said before she came into power that she would set the culture. It is a new culture. Let us listen to what she said about Lianne Dalziel: “I advised Lianne that in my view a clear line had been crossed between a statement which was misleading and a statement which was untrue.” Most people would think it was a fib, one way or the other. I have been thinking about it, and what it means is that if a member gets caught, and it is too embarrassing and the Prime Minister cannot get the member out of it, she will put the member in purgatory for a little while, then bring him or her back.

This time Helen Clark has been caught like a rat in a trap. That is what has happened to her, just like it did to David Benson-Pope and Lianne Dalziel. This is the only woman who is so enthralled by Jim Sutton that, sitting in the back seat of a limousine, she could not tell they were travelling at 150 kilometres per hour.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Poor Jim Sutton!

JUDITH COLLINS: “Poor Jim Sutton!”, says Lockwood Smith. What happened? The police copped it. Jim Sutton is a nice enough chap, but I cannot imagine any woman being as enthralled as that by the very slow ramblings of Jim Sutton in the back seat of a car going at 150 kilometres per hour. She was just lost in a dream. Guess who copped it? The poor old police and the driver.

Helen Clark said, about standards in Government: “I want Labour in Government to usher in a new era of political accountability and responsibility.”

Chris Auchinvole: She certainly did that.

JUDITH COLLINS: She certainly did do that, like New Zealand has never seen before. It is a culture and standard of none. That is what that is about. There are lots of things that this Government is basically dishonest about in the way it presents information. Helen Clark is the leader of this Government. She is the leader of the Labour Party. She set the culture of dishonesty. She set a culture that said that Ministers can go through a revolving door whereby if they get caught, they can come back again after a little time, and everything is all right. Well, it just will not be all right any more.

It is great to be back for another 3 long years in Government. I am still basking in the warmth of the support that the people of Wellington gave the Labour Party. I am also basking in the continuing endorsement by New Zealanders for Labour to lead this country for another 3 productive and happy years.

It is great to be part of a caucus that likes each other. We can share a meal with each other, and we can sit down at a table and talk to each other. We can laugh together, we can work together, and we know the value of working with other parties to ensure we have stable Government in this country. We have come back, firing on all cylinders, looking forward to the next 3 long years in Government. More important, we have the privilege of being able to continue our policies for the good of the people of New Zealand. Over the next 3 years this country will see a number of things that were set out by the Prime Minister yesterday, but let us just look at a few of them.

There will be a major review of the structure of business taxation, new initiatives to get faster Internet access at more competitive prices, a rolling-out of major infrastructure programmes, and a big extension to the Working for Families package, by which 350,000 families will be entitled to tax relief in 2006. There will be an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation for our older people, and, for our younger people, no interest will be payable on student loans for those staying in New Zealand. There will be an improved rates rebate scheme and more affordable primary health care—something that New Zealanders will look forward to, particularly those aged 40 to 55, who come into the net very soon under this Government. A thousand more sworn police officers will be on the beat in New Zealand over the next 3 years. That is just a few of the policies and improvements that we have on our agenda over the next 3 years.

Now, let us compare that with the agenda of the members opposite. Let us have a look at them. They have division, dissent, and despair. They are a disparate group of defeated deadbeats over there in the National Party, and they are led by “Dead Man Walking”, Don Brash, and his supporters—he says—a cast of clowns opposite. [Interruption] Yes, “Dead Man Walking”, Don Brash—that is his name. He is leading the National Party, but who does he have supporting him in his cast of clowns? He has “Super Size Me”, Gerry Brownlee. He is not a dead man walking; he is sleepwalking. Then we have “Farmer Boy”, Bill English. Well, he is leaking; he is one of the so-called leakers. Then we have sneering Tony Ryall, who is still moaning and mincing about his defeat 7 long years ago.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that the speaker on her feet is a member of very long years’ experience in this House, but I would ask you to consider how any of her most recent comments in this House comply with the Standing Order that relates to personal reflections. Now, most of us do not mind that sort of thing, but it does seem to us on this side of the House that whenever we refer to Labour members or Ministers in a way that might be either colloquial or perhaps slightly derisory, the Chair is pretty quick to shut us down. If we, for example, were to talk about Helen Clark in a manner that probably best describes her in our view, then I think we would be asked to withdraw those comments. Now, the member may well be having a bit of fun, but she is a senior member of the Government. We have just heard the Prime Minister’s speech, and it amuses us a little that that speaker would prefer to engage in this rather than try to defend the Prime Minister’s speech—which, of course, we all know was woefully inadequate. So, Madam Assistant Speaker, my question to you is this: how does that member’s speech comply with the requirements of the Standing Order that relates to personal reflections?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I certainly judged that the member had used the names correctly, and it is very common for a comment to be made about a member. There are a lot of times when the issue is raised, and if we are going to get into ruling that out of order, I think we will have a lot more ruled out of order. If that is what members want, I will certainly reflect on it and discuss it with the Speaker. Certainly from what I heard, I would not rule it out of order, but I give the member an undertaking that I will look at it.

Gerry Brownlee: I do not want to challenge you, Madam Assistant Speaker, but I just recall how swift the Chair was to shut down references to “Helengrad” and other references such as the “Baltic Beauty”, which reflected on Helen Clark. They were completely ruled out, and instantly so, and, I think, quite correctly. But to sort of say that it is tolerable, if one is a Government member, to talk about Opposition members in a derisory way, is, I think, the real issue here. What still leaves us staggered is why this particular Minister is not prepared to defend the abysmal speech of the Prime Minister.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no—that last comment was not needed. I said to the member that I would consider the matter, but certainly I do not think we would have to look far back in Hansard to see that references of that nature have been made on both sides of the House, and quite frequently. So we will look at it.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Is it not interesting? My speech is all about hypocrisy, and not long ago we had Judith Collins talking about the “drawling Jim Sutton”. Of course, that was OK for a senior front-bench member of the National Party.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At no stage did I ever refer to Jim Sutton like that. That is absolute rubbish.

Hon ANNETTE KING: You did.

Judith Collins: I did not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Members cannot argue that across the House. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It will be very interesting to see just how many of them will be sitting in those benches in 3 months’ time. Will the faces change in 6 months’ time? Who will walk the plank in the next year? Who will be pushed? Who will be promoted? And where is “Dr Paul”? This is a continuing story of human conflict. I agreed with John Banks this morning. John Banks, who is a National man through and through, was speaking on “truth radio”, as he does every day, and I want to quote him. He said: “I can’t for the life of me ever see the National Party becoming the Government again.” He said: “Don Brash will never be the Prime Minister”, and he should know. He knows that a loser never survives in the National Party. He went on to say that Helen Clark has got it all over the Opposition. I say: “Good on you, John. Keep telling the listeners on ‘truth radio’ the truth, because that is the truth.”

The biggest piece of hypocrisy I have heard in this House for a while was when Don Brash gave his speech yesterday on campaign spending at the last election. This is a man who denied any knowledge about the vicious and lying Exclusive Brethren campaign and its pamphlets against the Labour Party and the Green Party. I can tell this House today that I know that Don Brash was told not to meet with the Exclusive Brethren. He was advised not to meet with them, but he ignored that advice, and that is why the appointment was not in his diary. It was not recorded in his diary. He went against that advice and met with the Exclusive Brethren. What was the purpose of that? The purpose was to mislead voters and cover up National Party expenditure by getting the Exclusive Brethren to stump up with the cash—no DNA, no finger prints, no “Dondruff”; just a sneaky little plan to defraud the public. Yet yesterday he accused the Labour Party of corruption.

Well, I know of only one corrupt practice that has occurred in this Parliament in the time I have been here, and that happened in mid-1999 when National members were clinging to power by their fingertips. Money—taxpayers’ money—was given by a National Cabinet directive to a now-convicted fraudster, Donna Awatere Huata, to buy her vote. Money was passed over, without tender, without scrutiny, and the transaction was covered up by the National Party, until it found Donna Awatere Huata’s fingers in the till. The Cabinet papers came out, and what did the Cabinet papers say? They stated in a National Cabinet directive that they would hand money over to Donna Awatere Huata for her vote. That is what it was for—for her vote, and that was Pipi Foundation money, not pin money. That is what Donna Huata got to keep the National Party in power. That was the “dollars for votes” scandal that we had in this House. If members want to talk about corruption, they will hear that I know of no time in the history of New Zealand when money was passed over to keep a vote so a party could stay in power. Judith Collins talked about pamphlets. She said it was OK to use taxpayers’ money for pamphlets, as long as one tells people that—

Judith Collins: No, I didn’t.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh, yes she did. The member has amnesia. So I want to know whether Katherine Rich told the taxpayers in her letter of 29 August that they were paying for this letter, which sets out what was going to superannuitants.

Katherine Rich: 29 August, was it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It was 29 August. The member has forgotten she sent it out. Thousands of letters, paid for by taxpayers, told people how they would benefit from the National Party’s policy. The letter gave guarantees about not cutting nurses, about there being no means tests—blah, blah, blah. This letter was put out by a member just before the election—but it was OK if she had told them she had used taxpayers’ money. That member did not. Nowhere does it state: “This letter was funded with taxpayers’ money.”

That member mentioned pamphlets that were paid for by the trade union movement. I have to say to Judith Collins that it proudly put its name on its pamphlets, and it paid for its pamphlets. Who paid for the pamphlets that had the name of no one we know on them? The Exclusive Brethren pamphlets did not even come from real addresses. I would direct members to have a look at the health pamphlet that the Exclusive Brethren put out in support of National, because the address that was written on that, which I just happened to visit, was an empty house. That is how honest they were—the address given on the health pamphlet was an empty house in Christchurch. Talk about transparency! What hypocrisy!

If we needed any evidence of just how desperate the Government is, we just needed to listen to the speech of that member, Annette King. The Government’s way of explaining away the use of $450,000 of taxpayers’ money is to be found in three arguments: firstly, by mentioning the Exclusive Brethren apparently, according to Annette King; secondly, by bringing up Donna Awatere Huata, a total red herring; and thirdly, by talking about a letter that I sent on 29 August. How desperate is that!

But I think Labour has walked into a bit of a trap there, because one of its own members has been less than honest about what he was doing in the lead-up to the election. Members can call me old-fashioned, but I thought the sending out of letters by MPs in the course of their daily duties was small beer. That member, Annette King, is totally unaware of a letter that was sent out on 12 September 2005 by her colleague David Benson-Pope, leading up to the election. The member is nodding, but she does not know that this is a different letter. It is not that scandalous piece of pap sent out as a flier to State house tenants but a letter with a parliamentary letterhead to those tenants. That one short letter mentions the word “vote” not once, not twice, but six times in its course. I would like to read from David Benson-Pope’s letter so the member can understand: “But I need your help so I can continue to help you. Your two votes, for the labour party and for me as the local Labour MP, are vital at this election. And the votes of everyone in your household who is over 18 and a permanent resident.” Then he goes on to tell them that if they are not enrolled, they can get on to the roll: “Please ring my office …” if you are having trouble getting on the roll. “Please make sure that everyone in your home who is eligible to vote is on the roll and does go out to vote on election day.” The letter mentions the word “vote” six times.

Annette King is sitting on the other side of the House looking smug, but if she looks at this letter she will see the parliamentary crest. The letter is written with the Labour Party letterhead, and it asks for votes. Every member in this House knows that any material that goes out with that crest on it is not allowed to ask for a vote. We can have an esoteric debate about whether an MP is doing his or her work, but it is quite clear that if a letter asks for a vote, and mentions the word “vote” not once, not twice, but six times in one letter, then that is totally out of order and totally not allowed. I have had this letter for quite some time, but I thought that that sort of stuff was small beer compared to $450,000—or well over $1 million, if one tallies up the other credit card pledges that that Government—

Hon Annette King: And $1 million from the Exclusive Brethren.

KATHERINE RICH: Now, she is changing tack. I think Mr Benson-Pope will be in for a bit of trouble. Somebody did not tell Helen Clark that he had sent out a letter on Labour Party letterhead with the parliamentary crest. Somebody did not tell Helen Clark before she went into the House today. No one said: “Oops, we shouldn’t let her mention a letter that was sent out in the course of another MP’s duty some 3 weeks ago because, oops, there is a letter here that was sent out in the week before the election with a parliamentary letterhead.”

Today I want to talk about economic development, because that is an area of huge embarrassment for the Government. It is quite clear that the “jobs machine” is a hoax, and that Jim Anderton has left the economic development portfolio in an absolute shambles. Why else would the Prime Minister change Ministers and send in Trevor Mallard if there were not a mess? In the last week or so Minister Mallard has announced a review of all schemes. That is all very well, but one of the things the Minister failed to mention was that he will be reviewing schemes that have not even been in existence for more than 3 years. Labour has found that its schemes are an absolute mishmash of dual objectives, project overlaps, and mistakes made. If the member on the opposite side of the House does not agree with me, she need only look as far as the Auditor-General’s report in 2004, and an extremely damning review from officials in 2005, which clearly point out that the Government has huge problems when it comes to those grants schemes.

The Government is failing to understand that most businesses do not actually see many of those schemes as being a good thing; in fact, some see them as being cluttered, unfair, and not something they want to support if there is a trade-off between having those schemes and having lower taxes, fairer regulations, better employment laws, and an environment that allows them to do business. I want to read out a letter that I received last week from a businesswoman: “I am the owner of a furniture design firm struggling to stay New Zealand - made. My husband and I pay high taxes on his income, and have to watch Trade New Zealand give enormous amounts of money to my opposition in the form of grants. The grants scheme has become an industry in itself. There are experts in getting grants who take a fee to move your business on to the gravy train. There are many examples of money being given to prop up businesses that are not feasible or shift offshore deliberately to close their doors as soon as they have taken all the grants they can.”

One of the things the Labour Government fails to see is that it is not sound economic policy to set up schemes that are designed more to get Jim Anderton and Helen Clark in photos than to assist businesses to do their work around the country. We have seen this Government turn the creation of photo opportunities into a high art. Jim Anderton, in particular, travelled around the country handing out cheques as if they were his own money. Today we have a full understanding of why. The Labour Party, in particular, does think the money is its own, and that is why it will not pay back those taxpayers’ funds that have been scandalously used to fund its own propaganda.

Good economic development policy is more than creating photo opportunities for Ministers. Good economic policy looks at some of the macroeconomic factors such as the good economic conditions for creating an environment where there are lower taxes, where people can hire people, and where people are able to ensure they can do business well, without having the heavy-handed approach of the Labour Government. I think Lianne Dalziel, the Minister for Small Business, accepts that. That is why she said that one of the main reasons, unfortunately, why many very small businesses—ones with no employees—will not take on staff is that they are frightened of employment issues and have been subjected to professional grievance claims. That is true, but I question her as to what she will do about it. If anything, we know that employment law changes are not on the agenda for this Government. In fact, they will make it tougher for a number of businesses in New Zealand when those businesses make changes to their vulnerable workers legislation this year. They will make it more difficult for the firms that Helen Clark has had her photo taken with—for example, CleanTastic, winner of the franchise of the year—to be in business. Those businesses are the mum and dad operations that keep this country going.

The whole economic development area is in a total shambles, and that is of Labour’s making. The jury is out about whether the merger has been a good one, but one of the things that has not been highlighted is the fact that Trevor Mallard is actually reviewing and trying to tidy up what has been Labour’s mess. Labour members rushed together their plans and programmes, and thought more about photo opportunities for themselves than they did about the businesses they intended to help. They made companies like Jack Link’s the poster companies for their failed initiatives, and I think they did the business community a disservice by tying it up with something that is actually a propaganda scheme for the Labour Party.

We would like to see the economic area tidied up. We think that if Government members want to help all businesses they should lower taxes, change employment laws, stop handing out small cheques, and do something that assists all businesses in this country, not just Labour’s favourites. Government members have focused on the chosen few glamour companies rather than looked at the whole economic package.

We could not have a more interesting contrast between the parties in Parliament than in that demonstrated in what we have been hearing over the last little while. There is the Labour-led Government, which won the election for the third consecutive term, back on track and talking about the key issues that New Zealanders want to talk about. It is talking about the economy and economic transformation, and making sure the economy is performing to provide the services that New Zealanders want. It is talking about the importance of families, young and old, being able to receive the services that come from a thriving economy, and the importance of our being able to continue with the development of our unique national identity.

We can contrast that with the strange, odd, and funny goings-on within the National Party. The more we hear about the leadership of the National Party, the more it sounds like another episode of Desperate Housewives. It sounds exactly like that. When we see another episode of Desperate Housewives, what we see is the leader of the National Party having constantly to tell everyone that he is the leader of the National Party, when he and everybody else knows that he is not, really. There is the first desperate housewife.

Then we have the second one, who is the party’s deputy leader. Gerry Brownlee wants to be the leader, so he spends a lot of his time undermining one of the serious candidates, John Key. So the deputy leader, Gerry Brownlee, wants to be the leader, and he sees his only hope is to undermine and torpedo the serious contender John Key.

There is John Key himself. He is the party’s finance spokesperson. He wants to be the leader, he says, but not just yet. We in Parliament know that “not just yet” is the code for “I haven’t got the numbers yet.” That is what that phrase means.

Then, of course, there is the previous leader, Bill English, who wants to be the leader again. There is another desperate housewife. He wants to be the leader, although he has already had a go and they threw him out. Who threw him out, and who rolled him? It was the other desperate housewife called Don Brash.

There was another desperate housewife: the justice spokesperson, called Simon Power. He was once picked in the media as a future leader. That is usually the kiss of death in this place. Being picked by the media as a future leader, by and large, means that one never makes it to have that happen. Of course, that desperate housewife can see that his opportunities are slowly slipping away.

They are all desperate. They are all dateless, all fighting, and all bitter, and the back bench, of course, is totally and utterly confused by it all. Most of those back-benchers come in here wanting to do their bit for their electorates, and find that they are totally and utterly embroiled in leadership shenanigans and goings-on that make Desperate Housewives look like a very, very poor soap. And, of course, the important thing those members will be asked very, very shortly—and there are two of them over there—is which horse they will be on, because the horse they are on will determine their personal future in this Parliament.

Will they stay loyal to Don Brash? I heard Nick Smith say that he would bet a good bottle of Marlborough wine that Don Brash will be the leader going into the next election. Well, there would not be too many people willing to put bottles of wine on that, and I wonder how many of those back-bench MPs will be saying that, yes, they are all with Don this time. Will they be with John Key, and when will he make his move? Will they be with Gerry Brownlee? What about Simon Power and Bill English? And, of course, some other horse could come through the middle.

I say to back-bench National Party members that their time is coming. They will have to choose, and that back bench will not be the same again, because there will be splits and divisions. There will be people who supported one candidate and then said they should have supported the other, and that will go on for 3 years—mark my words. A party cannot survive and say it is a credible party when just a summary of the headlines says otherwise. I will run through just a few of those headlines: “Don Brash, the bouncy kangaroo”, “Are Don Brash’s days numbered?”, “Top job still a worry for Nats”, “Gloomy Brash at odds with analysts”, “Brash on a hiding to nothing”, “ ‘Stop gossiping’ MPs told”, “Dr Brash will not be Prime Minister”, “Don’t believe Dr Doom”, “Brash demands Nats’ loyalty”, “Brash determined to keep his job”, and “National tries to end internal rifts”. A leader cannot go around the country and tell people his party is a serious Opposition party, ready for Government, when he cannot even govern his own party. That is one of the fundamental laws in this place: no party has ever, ever contended an election seriously when it cannot get its own house in order. That message goes back over time.

Let us play a little game called “Spot the Difference”. We sometimes see this in cartoons in papers, and we are asked what the difference is between two pictures. In April 2003 Dr Don Brash said: “Bill English has my full support.” In February 2006 John Key said this about Dr Brash: “I have very publicly on dozens of occasions outlined my unconditional support for him. I’ve actively worked hard and will continue to work hard to ensure that he is a very successful leader.” Again, what about April 2003 in our game “Spot the Difference”? Dr Brash said: “There’s been nothing which you would call a coherent or organised plot,”. Then in October 2005 John Key said: “There is no grand master plan behind the scenes, like we go after him after six months,”. That is “Spot the Difference” No. 2. There has been a “Spot the Difference” No. 3. In May 2003 Dr Brash said: “I was at no point aiming at leadership when I came into politics.” That is what he said. What did John Key say in October 2005? He said: “I have no intention of challenging Don,”.

We could play this game all afternoon, if we had the time. Regrettably, I do not. All I am saying is that no party can be serious. Jane Clifton summarised it absolutely beautifully by saying that Dr Brash is, in short, an old dog who has not learnt the requisite new tricks of politics. That is true; he has not and he will not. That is why he will not be around for long. Nobody believes that he will be the leader going into the next election.

While the National Party will be totally consumed for the next 3 years by its leadership and its leadership struggles—and every week the back bench will be drawn more and more into those—the Labour-led Government will be able to get out and promote the key issues that New Zealanders want to hear. They do not want to hear constant arguments about the National Party leadership. They are bored with that. What they want to hear is what the policies are that will affect them. We did not hear one policy from Dr Brash yesterday. From the Labour leader we heard three key issues: economic transformation, the importance of families, young and old, and the importance of building on our national identity. That is what New Zealanders want to hear about. They want to hear about the real issues. They do not want to hear about all the leadership shenanigans going on. The prediction is that until the National Party resolves its leadership problems and squabbles, and until it gets the hang of that, it does not deserve the right even to contend the election in 2008.

One would have hoped—certainly my colleagues and I would have hoped—that we might have got the former Minister of Commerce on his feet to talk about the real issues that face this country and the real challenges that face the economy. Instead of that, we had a 10-minute diatribe with the same theme we have had from every Labour member of Parliament who has taken part in this debate so far.

A real stench is developing around this Government—a horrible, horrible smell—as it lurches from one scandal to another. We had evidence of it briefly on television last night at 6 o’clock. There was a story from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about a niece of Winston Peters, who had obviously bypassed all protocols within the ministry and gone straight to the media to make some rather extravagant claims about spending on a diplomatic home in Taiwan. The issue is not whether the expenditure was unapproved; the issue is whether the niece of Winston Peters has any right to discuss Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade matters in that way. And where was the Minister of Foreign Affairs on that issue? He was shown on TV last night running from the TV cameras. Winston Peters, who is not known for running from TV cameras very often, is now developing the same tactic as every other member of the Government.

But that scandal pales into insignificance compared with the one that has been debated day after day more recently. That is the revelation of Helen Clark taking $440,000 of taxpayers’ money to print her pledge card, which bears a photograph that looks a little like her. It is certainly a card that has her signature—a card she said she accepted full responsibility for. That matter has now been referred to the police.

The amazing thing about the Prime Minister of this country is how many times she has been referred to the police. How many? Is it once, or twice? No, it is three times. In 2002, we had the “paintergate” scandal, when the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, forged a painting. The police investigated and stated categorically that there was a prima facie case for her to answer, but for some reason, which the police and only the police should be able to explain but which they have never been able to explain, they decided not to prosecute. That was just the first time that Helen Clark had been in trouble with the police, and the next time was “speedgate”. Last year, on the main south road in Canterbury, her car travelled at speeds of up to 170 kilometres an hour. Six people were charged, five of them being police officers. All of them were carrying out the orders of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, but she was not called to account. Now we have the third time. She is before the police again, with serious questions being asked about the expenditure of public taxpayer money.

Those sorts of debates are unacceptable to this country. The very least the Prime Minister should do is stand up in Parliament, acknowledge she got it wrong, acknowledge she breached the Electoral Act—if not in law, certainly in spirit—and pay that money back. She has her mates. She keeps talking about the National Party’s association with the Exclusive Brethren but never about her association with the trade union movement of this country—the movement that takes massive amounts of union fees from New Zealanders compulsorily, thanks to a law put through this House, helped by Ross Wilson of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. That money has the ability to find its way back into Labour Party coffers, and I am sure it does. Helen Clark should use some of that money to pay back the taxpayer money she has expropriated.

It is enough to make me recall Jim Anderton saying only yesterday: “Give me a break!”. Talking about Jim Anderton, I say that the people of New Zealand have given that person a tremendous break. What a bizarre choice to give that man the portfolio of Minister of Agriculture, but the farmers of New Zealand have said that they will give him a chance. They will see whether he has any empathy with the issues that face the farming community.

Jim Anderton’s first big test was on the access of New Zealand apples into Australia. I would have expected that he would be enthusiastic about progressing that case for New Zealand apple growers, so I asked him some parliamentary questions on how many emails, letters, and phone contacts he had had with Peter McGauran, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in Australia. I expected that bundles of correspondence would have flown back and forth. We found out that there was one letter of correspondence between the Australian Minister and the New Zealand Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton. When I further investigated that one letter, I was amazed to find out that it was not from Jim Anderton expressing any concern for New Zealand apple growers; it was a letter from Peter McGauran to Jim Anderton congratulating him on his appointment. That is the only correspondence between the two Ministers. In other words, Jim Anderton had made no contact and no effort at all to represent the concerns of New Zealand apple growers. That message has not been lost on New Zealand farmers.

We face some major issues. Before the last election Helen Clark had her favoured idea of opening up private land to public access. The voters of New Zealand displayed their complete dislike of that legislation. The National Party took every provincial and rural seat in the last election, and it was over that issue. But that issue still bubbles away. A consultation panel meets—I think it has met about four or five times—but Helen Clark has not given up on her determination to take away the property rights of private landowners in this country and open their land up to the public. At the same time, the Department of Conservation continues to grab more and more of New Zealand, and one of the first actions it takes is to close the conservation estate to access by New Zealanders. So that is another issue.

The next issue that Jim Anderton has been completely silent on is the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) levy increase announced just before Christmas. Self-employed New Zealand farmers now pay 140 percent more in premiums for on-farm accidents. That sort of level of increase is just unacceptable to the New Zealand farming sector. We had a meeting last night with Meat and Wool New Zealand, and members of that industry told us that two of the reasons for the dramatic fall in the lamb schedule were Government charges in the form of the ACC levy and changes to the Employment Relations Act. So those concerns need to be addressed by Jim Anderton.

I want to touch on the issue of rural crime, because we note that Damien O’Connor has now invented a new policy of “catch and release”. The Government is going to get tough on criminals: it will catch them, put them in jail, and then give them a key and tell them that how long they stay there is a voluntary matter. That is unacceptable to most New Zealanders. Phil Goff, Damien O’Connor, and other members of the Labour Party need to be honest and come clean about their policy on crime in this country.

The final issue that needs resolving, and resolving urgently, is that of the Kyoto Protocol. Helen Clark ratified the protocol without any notion at all about how that would actually reduce emissions in this country. The Government came up with another tax—the carbon tax—and then dropped it after realising how stupid it was. It was about as stupid as the “fart tax”. The Government now has no solutions at all to something that at this stage will cost New Zealand taxpayers at least $600 million in the first commitment period.

So I say that those are the challenges that Labour and, in particular, the Minister of Agriculture, ought to be taking the time to accept, and to do something about.

Tēnā koe e te rangatira o te Whare. Tēnā hoki tātou katoa e nohonoho nei, tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all of us as well, seated about. Greetings.]

The other day my wife said to me that when I got back to Wellington I should ask Parekura: “How come his Government can spend $150 million building a prison in Ngāwhā, but our kura has to run a cake stall to pay for its books.” Parekura knows, as does Shane Jones—as does the Prime Minister herself—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know he is new, but he needs to use the member’s full name or “the Minister”.

HONE HARAWIRA: Thank you. That is an issue my wife is right about. We spend $80,000 a year keeping a guy in jail and—I know about schools, because I am the chairman of my kura—we spend $6,700 a year to send a kid to school. I say it again: we spend $80,000 to keep a guy in jail but spend only $6,000 to send a kid to school. There has to be something wrong with that picture, and surely we can do something about it. Surely we can do better than that.

I recall that during the election campaign I was with Phil Goff, and I heard him bragging about how many people Labour had put into jail. I thought: “Well, hoo-bloody-ray about that!”. Now, all the jails are full but Labour has no plans, no ideas, no notion whatsoever about how to resolve the crisis jails are in, expect for what the previous speaker referred to: the “catch and release” theory, or stick them in for the week and then let them go home. How sad it is when our Government spends more on keeping people locked up than on educating those who are supposed to be our future.

Given that most of those who are expelled from our schools and most of those who are in jail are actually Māori, I could ask myself why it is that the Māori members of the Labour Government can sit silently while that travesty is carried out by their own colleagues. How can they sit silently in this House while their own Government treats their own people so poorly? Mita Ririnui is the only one in the Chamber at present to hear this on behalf of all his mates. I apologise for stating the obvious but it seems to me there can be only one of two reasons why they stay silent. First, either they agree with Labour’s policy of making prison a priority for Māori over education or, second, they are either too scared to say something about it or they are getting paid too much to say something about it.

The other day I heard a whisper that this Labour Government is considering dumping Judge Joe Williams from the Māori Land Court because he dares to be a little bit too Māori, and that it is going to appoint six new Pākehā judges to the court to start reversing some of the decisions of the past few years. I thought to myself: “Nah, surely not. Surely Mita Ririnui and the Māori caucus would have said something about this if it was true.” But we have heard nothing.

Just last week someone told me that the Government is putting together the steps to take references to the Treaty out of all legislation. That is the Labour Government I am talking about, not National. Members know the one—friend of the Māori people, ally of the Rātana Church, companion to the Kīngitanga, bodyguard to the Treaty. Taking all references to the Treaty out of legislation—can we believe it? Again, I think to myself that that cannot happen. Surely Mita Rurinui and the “brown brigade” in the Labour Party will not just sit back and let that happen. Surely not! They would give us a bell, at least. They would warn us so that we, the Māori Party, can at least mount a campaign against it, even if Labour is not going to do so. Again, there was nothing—not a peep out of them. So I say to Mita Ririnui that now is his chance to save himself and his comrades. He should go to the press after this speech and say that Hone Harawira is wrong, Hone Harawira is lying. Labour is not going to dump Joe Williams, and its guys are not going to overdose the Māori Land Court with six Pākehā judges. And the Government is not going to be taking references to the Treaty out of legislation. Māori people are waiting, I say to him—waiting and waiting.

I have chosen this time to challenge my Māori colleagues in Labour to step forward and join with the Māori Party in the defence of Māori rights and in the advancement of Māori interests for the benefit of the whole nation, simply because no one else is going to do it. No one else will stand up for the Treaty if we do not first stand up for it for ourselves. No one else will stand up for kaupapa Māori if we Māori MPs right throughout the House do not stand up and do it for ourselves. No one is going to stand up for our whānau if we do not first do it for ourselves. Yes, the Māori Party is small, and yes, we are not in Government, but with the support of other Māori MPs there is heaps we can achieve.

I know I am a new MP and on many things I defer to those who have been here for many more years than I have, but in the first 3 months I have been in the House I have noticed that no Māori MPs in the House—none, except those in the Māori Party—have spoken of any initiatives aimed at raising Māori achievement. I have heard other MPs talk about general policies, but nobody has talked specifically about Māori policies aimed at raising Māori achievement except the Māori Party MPs. Why is that? I have the answer: it is because they are not allowed to stand up and say something positive about Māori. They are not allowed to on this side of the Chamber, because Don Brash will not let them, and not on the other side because Helen Clark will not, either. Yet there is every reason for them to stand alongside us, to stand up for themselves, and to stand up for their own people.

The national school drop-out rate is only 10 percent but the Māori drop-out rate is more than 25 percent. I ask the Government, and in particular the Māori Labour members, what they are doing about it. What are Mita Ririnui and the other guys doing about it? The national unemployment rate is only 2.5 percent, but the Māori unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. Again, I ask what the Māori members are doing about it. Our population is only 15 percent, but our prison population is 50 percent. Again, I have to sheet it home to the Māori members. I do not expect them to achieve everything for everybody, but I do expect them to achieve results for Māori—and it is simply not happening.

I say to Mita not to try to sweet talk us about his Government’s programmes, because when someone wants to know how committed the Government is to Māori he or she need look no further than last year’s Budget, where Michael Cullen mentioned the word “Māori” as often as his Government is committed to honouring the Treaty—not at all. The fact is that Labour has no plans whatsoever to lift Māori out of the spiral of poverty and dependence, because it now holds to the view that there are no Māori problems, only problems for the needy. Why? So it can pretend there is no Māori poverty. That is why. So it can make Māori just another ethnic minority in this country. That is why. So that it can tell the United Nations that Māori have no problems any more. That is why.

So I have to ask Mita Ririnui, Mr Horomia, Mr Okeroa, Ms Mahuta, Mr Samuels, Mr Hereora, Ms Mackey, Ms Beyer, Ms Pettis, and Mr Shane Jones whether they knew that their Government had abandoned its commitment to Māori. Were they told, or were they ignored, just as they were ignored when the Government announced that it was going to steal our foreshore and seabed? I ask those guys to be honest and say exactly what the response of the Māori Labour Party caucus is to those crippling statistics and ongoing attacks on Māori? Why are they saying that the Māori Labour caucus has no plans to oppose this Government’s continued trampling of Māori rights? It is enough that they tell themselves they are right when their people are telling them otherwise, and how do they tell those people that Labour is doing anything for them when they know that it ain’t?

I say to Mita Ririnui and his mates that this is not a personal attack. It is not an attack on their mana, nor am I trying to belittle them in this House. But in this House we are all accountable for the positions we take. Our leader, Tariana Turia, took the ultimate step when she publicly disagreed with Labour over the foreshore and seabed legislation and resigned from the party. Other members of Parliament have disagreed with their parties’ policies, and done so publicly. Those Māori members have a choice and I would say an obligation to disagree with the position they know to be against the interests of their own people. My challenge to Mita Ririnui and his colleagues is to recognise that they were Māori before they were parliamentarians, and they will still be Māori after Parliament has no further use for them. That is what should determine their position, not the politics of their party.

Someone told me to start the year in the way I mean to carry on, and I challenge Labour’s Māori MPs in the House today to step up to the line. We do not say that we have all the answers; we do not. Yesterday, Tariana Turia’s message was of a strong and positive vision for our future, and we share that future with anyone. But my message is a warning: we will no longer stand aside and let other people cripple our future. Tama tū, tama ora, tama noho, tama mate, tama toa. Tēnā koe Mita Ririnui.

[He who stands survives, he who sits perishes, he who is brave fights on. Greetings to you Mita Ririnui].

Kai te Kaihautū tēnā koe. Mihi ake ana ki a koe me te ātaahua hoki o tō neketai. Hoi anō rā, huri mai ki tēnā tangata nāna ngā kōrero i ēnei meniti tekau. Mihi atu ana ki a ia me tana mārō ki te tū i roto i te Whare nei ki te whakapāoho i āna kōrero.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you and your beautiful necktie. Indeed I turn to that person who has been addressing us during these past 10 minutes, to acknowledge his contribution in this House, and his boldness.]

Perhaps I should give my own interpretation. I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on your choice of tie today. I also congratulate the previous speaker on his valiant attempt to demonstrate to this House that he is going to achieve something. He made it very clear that the Māori Party members are the only ones who talk about things. Well, I say that the Māori Labour caucus has a history of delivering things, and that is the record we stand by. Otirā, koinā te kōrero, kāre te kūmara e kōrero i tāna reka.

[Indeed there is that saying: the sweet potato does not talk up its sweetness.]

The previous speaker brought up three important points that I want to respond to. I want to thank him because previously I had decided to talk about something else, but he has shifted my focus and just as well. I can give the member a guarantee that Judge Williams will not be replaced on the Waitangi Tribunal—in fact, I saw a document, signed by the Minister of Māori Affairs, 2 weeks ago confirming that. I think the member has been misinformed.

The second, and very important, matter—

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not say that Judge Williams would be replaced as the chief judge of the Waitangi Tribunal. I said that he would be replaced as Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. The member should look at Speaker’s ruling 36/4 covering misrepresentation.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: The second matter I want to talk about is the member’s assertion that this Labour-led Government intends to remove all Treaty references from legislation. I can tell the member that there is absolutely no intention to do that. In fact, there is still an ongoing commitment to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles are recognised in legislation. But I do share his concern about that particular matter, because it has become a political sore point with the Opposition during the 6 years that I have been in this House.

I also issue a challenge to that member. I distinctly recall that when I was at Rātana this year—and the member was there when his party arrived—his co-leader stood and made a statement about those principles. He said: “Kāre au i te whakaae kia whakaurua atu te mana o te Tiriti ki roto i ngā ture katoa.”

[“I am not in favour of the Treaty’s mana being included in all laws.”]

The member’s own co-leader does not agree that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi should be included in legislation. I wonder why there is such a difference of opinion between those two members, or perhaps I misunderstood the co-leader. If I did, I apologise, but I do not think I did misunderstand him.

The member raised another important matter, and it concerns prisons. I have spent some time in the Department of Corrections, and I have some concerns about the way and the manner in which the department conducts its business today. I congratulate the Minister of Corrections, Damien O’Connor, on making the bold move and making the statement publicly that changes are needed. The Minister talked about offenders who are a low risk to society. He was not talking about violent offenders. He was not talking about home invaders. He was not talking about abusers and dangerous offenders. He was talking about low-risk offenders. There are a number of reasons why people should be imprisoned.

The Minister was generous when he said that 30 percent of inmates serve fewer than 6 months. In fact, 30 percent of inmates serve fewer than 11 weeks. We have to ask ourselves: are we are building prisons to lock people away for 11 weeks? I do not think so. I do not think the 1999 referendum on zero tolerance on crime said that to us, but we—particularly the Opposition—seem to have accepted that we are going to lock everybody up. We are saying that some changes need to be made.

I said that there are a number of ways in which a person can wind up in prison. A person can appear in court on an offence that does not carry a prison term, and he or she might receive a fine or community service, or maybe something a bit stronger. A person’s ability to serve that sentence, to pay the fine, or to do community service or periodic detention depends on the person’s circumstances—whether the person can afford to pay the fine, whether the person has the time to go out into the community and do community service, whether the person has the weekend available to do periodic detention. A minor crime has been committed, and we must always remember that, but if the person is not able to meet the court’s instructions, that person could end up in prison. In the end, a breach of court orders could eventuate in a prison sentence. Those are the people we are talking about.

As the previous speaker said, many of those people are Māori who cannot pay an enormous fine. But there are other ways of dealing with these matters, and that is what we as a Government are looking at—alternatives to imprisonment. So the question has to be asked about the role of the Community Probation Service. Is it advising the courts accordingly so that judges can make the appropriate decisions on minor offences, or is it not? There is a whole issue around the role of that service.

I want to talk about all the achievements of this Government since it came into Government 6 years ago. I agree with previous speakers who said that 7.5 percent Māori unemployment is not good and that it could be better, but it is a helluva lot better than 20 percent, which is what it was when we came into Government. Something like 40,000 more Māori are now in work. The rate of Māori unemployment has dropped by more than 74,000. Many Māori are now involved in tertiary studies. Regardless of the problems experienced with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa last year, at a bad time for us, by and large there have been results. The business of the wānanga in providing tertiary education to Māori and others continues in a meaningful way. The focus of this Government’s policy has always been to ensure that Māori have access to tertiary studies, and that remains our policy. Unfortunately for the previous chief executive officer, that has not been a very good experience.

I want to touch on the Prime Minister’s speech, as well. The points she made were quite straightforward—

Paula Bennett: Oh, we missed it!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I am sure those members opposite do not agree, but then again they have just arrived here. They are back-benchers in the National Party. Its front-benchers have been sitting in Opposition for 6 years, and by the time they draw breath again they will have been there for 9 years. Prior to that they were in Government for 9 long years, which was the worst experience New Zealanders have ever had. That Government implemented harsher policies than any other Government has. I hear that National back-bench member desperately trying to interject, unsuccessfully. She needs to take a look at the track record of her own party. It is not something one would go around boasting about.

I come back to the main points in the Prime Minister’s speech. She talked about growing the economy. Confidence in this country is high. Regardless of the criticisms that come from Opposition members, business confidence is high. Businesses accept their ups and downs. [Interruption] Has the member been in business? She should not talk until she has. Most Māori in this House run a business of some sort, so if members want to know about business they should talk to us. We will tell them about it. We will tell them about being on the disadvantaged end of the business scale and working through all the issues. Seventy-four percent of Māori businesses are successful. The average statistic for people who are in small to medium business is that their businesses do not last 5 years. That is not the case for Māori in business. They go on and on.

Paula Bennett: What about River Queen, the movie?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I saw the shorts of the movie. I did not think much of it, really. I sympathise with Tariana Turia. Her tupuna was depicted in that movie, and the person playing the part was my whanaunga. We have an issue with that. Tītokowaru is the person she was talking about, the great prophet, the great leader of the Māori cause from up the Whanganui River—and the member talks about River Queen! Give me a break—drag queen!

To get back to Labour’s achievements in Government highlighted in the Prime Minister’s speech, the economy has been very strong, and unemployment has come down. Social services and tertiary education were highlighted. Māori health is on a positive climb, there is no doubt about that. Over 480,000 Māori are now enrolled in primary health organisations. That has to be good news.

So I ask members opposite when they are going to stop running down their country. When will you acknowledge the successes of the last 6 years? When will you accept that every poll on leadership in the last 6 years has put Helen Clark way up top?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

I have listened to this debate with some amusement as various members of the Labour Party have done what they were instructed to do by the Government whips and attempted to run some interference by pretending that the Labour Party’s serious overspending on the eve of the election last year was somehow part of a game of tit for tat—a game where everybody has been playing fast and loose with the rules. I thought I would take this opportunity today to make clear just what the issue is, because it is not about whether there has been a game of tit for tat—a practice on all sides of breaching the rules. The question is really about whether the Prime Minister of our country, having been fully advised of the consequences of her actions, wantonly and deliberately broke the electoral law of New Zealand—the law that is responsible for ensuring the proper conduct of elections in this country—on the eve of a general election.

I am the first to accept that there has been some looseness over the years in the practice of using Parliamentary Service funding for promotion. In my time in this place I have seen some practices that I certainly disapprove of, but I will say that I have never seen a tighter line on adherence to the rules than we see today under the current leader of the National Party, Dr Brash. However, that is not what this is about. This is not about the Parliamentary Service Commission rules; it is about the Electoral Act of New Zealand, a cornerstone of New Zealand’s constitution. The Electoral Act is one of the pieces of legislation that guarantees that when New Zealanders go out to the ballot box they are able to elect a Government in a way that will deserve the respect of all New Zealanders. To play fast and loose with that part of our constitutional fabric is a despicable thing for any politician to do, but it is a particularly despicable thing for the Prime Minister of our country to do. There are many, many unanswered questions, and those questions will be nailed down and answered in the weeks ahead. The longer the Prime Minister tries to drag the process out the longer and more hurtful the agony will be, because this Opposition will not let that Prime Minister off the hook on this matter.

I want to give to the House today a little history on this matter, because in some ways I was the instigator of the process that caused the Auditor-General’s report. It goes back to the Labour Party’s decision to spend over $20 million of hard-earned taxpayers’ money to promote the Labour Party’s interest in the so-called Working for Families Budget arrangement. I could see from the brief inspection of what was proposed that there was no way that it would pass the smell test. I took it to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General decided not only that it did not pass the smell test but that he would do a little more about it, as well. The first thing he did was to put the officials and the Ministers through the mincer, and they carved off over $5 million of what was proposed to be spent. I guess one could say that the Opposition parties in Parliament earned their pay that day. Six to seven million dollars was carved off what the Labour Party was going to spend.

But then the Auditor-General could see that he was headed for much, much bigger trouble unless he took some further steps, so he instituted a wider inquiry into the spending of parliamentary funds, particularly focused around the leaders’ budgets—the area from which Helen Clark has been funding her bus stop billboards with slogans, such as “You’re better off with Labour”, which is the sort of expenditure of taxpayers’ money on party political advertising that I think most New Zealanders would deplore. The Auditor-General sought submissions from all political parties, brought together the information, and produced a report. He could see that we were headed for real trouble unless we could try to get the two major political parties to agree on some reforms that would protect the integrity of the process.

So he wrote to the Prime Minister and Dr Brash and told them that they needed to show some leadership. He invited them to meet with him so he could share the report with them and, hopefully, get their cooperation on a process of reform. Dr Brash said that was fine and he accepted his obligations as the Leader of the Opposition to try to ensure that the show was tidied up. Helen Clark said no. She said she would not meet the Auditor-General of New Zealand to discuss a report that was designed to tidy up the expenditure of taxpayers’ money on party political advertising. Can members believe it? There is one person in this country—one person above all others—whom the Auditor-General was entitled to look to and expect support from in his cause of tidying up the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. That person was the Prime Minister, and that person let him down. That person would not even meet the Auditor-General. The Prime Minister let herself down, she let this Parliament down, and she let all New Zealanders down.

Hon David Cunliffe: You can’t say that.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Well, Mr Cunliffe has read from his research notes on this matter, but I want him to reflect on this. He should go and talk to his constituents in West Auckland, if he ever visits them, and ask them how they feel about their hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars being spent putting pictures of Helen Clark—after they have been suitably modified, of course—on bus stops around New Zealand and on credit cards that can be distributed to members of the New Zealand public at great cost.

The Auditor-General, having been rebuffed by the Prime Minister, was mystified. He had to cancel his meeting with Dr Brash and put the report around the other political parties to see what they would make of it. It was an extraordinary set of circumstances. So we thought that there must be some reason why the Prime Minister was feeling so guilty about all of that, but we did not know what it was. Now we do; now we know that as the Auditor-General was knocking on her door she was planning in detail the spending of half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money on something that was far more dodgy than the things the Auditor-General had already identified to talk to her about. She was already planning to spend half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money on the Labour Party’s credit card promotions for the election campaign. That is why she would not meet the Auditor-General.

The question that then arises is whether she proceeded to spend that money knowing not only that the Auditor-General disapproved, and that the Auditor-General knew that stuff was outside the proper arrangements, but also that it was going to tip the Labour Party over the top of the limits prescribed in the Electoral Act. That is the question we do not yet know the answer to, but I suspect we can make an assumption. Mr David Henry, the Chief Electoral Officer, had a complaint about this stuff drawn to his attention. We know that there was a flurry of officials’ meetings within the Prime Minister’s office. We know that some people knew that the Labour Party, in spending that half a million dollars, would go over its lawful limit. The question this House is entitled to a straight answer to from the Prime Minister is: did she play a part in sanctioning the spending of that half a million dollars, which we now know to have been unlawful in terms of the Electoral Act—unlawful because it posed a threat to the arrangements by which we guarantee democratic and fair elections in this country? I tell the Prime Minister that she must come to the House and give us a straight answer.

I want to know who else was in on this. We know Heather Simpson was in on it; she was in it up to her little eyeballs. We know that Trevor Mallard was in it up to his eyeballs. I want to know who else in the Labour Party Cabinet was in this up to his or her eyeballs. I want to know who else in the Labour Party was involved. I will be asking the Speaker in due course, because anybody close to the Speaker’s office who was involved in knowledge of the Labour Party’s election campaign clearly has a conflict in ruling on the matters that are before the Privileges Committee process as it arrives, and before the Parliamentary Service Commission. So it is declaration time for all of those involved.

I ask the Prime Minister to come to the House, front up, and take her medicine. She should own up to Parliament whether she knowingly, as Prime Minister of this country, not only rebuffed the officer who was responsible for ensuring there was integrity about the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, and not only spent money that was a rip-off of money from the taxpayers of New Zealand granted through the Parliamentary Service Commission, but also was a full, flagrant breach of the Electoral Act—the arrangements by which we guarantee the integrity of our elections in this country. The Prime Minister owes New Zealanders a straight answer and this National Opposition will make sure they get it.

As a new member in this House, it has been enlightening to listen to the leadership speeches and the reactions to those speeches. In my own maiden speech, I said that I have come here to improve people’s lives. I am really pleased to report that already there has been legislation before this House that does just that. For example, we have started to discuss paid parental leave for self-employed people, and that will improve people’s lives. It is good, practical legislation that will actually make a difference. It will give financial stability for self-employed people when they are about to become parents, and it will enable the employment of replacement staff where that is appropriate. But most important, it will allow those parents to have that precious time with the precious new person in their lives.

We have also been discussing legislation to enable the Working for Families package to be brought forward, and that will make a real and practical difference for those people who need it. We have also been discussing interest-free student loans, and the people from the Opposition side of the House, who probably had their education without paying for it at all, at taxpayers’ expense—

Hon Tau Henare: Who paid for yours? Oh, the union; that’s right.

SUE MORONEY: No, I had State-funded education—as it should be—through to high school level, thank you very much, and I appreciated it. So I therefore vote for interest-free student loans, because that removes the barriers for people so that they can improve their knowledge and skills—the knowledge and skills that are so important to the future of New Zealand. The Opposition members do not seem to be able to understand that.

Already we are on the path to bringing forward the Prime Minister’s three key areas that she spoke of in her speech yesterday: economic transformation for this country, looking after families, young and old, and ensuring that we maintain our unique national identity. New Zealanders know that Labour under Helen Clark will deliver what it sets out to do, because we have been able to prove that over the last 6 years.

I now go on to Dr Brash’s speech. I was looking forward to that speech very much, because I was wondering why the National Party is in so much turmoil over a leadership debate. Even I, as a new member of Parliament, know that that is fatal. It is fatal for a party to be engaging in that sort of debate in this part of the political process. So why is the National Party embroiled in a leadership debate? I was looking for Dr Brash’s speech to give me some clues about that. Well, it did. I discovered that not long after Dr Brash started his speech, my mind wandered. As an adult educator, I knew that that was my very first clue. People’s minds wander when they are not engaged in what they are being told. When the speaker has a lack of content to focus on, that is when minds start to wander.

Where did my mind wander to during that experience? Well, it wandered over to the Opposition side of the House. I wondered what would it be like to be a National back-bencher, listening to that speech from my leader. Suddenly it dawned on me. I realised why there is a leadership debate going on in the National Party. It was embarrassing. I found that I agreed with Deborah Coddington, probably for the first time in my life, when she said on Newstalk ZB that Dr Brash does have to get his performance up in the House. She said it was actually quite embarrassing to watch him at work in the House. That was how I felt yesterday, when I put myself in the shoes of a National Party back-bencher.

However, it is not the first time that I have felt thankful not to be a back-bencher for the National Party. How embarrassing it must be to have to go out and face the electorate, talking about how we need to spend more money on our roads, when one’s own party—the National Party—was proposing tax cuts, which would give us less money to spend on roads. How it must do a member’s credibility in, as a National MP, to be talking about how more money needs to be spent on health, and how more money needs to go into aged care, when knowing all the while that one’s own party was planning tax cuts, if the New Zealand public would let it do so. That would mean there would be less money spent in the aged-care area. It would mean that we could not go forward in our health and education areas. And what about the credibility of having to go out as a National Party MP and try to feign some real concern about people on low wages in New Zealand, at the very time that one was going around arguing against the increases that Labour has brought in to the minimum wage? How that must undermine one’s credibility. As a National Party MP, one would be reduced to talking one’s country down, for goodness’ sake!

It was time to tune back into the speech after my mind had wandered for a little while, thinking about what it must be like to be a National Party back-bench MP and how that would feel. When I did tune back into Dr Brash’s speech, I wondered whether he lives in the same country that I live in. There he was, talking down this country’s progress, despite all the evidence to the contrary and despite all the data showing otherwise. I was not sure which country he was actually referring to. Maybe he just went into a time warp—that would be a change from a flip-flop—and was talking about the New Zealand of the 1990s.

I remember that the 1990s were a dim, dark era. I remember the communities that I lived near to, such as Cambridge, Morrinsville, and Matamata, hunkering down during the 1990s and trying to hold on to what they had, because that was all that communities could do. They could not plan for progress. During the 1990s those rural communities were going backwards, and all they could do was to hold on to what they had. Those communities in the 1990s under National were like beaten dogs, staying in the corner and not willing to come out unless they were beaten again.

It took a while under a Labour Government, and under progress and growth, for those communities to adjust. We are only now getting new housing subdivisions agreed to in those communities, because it has taken so long for them to think about planning for growth rather than just hunkering down and asking National not to beat them any more. If one couples those thriving communities in the rural area now with the growth in employment under Labour and the economic growth, one can see that growth is getting out to every corner in New Zealand. That is the type of economic recovery that this country has enjoyed. I shudder to think what this House would be considering now, if New Zealand voters were not as smart as they are. We would have the prospect of Dr Brash flip-flopping around on the international stage, representing us—how embarrassing! Fortunately, New Zealand voters are smart. The National Party strategists got it wrong.

Earlier, the Hon Paul Swain was talking about Desperate Housewives, but I cannot think about the last election campaign without thinking about The Simpsons. I imagine the debrief about what went wrong for the National Party actually happening in a nuclear power plant in Springfield. In the debrief between Montgomery Burns and his sidekick, Smithers, they are wondering what went wrong with the National Party campaign. Montgomery Burns is saying to Smithers: “We threw everything at them. We appealed to greed with the tax cuts. We tried to set them against each other with the race card. We even got religious extremists to go out and do our dirty work for us. What went wrong, Smithers? What went wrong?”. And Smithers is replying, after thinking about it for a while: “Well, Mr Burns, sir, we got it wrong because we thought New Zealand voters thought like Homer Simpson. In fact, what we’ve discovered is that they have morals like Marge Simpson.”

And thank goodness that at that point, Dr Brash’s speech finished. My mind stopped wandering because there was some muted clapping going on, in a pretence of adoration towards the leader’s great speech. My mind snapped back to the present time, and it was like waking up from a bad dream. I had a sense of relief that I was not a National Party back-bencher; I was a Labour back-bencher. And it was like, after having a nightmare, waking up and thinking: “Thank goodness that was just a bad dream.” The reality is that I am a Labour MP. Thank goodness for that, because Labour is growing the economy, there is the lowest unemployment in the Western World, and we are investing in health, education, and policing. We are promoting our culture and identity, we are protecting our environment, and we are maintaining our nuclear-free stance and status and our principled foreign policy. Thank goodness that I am a back-bencher for the Labour Party.

I was a little disappointed by that speech from the new Labour member Sue Moroney because the people of New Zealand have just become aware of probably the most serious corruption scandal in an election campaign—certainly for the eight elections that I have been part of.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 25/5, which is to do with allegations of corruption: “It is not only the right, but the duty, of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way,”. That is by notice of motion. But “a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” That was Speaker Statham in 1934. I ask the member to be very careful how he couches his debate.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I would have thought that the party is not part of this Parliament, as such. What we are referring to here is a scandalous practice, which is seen to be corrupt by the public of New Zealand, carried out by a political party. If members of this House are part of that party, maybe—and that is what I would have expected from Sue Moroney—they might have tried to explain to this Parliament how they and their party justify taking $440,000 of taxpayers’ money that does not belong to their party and spending it on things like this pamphlet that I have here.

This particular copy arrived in my letterbox at home during the election campaign. It arrived during the last 2 weeks of the election campaign. Members should look at it; it is blatant campaigning. The photo makes one spew, does it not? I have been in this Parliament for 21 years with Helen Clark. In fact, she was at boarding school in Epsom just down the road from me when I was at Auckland Grammar, so I have known her for many years. I must say I had to look at the photo two or three times to be sure it was her. But when one does read that document, one can see it is blatant campaigning. I thought Sue Moroney might have given some explanation as to how she justifies taking taxpayers’ money.

I guess that the good people of Piako had a look at that member and of course they rejected her and voted in my good colleague Lindsay Tisch. It is the same for so many Labour Party members in this Parliament who were booted out by their electorates but are back here on Labour’s scrawny party list. It is no wonder they have no future. I suppose the most scary thing about this scandal is that the Labour Party president, Mike Williams, said that it was all right, that they had done it before. I got the pledge card, although I am not sure which particular year it was from; it was one of the ones that Mike Williams claimed was paid for by taxpayers. But how would anyone know? No one on this side of the House ever dreamt that a party would so blatantly plunder the taxpayers’ purse to fund something like this. There is no parliamentary crest on this pledge card to indicate that it might have been paid for. At least this shocking pamphlet has the parliamentary crest on it. That is how we knew that that one was paid for by the taxpayers. But this little pledge card has nothing to indicate that it was paid for by the taxpayer. Mike Williams has the temerity to suggest that this outrageous scandal arising from the last election is all OK, because they did it before and no one complained. No decent person, certainly not on this side of the House, would ever dream of plundering the public purse to pay for that pledge card.

We should not be surprised that good New Zealanders are fed up to their back teeth with this and are leaving the country in droves. Just look at the figures for the last 3 years. The net immigration figures hide all of this. They camouflage what is actually happening. I have looked at the figures. What are New Zealanders doing? We have New Zealanders who live in New Zealand, and New Zealanders who live offshore. Some New Zealanders who live offshore come back to New Zealand each year, and each year some New Zealanders leave New Zealand for more than a year to live overseas. The figures from these last 3 years are staggering. In 2003, 11,200 more New Zealanders left New Zealand to live overseas permanently than the number of New Zealanders who came back to New Zealand after living overseas. There were 11,200 in 2003. That figure went up in 2004, to 18,000; it went from 11,000 to 18,000 in 1 year. That is the net difference in the number of New Zealanders who went overseas permanently. Last year that figure leapt to 25,000. From 11,000 in 2003, in the last 3 years, under this disgraceful Labour Government that embezzles public funds, the number of New Zealanders who are bailing out has leapt to 25,000. That will change the nature of New Zealand society hugely. All those people are being replaced, of course. Last year our net immigration position was 7,000-plus. So we have replaced those 25,000 New Zealanders who went overseas permanently with 32,000 new immigrants who came to this country. Many of them are good people. Most of them, I am sure, are good people.

Hon David Cunliffe: Just not mainstream, aye?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: David Cunliffe may not think these things matter, but it will change the nature of our society. Labour, of course, believes in that.

Another thing I will talk about today is the advertisement that has been appearing in newspapers in the last few weeks about Working for Families. This package will also change the nature of New Zealand society hugely. It is a real talking point around town these days. People have looked at this ad and come up to me and asked whether it means that a parliamentarian can apply for a benefit under the Working for Families package. It is true. If we look at Labour’s—

Sue Moroney: How many things have you got?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Sue Moroney may not believe this, but the figures are in this ad. Let us say that the spouse of one of the members of this Parliament is not working. The parliamentary salary is, what, $122,000 for a back-bencher? If a member had five or more dependent children, he or she could apply for a benefit under Labour’s Working for Families package. New Zealand has to be the first country in the developed world, I would think, where the Government says that parliamentarians can apply for benefits. That is stark, staring madness! Since when in the developed world has a Government said that parliamentarians should be able to apply for benefits under their country’s welfare system? It is shocking. But it gets worse. I said that this will change the nature of our society, and it will, because what this package does to our low-income families matters so much.

People on lower incomes try to get ahead. People are trying to get off benefits. Let us take a person who is on the domestic purposes benefit. He or she may try to get off the benefit and start working. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the person is not skilled and is working for only $10 an hour. The person may have no skills and gets a job paying $10 an hour. After that person has worked for 10 hours, he or she will have earned $100 for the week, or $5,000 for the year. From that point on, until that person works 40 hours, this Government takes 92c out of every extra dollar he or she earns. Under this great Working for Families package—and I am using the Inland Revenue Department’s own figures—after working 10 hours a week, a woman who may be trying to get off the domestic purposes benefit, earning only $10 an hour, trying to do something for her children so they have a better future, will have taken from her by David Cunliffe’s and Sue Moroney’s party 92c in every extra dollar she earns until she works 40 hours a week. For every 10 to 40 hours a week of work, the Government will leave her with 8c—actually, not quite, I tell a lie. It will leave her with 7.8c out of every extra dollar she earns. This Government is destroying the great New Zealand society with dopey policies like that.

What is worse: being yelled at by the member who has just resumed his seat, Lockwood Smith, or being smiled at by Murray McCully, the prince of darkness? Is Murray McCully backing John Key? Is he backing Don Brash? Is he backing somebody else? Let us just stop and think a little bit about the “Murray mojo”. The “Murray mojo” is very, very simple. When one does not have a scandal, one creates one; when one does not have substance, one spreads rumour; and when one thinks another party is saying something substantive, one talks about process. So we and the public were subjected to a rant about pledge cards.

The irony of that will not be lost on people, because they know that it was the National Party—Murray McCully’s party—that forgot about the GST on its television spend. It just forgot about a million dollars or so. National members said: “Oh gosh, was it exclusive? I thought it was inclusive. Oh, I’m terribly sorry.” What is worse: forgetting one’s GST—for which, if one is in business, one could go to prison for—or following the same standard procedures on a parliamentary publication that one has followed for the last two elections? You have a crest and a party logo. In good faith, your head office thinks it meets the requirements of standard parliamentary publications. So in good faith you carry on in the way you always have, in an area where, admittedly, the law is somewhat unclear.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not be tuned into the member’s contribution, but I think that, leading into a third term as the member is, it would be appropriate for him not to continually bring you into the debate during the course of his contribution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. The member knows about the use of the word “you”.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I thank the member for the reminder. Despite my esteem for the Speaker, I shall leave him out.

What is clear is that the “McCully mojo” is at work. One should create a sense of scandal and drip-feed information even when one does not have any. Why? Because National members are covering their own behind. They are covering their own spend and, more important, they are covering the fact that Don cannot do angry.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, I know what the member is going to say.

Simon Power: How do you know what I am going to say?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Because I am tuned in. I just say to the member on my right that under Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7, a member cannot use a nickname or a first name. A speaker must use the member’s full name or his or her title.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Dr Donald Brash does not do angry. He gave an embarrassing speech in the House yesterday that has the media consistently saying that he is gone or is going. What they do not know is who Murray McCully will back. We would all love to know that. The worst thing is that if he does not turn up at someone’s office party, that person knows that he or she is gone. So Dr Brash is looking a bit stressed. He is looking a bit worried.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What does he say about the pinstripe jailer?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The pinstripe jailer and the prince of darkness—what a team National has. So that is the “McCully mojo”.

Then we were served up the treat of Lockwood Smith in high dander. He regaled the fact that New Zealanders leave to go overseas. Well, the great Kiwi OE is a time-honoured tradition. The numbers vary from year to year—they go up sometimes as the business cycle dips, and they go down sometimes. We know year from year that about three-quarters of all young New Zealanders who travel come home. They always have and always will. They see the world and most come home. Yes, we will lose some because, quite rightly, they will get great jobs overseas and will become part of the Kiwi expat network. That is fine. Yes, we will import skills. The role of the immigration programme is determinedly to import the best skills we can and to leave New Zealand the richer for the exchange.

But where Lockwood Smith crossed the line was in saying that these new people are not like us. What did he mean by that? Did he mean that they might change New Zealand, or speak a foreign language? Goodness, no! Might they be of a different culture? Oh, my goodness! Might they be of a different religion or a different skin colour? How would we cope with Asian people, Polynesian people, or European people running around in our cities? To quote Dr Smith, they might “change the nature of New Zealand”.

Well, look, I come from an electorate where one person in three was not born in New Zealand, and I am proud of New Lynn. Every year we have the New Lynn festival of cultures, where Buddhists, Muslims, Baha’is, Christians, atheists, Sri Lankans, Indians, Chinese, and Pacific Islanders all get together. They have a huge party, and thousands of people come. They dress up in their traditional costumes, they cook their traditional feasts, and they put on their traditional songs and dances.

We can do that in New Zealand, because we are a peaceful, tolerant, multicultural country, and I will fight to keep that. I stand for that. We stand for that. We stand for a New Zealand that has a heart big enough for every New Zealander, whether that person is a sixth-generation Tory or a first-generation migrant. We have a heart big enough for all New Zealanders, and we are building a proud, young Asian-Pacific New Zealand that is unique, is going places, and is a premium destination for migration. That is our future.

National represents the past; Labour represents the future. That is why National members will stay on that side of the House, and we will stay here.

I thank my whips for giving me a slot during the drive time session in Auckland, because my adoring drive time audience always love to listen to me. I have pointed out to the whips that they could give me a slot at any time up to about 10 o’clock at night and it would still be broadcast to my adoring drive time audience in Auckland, because they would still be trying to find their way home.

I want to play a little quiz with the House tonight, with some questions. They go along this line: who said the following? This is a quote from Hansard: “That is inevitable, as he leans back in that wonderful lazy pose we have all got so used to. He is a man of no fixed principles and of economic ignorance, who entered this coalition in a sort of economic frame of mind that was roughly out of X Files and now has ended up as a sort of pin-up boy for the Reuters screen.” Who said that? Well, I will table it later. It was Dr Michael Cullen, talking about Winston Peters. That is what Dr Michael Cullen said about Winston Peters—but it gets better.

I will do another test. This is a different person. Here is a better one. Who said this? “That is a very smart thing to be said by somebody who is involved in, for example, selling Government Print for $8 million when it was worth $46 million. That is all very well to be said by someone who causes me as Treasurer, and my colleagues, to have to confront a contingency of possibly over $400 million, because he simply does not understand a thing about business. The lecturer from the University of Otago has the temerity to think that because Dougie Myers sent him off overseas to get a lesson on economics at his expense, that the member is now an expert. He is an economic illiterate and a joke. He will never understand economics because, like one of his predecessors, Mr Caygill, he has no experience of running anything except a Canterbury University tuck-shop. That is their level of experience …”. He is a total and absolute economic illiterate. Who said that? Winston Peters said that about Michael Cullen—“He will never understand economics …” and “He is an economic illiterate …”. Mr Peters actually said something else, which I probably think I would be in trouble for quoting. But he said that Dr Cullen was an absolute economic illiterate, without any practical experience and any literacy experience. So that is what they said.

I have plenty of others about integrity, and here is a great one—this is great. This is Winston Peters speaking on the Electoral Integrity Act—these quotes are all from Hansard, but I will table them if people want to read them: “There is not one of my colleagues who 10 years ago could have supported this bill. There is not one of my colleagues who 5 years ago, like me, could have supported this bill. But we sure can now, and I tell members why. It is the experience—the bitter experience of betrayal; this venal stink and stench of people who offer preferment and the baubles of office to people to change their political loyalties.” How about that! That is a Winston Peters quote, but then he went to Rotorua during the campaign and said that New Zealand First would not go into Government with either major party, and that they did not want the baubles of office.

Now, there is one thing I agree with Winston Peters on—there are not many, but there is one I agree on—that is, we need a much better, in-depth, investigative journalist fraternity. As he quite rightly points out, they let lots of things go, and they miss them. I have transcripts from radio interviews and I listen to them with great interest; that is what having a bit of institutional memory does to help us. For example, Mr Peters claimed over and over again that when he was a Minister back then in the National Government and so on, he never took the baubles of office: “I never had a ministerial house. I never had a ministerial car.” Well, I heard that the first time and I thought: “Good God, that’s unbelievable.”, because I got his car when he got the sack.

I was moved into Cabinet when Winston got the sack, and Bolger said that I was taking his Ford Falcon. So I checked parliamentary questions and there is a question to Paul East, who was in charge of Ministerial Services, asking which Ministers had what car, and when. It said that on 8 February a Ford Falcon GL station wagon was allocated to Winston Peters. Goodness me, he said he never took a car when he was a Minister, but there is the Hansard record saying that he did. That is the venal stench of betrayal for the baubles, and now there is a bit of sophistry that members will all love. He also said that he never took the fancy ministerial house. Well, he is right. But here is a headline from the Evening Post: “Winston Peters coy about his plush hotel lifestyle”. Interestingly, that was written by a man who back then on 8 October 1991 was the political editor of the Evening Post, a guy called Roger Foley. He went on to be Winston’s press secretary some time later. But members should listen to what the article says: “Former Māori Affairs Minister Winston Peters is being coy about whether he will continue to live in his plush Plaza International suite, which was paid for by the State while he was a Minister.” So, yes, he did not take a house like other Ministers—and some of us lived in some pretty cruddy old houses that were broken-down and desperately needed maintenance—but we did not go to a plush suite at the Plaza International. Winston Peters is right. Where is the investigative journalist who checked all that? Did he take the car? Did he take the house? No, he did not take the house; he took the hotel suite. And it goes on: “Hotel suite offers Winston deal”. The Minister said that he was able to stay on at the Plaza International at a special rate.

Here is a classic. I thought there was something more to this, but maybe not: “Minister proves not one to panic”. That is from the New Zealand Herald on 15 May 1991. “The Minister of Māori Affairs says he stayed behind in the Plaza hotel when all the other guests went out to the street when a fire broke out. Sleepy guests were mustered outside the Plaza hotel after a smoker accidentally set a bed alight and generated a thick, black smoke. One fireman said Mr Peters had just got out of the shower when the fire officer knocked on his door and asked him to leave, to which the Minister replied: ‘Do I really have to?’. Mr Peters stayed on while all other guests left the hotel.”

Now, I do not know whether that has anything to do with integrity or whatever, but I say to Mr Peters: “When you say that you didn’t take the car, I got your car, sir. I drove it after you—a brown Ford Falcon—so, yes, you did. And when you say you didn’t get the house—the baubles of office, so to speak—no, you didn’t; you got the suite at the Plaza International.” We would all love that. Would we not all love to have our own suite at the Plaza International? So I say to Mr Peters that he is dead right.

Richard Prebble was actually on to it a bit. He was reported in Hansard on 8 May talking about Mr Peters swanning around in the Plaza International. It is quite good. It is in Hansard on 8 May 1991, and Richard Prebble was on to it. But I have to agree that Mr Peters is dead right. There is no investigative journalism in this country, because if journalists had listened to all the stuff we have heard since the “betrayal”, since the venal stench of “We won’t be part of a Government; we don’t want the baubles of office; we will sit on the cross benches and keep the major parties honest.”, things would be reported differently.

That was the line we were fed. That was the line fed to the handful of people who voted for New Zealand First—it was only a handful. [Interruption] Let me remind Mr Brian Donnelly that if it were not for a few hundred votes that got New Zealand First over the 5 percent line, none of them would be here, because Winston Peters lost his home base of Tauranga. Then he tried to take some frivolous lawsuit against our good man, Bob Clarkson, who won hands down, and I hope he wins hands down in getting the money back, because he is a very, very good man.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He couldn’t quite work out where his left testicle was.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I say to Mr Mallard that we will not discuss anatomy; we will not get into that sort of stuff. But I want to say that when Mr Peters gets up in the House and tears into the National Party about the things we do not do and do not stand for, and how bad we are, we should remember what the voters thought of New Zealand First. This once-proud party came to Parliament with 17 members in 1996; this once-proud party had five members in the Cabinet that I was in, and about three others outside Cabinet, including a very good member in the form of Brian Donnelly, who is in the House today, and who I still think is a good member. And now it is down to how many members? Is it six?

Hon Brian Donnelly: Seven.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am sorry to short change the New Zealand First party; it is down to seven members, and it came within a few hundred votes of going below the 5 percent threshold. Do members know why it got those few hundred votes and got over the line? I know a number of people who said: “I like the claim that they will not be part of either party. I like the fact that Winston has clearly said—and he is the only honest politician in Wellington; I know that because he told me—they will not prop up either side.” I know some people in my electorate who gave me their candidate vote but said they would give New Zealand First their party vote so they could keep the main parties honest. Those people are spewing blood now, because they read the Rotorua speech, they read the New Zealand Herald, they read the stories about the venal stench of betrayal, and they cannot believe that their man is more central to that than has ever been seen in this Parliament. So I say to Mr Peters that like the emails he claims are drip-feeding information about the National Party, I have so much more of this stuff in my files, and I will drip-feed it at the same rate that he does.

It is great that Maurice Williamson has spoken in the House today. He proved that he should be on the front bench. If he could only hold his tongue a little bit more and not leak information. Actually, he does not leak information from National’s caucus—he just tells everyone in a wonderful, open way, quite unlike Nick Smith and Bill English, who quietly sneak around the back and dump Gerry Brownlee in it.

It has been a really interesting little exercise to watch National’s leadership work over the last week or so. John Key is complaining because someone is putting the knife into him, which is very silly. Gerry Brownlee is being blamed for that by Bill English in order to get Gerry Brownlee’s pot on. But no one went back to Nick Smith and Bill English, who were actually the causes of the problem, to tell them to stay in line.

That is probably a sign of the approach of Dr Brash, who was pretending to be angry in the House today. That was a fairly sad example of a speech. I think Winston Peters was relatively soft on Dr Brash yesterday. He was amusing but soft, because it was almost certainly the worst speech that has ever been given by a Leader of the Opposition in response to a Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of a year. It is actually the easiest speech to give. The Leader of the Opposition receives the speech 4 hours beforehand, having had all summer to do the basic preparation. He or she can fine-tune it a bit over those 4 hours, and then say it like he or she means it.

Well, Don Brash was stumbling over the words. He looked like he had read it only once. Then he was trying to read it word for word. People do that when they are saying things they do not believe in. One of the things about this House is that members have the ability to come to the House and speak from the heart. But we know that Don Brash cannot do that, because when he speaks from the heart, and when he says what he really believes, then any possible votes for the National Party just go right out the window. We know that when he is unscripted he is either full and frank, like he was when he was wrecking the economy in the 1990s, or he forgets things, like when he could not remember National’s industrial relations policy or its health policy, or when he could not remember having had three meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. What leader can a once-grand political party that prided itself on integrity possibly have when that leader goes on National Radio and forgets things? I will be generous. Most people would call him a liar.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am not calling him a liar; I am saying most people would do so. I am saying that he is exceptionally forgetful, that his memory is weak, that it is not deliberate, and that it is completely accidental, because I could not possibly say anything else in the House. But that is not what is being said outside the House. How can it be that when Murray McCully attacks one group of fundamentalists the National Party is being supported by another fundamentalist sect all around the country? How can it be that a once-grand political party can hostage itself to a tiny minority group of religious fundamentalists and let that group spend half a million dollars supporting it? The group even uses the National Party “N” within its material; delivers stuff for the National Party, as well as for the Exclusive Brethren; runs phone canvassing teams, including in my own electorate and in most of the country; and has children as young as 14 working on the phones, in their scarves, for the National Party. All that happened after discussions with Don Brash, who pretended that he did not know about it.

Then, by way of contrast, Dr Brash had the sudden period of honesty on student radio, of all things. He thought no one was listening, so he could tell the truth. And it all came out. I just ask members opposite to please keep Don Brash. We think he should be their leader. We want him in the next election, because someone who has either that type of integrity or that type of memory is the sort of opponent the Labour Party wants. When he talks to people here about how much it is appropriate to spend and how much it is not appropriate to spend, why does he not look in the mirror? Why does he not look at what the National Party put out—funded by Parliamentary Service—during the election campaign and gave out at meetings he attended? I will accept that there were not many copies at those meetings, because not many people attended them, but some people from the Labour Party went along and collected up the material. We did that because we wanted to make sure that we saw what National was doing, and now we know that they have been caught.

While we are talking about hypocrites, we should have a look at this bunch of papers.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The question I ask of this House, and of this country, is whether political morality matters. Is it still relevant, or do we live in an era where anything we can get away with is OK, and that that is the only test that matters? If that is the answer, it is not surprising that New Zealanders routinely now put politicians at the bottom of the scale when it comes to trustworthiness.

I suggest to the members on the Labour benches that Helen Clark’s actions—and I mention her specifically because it is her photo and signature on the pledge card, and she says to Labour conferences that she is accountable—have brought this country to a new low. She is happy and pleased, I suggest, to use public money to breach electoral spending limits. She cannot suggest, and, indeed, has not suggested, that she was in ignorance of it, because she knows the truth of the matter. She must have known that Labour would exceed its spending limit by hundreds of thousands of dollars by issuing that card in the middle of an election campaign. Campaigns like that do not just happen by chance; they are planned over many months.

Earlier today Mr Ryall pointed out that it is not just the card but also the brochure that went out a few days later, which cost probably at least as much as the card—perhaps a total of nearly $1 million above the expenditure limit. Let us just think about this extra $1 million—$400,000 for the card and probably another $400,000 or more for the brochure itself. Does it matter? Well, I suggest that it does. Controls on political advertising exist for one fundamental reason: to ensure that the political contest is fair. New Zealanders value hugely that concept of fairness. In fact, it is one of the issues of self-identification we have as a people; it is one of our defining characteristics. Unfair tactics are tactics associated with cheaters. In this case the Labour Party intended to cheat New Zealanders and steal an election. I will be honest: that credit card and that brochure were a slick production. They were skilfully put together and were intended to influence people. They were easy to read, easy to digest, and easy to remember. Labour intended that to be the case. It wanted that card to make a difference—and it probably did. It was possibly the difference between winning and losing. The real problem is that it was illegal, but Labour simply does not care. Labour members do not care that, plainly, they breached the law.

We can compare that situation with that of Bob Clarkson. If he had overspent by a single dollar, he would not be a member of Parliament today. In fact, he could not even have stood again in the election. One dollar in excess would have been enough to disbar him. Labour has spent perhaps a million dollars more, and there will be no consequences, or only consequences that those members think do not matter. Maybe someone will be fined. Well, who cares about that? Maybe someone will go to jail, perhaps for 1 year. Maybe Helen Clark does not care whether her president or some other person—Heather Simpson, maybe—goes to jail. So what? Labour achieved its desired outcome by winning the election.

Electoral law does depend on integrity, because it depends on those people who seek public office observing the law. After all, if politicians do not observe the law, how can we possibly tell the rest of the public to obey the law? We set examples here, and we expect others to follow. National members went to great lengths to check whether various items of expenditure were legitimate, and when there was doubt we would inquire of the Electoral Commission. I have seen some of those letters; I am knowledgable in this particular area.

What did Labour do? Well, if I go by what Pete Hodgson has said, the most those members did was to have an informal chat with their lawyer. There was nothing in writing, just a few oral questions. They just bounced a few ideas off each other—possibly in a bar, over a drink or two. Do members know why they did that? It was because they did not want to know the truth. I suggest that is the mark of the wrongdoer. Wrongdoers do not want to know what the law actually is. They fear the truth, because knowing the truth lands them with guilty intent. So the last thing they would do is to ask. They go along, thinking: “I can get away with this.” And that has been Labour’s reaction on this whole issue—to get away with it.

There is a pattern, I suggest. The Prime Minister has forged paintings; the police said so. She drove through the South Island like some kind of Eastern potentate. She thinks the law does not apply to her. In fact, what was her response? She said to the taxpayers: “Buy me a private jet and your problems will be solved.” So, in her view, this breach can be explained as being technical. Her view is that the law is muddled, everyone does it, and no harm was done. But I suggest that deep harm has been done, to the integrity of this nation. If we imagine, for instance, that there had been UN observers at this election, and information came to light that one of the parties was cheating in its advertising, we know there would be an international report to say that New Zealand elections are unfair and that one party was rorting the system.

So why does Labour even do this? It does it, obviously, to win elections, but to what purpose? It seems to us and, indeed, the nation that the sole purpose of Labour today is simply to retain power. Those members are tired and they have run out of ideas. We even have the cynicism of the Minister of Finance saying to a select committee that we may not get a tax cut. It is the cynicism of retaining power, and breaching promises in a cavalier and indifferent way, as if they do not matter. Of course, if power is one’s only end, I guess they do not matter, because that is the end unto itself. That is the sorry spectacle that we see now—a tired Government for whom the end is everything and the means does not matter; as long as it gets it there, that is sufficient.

Well, there does come a judgment day. I have actually been part of a Government that was judged by the public, and the public—let us be honest—saw that we had kind of run out of steam. Part of that is to do with a Government’s conduct in office. I suggest we have never seen such blatant misconduct in office as with this Government. We have a stench of corruption, a cavalier attitude towards observing the law, and a blatant attempt to steal an election—the most violent thing one can do to the democratic process. I suggest that Labour will not shake off this stench. It has made too many errors, too many compromises, and has broken too many laws for the public of New Zealand to forgive or to forget. I say to all the members on the other side of the House—Ministers and otherwise—that they should make the most of it now, because beyond 2008, or whenever, they will not see additional days in office. They are mired in muck, muck of their own making. They will be the authors of their demise and, frankly, I and many other New Zealanders cannot wait but to see that day.

Listening to the Opposition spokesman on the abolition of political correctness, I was moved to reflect that in actual fact it is very hard to get rid of political correctness without, at the same time, removing all vision, all principle, all philosophy, and all charity as well. There was no sign of any of those in the member’s speech and certainly, in his case, he had also removed any trace of either wit or wisdom as well. I thought that I did not want to get into that. I thought that I would just leave it and get on with the things that are necessary for a humble back-bencher like myself to do.

Firstly, I want to pay tribute to the junior Government whip. It always behoves a member of Parliament to be onside with his or her junior whip, because the whip controls the leave book and the time will come—no matter whether or not members believe in political correctness—when a member will need leave. Hence I want to make clear my admiration and respect—

Darren Hughes: My favourite colleague.

Hon JIM SUTTON: There we are. One of the things I have learnt in my 20-odd years in politics is that one can never overdo the flattery. Even when people know perfectly well that one is shamelessly flattering them, they still enjoy it. One should do it, and one cannot do it too much.

But instead of doing that, I want to talk about something I can claim to know a thing about, having worked at it for 6 years—that is, trade negotiations. The last 6 years has been a period of unprecedented activity in the trade negotiations portfolio. During that time, New Zealand has completed three trade agreements, including one with Singapore started by my predecessor in the job, the Hon Lockwood Smith. We have started and completed one with Thailand, which will have many more actual consequences in trade statistics, because it is a large emerging economy where our sorts of products were heavily protected by high tariff levels and so on. Getting that done will do quite a bit of good. Already the statistics are showing a substantial increase in trade in both directions after just a few months, which is exactly what should happen. Trade agreements should make the people of both participating countries better off.

The third trade agreement—which has been completed but which is still to complete its parliamentary process here and in Chile, where some delays have been caused by the intervening presidential election—involves Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand. That is the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. That agreement’s significance is that it is a strand in the spaghetti bowl that goes across the Pacific, and not too many strands do.

The world might be considered to be in some danger of ending up with three—not one, but three—spaghetti bowls and, essentially, three big trading blocs: the Americas; Europe, with perhaps Africa attached; and Asia. That is truly an Orwellian prospect—a bit late, but, nevertheless—three increasingly uncomfortable power blocs that are forever deciding which two will deal to the third one. We could do without that.

I think that the strategic economic partnership we are involved in, which crosses the Pacific, will, hopefully, attract more countries to join it. It is an easy way to get into an existing regional trade agreement, and there has certainly been some serious inquiry from other States both in Asia and in South America, so there is some future in that one. Apart from that, there are four more agreements in negotiation with China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and ASEAN as a whole, together with Australia.

On top of that—and the Government’s highest trade priority—is the overarching multilateral trade negotiation of the Doha development round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO negotiations would have to be the most stimulating and, at the same time, most frustrating exercise that I have ever been involved in in politics. They are stimulating because the benefits that can accrue to hundreds of millions of people around the world—in fact, to a huge proportion, eventually, of the world’s population—are so great that it is certainly worth putting a lot of effort and enthusiasm into them.

New Zealand has a negotiating team of not just Ministers, who come and go, but also officials who are absolutely stacked with talent, and it has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to be associated with such a strong and dedicated team. New Zealand should be proud of its diplomatic staff, officials, and specialists in a wide variety of our Government departments who contribute to “team New Zealand” in the trade negotiations exercise, of leaders of private sector organisations such as our producer boards and their successor institutions, and of some of our major corporations that also play a real part in this enterprise. I have complete faith in New Zealanders when they act in a cooperative, team-like way, and “team New Zealand” can take on the world really, because we do act as a team. I say at this stage that although sometimes the bipartisan, or the multipartisan, accord on foreign policy, particularly on trade policy, wobbles a bit because, of course, there will be disagreements over this policy or that policy, in general the bipartisan accord holds.

I pay tribute at this moment to Tim Groser, who has just come in. Some people might have thought that Tim Groser and I could not stand the sight of each other, but that is not the case. I think that Tim has gone some way to getting his colleagues back in line again and supporting the national interest.

Finally, I point out that no WTO round has ever failed, but, of course, there has been a wide variety of degrees of success. However, if we can get an agreement that includes a commitment to abolish all export subsidies and makes a bit of progress in other areas, we will have something on which we can build in the future. Whether it be bilaterally, regionally, or multilaterally, we will have done something worthwhile for New Zealand. The abolition of export subsidies alone would make the round a winner for New Zealand. We will keep trying for far more, and we will get something more, but this round will not fail. There is no reason for it to fail, and all I want to do is to urge members of Parliament—whichever party they are in—to keep the faith and to keep working for a deal that is in the best interests of this country and of others.

It is excellent to hear the Hon Jim Sutton praising the National Party and Tim Groser, but what is quite astounding is his state of denial of his party’s overspend of $450,000 in the last election campaign. I want to point out how serious that was in that it denied real people, people who are in pain and suffering, real and tangible help through the health system.

That $450,000 might have meant, at $2,500 per cataract operation, that 180 elderly people could regain their sight. But, no, Labour has denied them that. Labour over the last 6 years has become so cynical, so distorted, and so intent on regaining power that it has kept the money for itself and denied real people help. Let us have a look at another possibility. That $450,000 could have helped 1,000 children have their $500 grommet operation. Instead, those children’s hearing has deteriorated, their education has deteriorated—[Interruption] Jim Sutton interjects; I am not sure what he is saying, but it is his Government that has denied those children. Let us think of one more example of how Helen Clark, Mike Williams, and all their cronies in the Labour Party have denied people in New Zealand treatment. At $100 an assessment, that sum could have meant that 4,500 New Zealanders wallowing on the waiting lists had their first specialist assessment. Instead, they are doomed to stay there.

I must say I recall so vividly none other than Annette King saying in 1998 that a waiting list of 98,000 was criminal. Yet today the hospital waiting list, under Labour, stands at 160,000. So who is the criminal? Is it Labour, by its own standards of judgment? I am afraid to say that it is. And is it for criminal activity that the police are now investigating the overspending of the Labour Party? Because this overspending has tragically denied treatment to both young and old on the hospital waiting list.

But what is just as galling is Helen Clark’s statement this afternoon in this House that Labour has fulfilled all its election pledges. No amount of airbrushing on the pledge card will be sufficient to hide the length of Helen’s Clark’s nose, come the next election. That is what will happen—

Darren Hughes: Is he a member of the Exclusive Brethren club?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Darren Hughes lost his majority by an enormous amount. I think it went down by about 150 percent.

Tim Groser: He’s gone.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: He will be gone. One of the extraordinary things was that in the House this afternoon Helen Clark said that all Labour’s pledges had been fulfilled. Well, I want to talk about one that was on the original pledge card, the one from back in 1999, when Labour people were tearing around the country. It stated: “We will deliver” and “My commitment to you.”, and she said that she would maintain access to free doctors’ visits for children under 6 years of age. Well, just prior to the election, I randomly rang up four general practitioners’ surgeries. The co-payment in South Auckland was about $5 to $10; in central Auckland, about $10 to $15; in Christchurch, for under-sixes, about $12 to $15. But then I randomly rang up one of the surgeries in Miramar, which is in Rongotai—the former health Minister’s own electorate—and I was told that the co-payment for my two under-6-year-olds would be $18 each, and $15 if I paid by cash. That is the sort of unfulfilled pledge that Helen Clark and Labour have absolutely failed New Zealanders on.

Let us have a look at another one on this famous pledge card: “My commitment to you” is we will cut the health bureaucracy. What do we know about that? What do we know about what Annette King said about the health bureaucracy? She said that when there was devolution to 21 district health boards the Ministry of Health would decrease by 25 percent. Instead, its numbers increased by 25 percent! But that is not all. The Government then set about building the most extraordinarily complicated bureaucracy in the history of the health system in New Zealand, with the 21 district health boards and all their committees, and the 76 primary health organisations and all their committees.

Now, at the beginning of 2006, Helen Clark pronounces that the big thing in the health area is to have productivity increase. We have heard for the last 3 years the OECD, Treasury, and even the finance Minister, Dr Cullen, saying that productivity increases are absolutely fundamental if we are to ensure that the health dollar in New Zealand is spent well. Finally, it has dawned on the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, that that is just about impossible, because of the extraordinary mantle of complicated bureaucracy that Labour has built in the last 6 years.

I now wish to turn to another shrill pledge that the Prime Minister made in her Speech from the Throne on 8 November 2005. She said: “My government believes that science and innovation are critical to driving our prosperity.” For once, I actually agree with her sentiment, but what is astounding is the mantra she, the previous Minister of Research, Science and Technology—Minister Hodgson—and the current Minister, Steve Maharey, articulate in saying they have spent 50 percent more on science, research, and development in the last 6 years, because the fact is that when one expresses investment in research and development as a percentage of GDP one finds it has gone down since 1997 and hardly moved since 1999. That shows the lack of commitment to an area “critical to driving our prosperity.” Only yesterday KPMG published a report that pointed out that New Zealand is not making enough progress in research and development in relation to its rivals, and that we are “investing too little in R&D—as a percentage of overall GDP—to compete on the basis of innovation and technology and to protect themselves from low-cost manufacturing powerhouses offshore.” Yesterday we were treated to the spectre of David Cunliffe grinning like a Cheshire cat, sitting astride a surfboard with his wetsuit on the wrong way round. Pity help David Cunliffe if he tried to stand up! Like the rest of the Labour Government he simply missed the wave and he and his Government are about to be fully submerged.

I end by saying that in 1999, when the Labour Government came into power, it inherited a growth rate of 4.9 percent. Current predictions are that growth is falling towards 1.7 percent. That says it all. The Labour Government has simply let New Zealand down.

People in exclusive glass houses should not throw stones. While the brethren on the Opposition benches preach doom and gloom, the Government has a good story to tell. I listened with interest to the debate. I listened to a lot of the comments made across the House. The Māori members on the Government side of the House copped quite a bit of flak from one of the Opposition speakers, and I want to have a look at what was said because some of it deserves a response.

One of the comments was that only the Māori Party stands for Māori rights in this House. No, that is not the case. Māori are as diverse a population group as they are in their views on how the world should be. To say that only one party in this House reflects the views and aspirations of Māori I think would be stretching it a little, and pushing the interests of Māori into a very small pigeon-hole. That is the first point.

The second point was about the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi. A comment was made in the debate that this Government will remove references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. That is not this Government’s policy. I believe that it is one of New Zealand First’s policies, but it was never ever the intention of the Labour Government. If people look further back at the position on the Treaty, I think they will see a lot of commonalities amongst some of the Opposition parties. But it is not the Government’s intention to remove references to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles.

However, in saying that, we should all be asking how we can give effect to the intent of the Treaty, which may or may not require legislation. I think there are some mixed and varied views about that. For example, we could have quite a big debate about whether there should be references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation, principally around article 3 rights. Some would argue in this House that that is not the way to go, and some would argue that it is the way to go. I think that is a very real debate.

The other comment concerned prisons. That issue is as topical to the people around Te Kauwhata as it is to the people of Ngāwhā. Although some of the hapū may have objected to the prisons—and I am sure that is the case in the north—others are working at the prisons, and others are trying to have a proactive engagement through developing restorative justice, rehabilitation programmes, and post-parole programmes at the prisons. So on the one hand we cannot simply say that we do not want prisons, when on the other hand we know that half of our whānau are working in them. I know that is the case with regard to the speaker who raised that issue.

I turn to the whole approach in the Department of Corrections, and I want to mention something that is happening very close to home for me. It is an initiative that grew out of people asking how they can do things differently. Because these things take time, initiatives grew out of a direction led by Judge Henwood, by some of the providers throughout the country and in my own electorate—they said they could try to do something different. A youth justice facility, Te Hurihanga, is going up in Hamilton, and I know that the member for Hamilton East is very well aware of it. That facility tries to divert young people from ever going through the prison system, by working with them and their families. That initiative may help to steer young people away from prison altogether, and I support it. It is a Government-led initiative but it grew from the community, and that is the point. So those things take time. We cannot simply say “no prisons”; we have to have alternatives to them. We cannot simply be critical and raise problems without having solutions that are workable, and generally the ethic of the Government is to work alongside communities. That is what we are about.

I speak in this debate tonight with a sense of optimism about the kind of New Zealand that this Government is working hard to build. It is a kind of New Zealand that draws on its strengths and optimises its potential, a kind of New Zealand where culture is to be celebrated, a kind of New Zealand where innovation is fostered, a kind of New Zealand where we value research, and a kind of New Zealand where the “can-do” attitude extends to and is the hallmark of both Māori and Pākehā alike. The kind of New Zealand that I am proud to be a part of is one that seeks to restore a balance in the lives, homes, and communities of everyday New Zealanders, who just want there to be investment in a better future for themselves. That is what this Labour Government is about. There have been 6 years of setting a platform on which to build a better New Zealand that we can all be proud of. It is a positive message; it is not one of doom and gloom. It is one that we own here, with the Government.

New Zealanders did not vote for a reactive, retrospective way of dealing with the economy or with people and communities. They voted for a forward-looking Government that is able to foster strength, diversity, and opportunity, born from a sense of being distinct and unique as a country that is not afraid to show leadership when it really matters—and there are some really hard issues facing us. Last year, in particular, we saw a panorama of success stories, too numerous to go through today. But New Zealand’s leadership, innovation, and natural talent excelled in many areas—in sport, film, television, business, music, art, and science. I will just say that those successes did not happen by accident.

In fact, if we look at my electorate and at some of the hallmarks of success, which are owned by the communities and supported by the Government, we see we can have a lot of stories to be proud of. Let us look at Port Waikato and the land of Ngāti Tīpa, Ngāti Āmaru, and Ngāti Tahina, where people are trying to build the capacity of marae to engage in their own development plans. Let us look at those successes, because those initiatives came from that community. They have increased homeownership in that region. They are better targeting the training needs of their young people. They are securing local government support for Māori participation in local government decision-making. They are implementing resource management responses to care for the lower catchment of the Waikato River. Those initiatives have all grown from that community, supported by this Government, and that is a positive story to tell.

If we traverse to Morrinsville and to Ngāti Hauā, what is happening there? People are supporting hapū development strategies to build a sustainable future. How are they doing that? Homeownership is a big issue for them, and they are improving the range of options for homeownership. They are strengthening initiatives for youth development, so that all youth have a real opportunity in their communities and beyond their communities. They are working with local councils to improve sewerage and waste-water infrastructural services to homeowners. They are increasing local training opportunities and employment opportunities. They are responding to the wide and diverse range of mental health needs in their communities. They are delivering those initiatives for themselves. They are also exploring ways to release new products into the market and also overseas. That is a good story to tell the people out there.

What is happening in Hamilton, the home of Ngāti Wairere and Ngāti Māhanga, and the region where Waikato-Tainui operates? People are engaging in public and private sector partnerships to support the aspirations of Māori developments. What are some of the hallmarks of that? There are smart economic alliances involving iwi and local council, for example Novotel Tainui Hamilton; iwi and the private sector, for example in partnership with the Warehouse; iwi and iwi in a Ngāi Tahu and Tainui joint venture in fisheries; and iwi and tertiary institutions, in relation to Waikato University, Wintec, and the Waikato Innovation Park. We have the first stand-alone wharekura in that community. We have initiatives with the public sector that work with Māori to reduce violence and to increase employment opportunities.

Those types of success stories have all grown from communities, supported by the Government. So although the brethren on the Opposition benches preach a story of doom and gloom, if they bothered to go into the communities that I work alongside they would see that positive things are happening. Why? It is because we want people to be able to do things for themselves. We know that they have to be able to do that, supported by Government investments. They will be able to be the architects of their own future. There is really only one question to end with, having listened to the doom and gloom on the other side of the House: is this mainstream enough for Don Brash?

First, I want to put to bed one of the falsehoods that Nanaia Mahuta has just raised—that she has the first stand-alone wharekura in her area, which was opened under the Labour Government. I thought it was Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi wharekura, which was opened under the National Government. It is interesting how people rewrite history just to suit themselves.

I want to congratulate Jim Sutton from the bottom of my heart on the sterling job he has done over the last 6 years. I think he has done a great job for New Zealand and our kids to come, and their kids to come. When one has a good person on the team, one does not get rid of that person. One has to ask oneself why, when one has a really cool guy doing the job for the country—

Simon Power: A well-liked person.

Hon TAU HENARE:—a well-liked person, well-respected even by some members on this side—would one get rid of him? It has nothing to do with the fact that he may be getting on in age, because we respect that in a lot of people.

However, I want to talk about a constitutional outrage. It is about Ali Baba and her 50 thieves. Ali Baba and her 50 thieves purloined $450,000 out of the taxpayers’ pocket—not out of their own pockets or out of the coffers of the Labour Party but out of the back pockets of working-class New Zealanders. This was after the stingy Minister of Finance rustled up only a 67c tax cut—the chewing gum tax cut What did we see on the TV tonight?

Gerry Brownlee: That’s gone.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is gone. Why? The Government cannot afford 67c, because Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, maxed out on her credit card.

Also, I want to say that when something is rotten one really knows it; one can smell the stench. Well, members should have a smell of this. These Ministers have been referred to the police: Dover Samuels, Phillip Field, Ruth Dyson, David Benson-Pope, and John Tamihere. I have a bit of advice for the Labour Party. Why not just refer the whole party to the police and get it over and done with? And that is exactly what is happening now, because it purloined $450,000.

Nanaia Mahuta makes light of the prison issue. I remember campaigning as the Minister of Māori Affairs in 1999 at Simpson Park Hall in Moerewa. There was a guy there who was after my seat, who actually won it. His name is Dover Samuels. Do members know what Dover Samuels said to the public meeting at Simpson Park Hall in Moerewa? He said: “There will be no prison in the north—over my dead body.” How much more does the public need to have? It goes back to 1999, it continues today, and what we see is the slowly rotting carcass of a poor old party that used to be good and full of principles.

I want to turn my ammunition and my guns on my former leader, Winston Peters. I have four things to say about Winston.

Pita Paraone: Four is a very magic number.

Hon TAU HENARE: Absolutely. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs thinks that Fiji is part of Polynesia; it is actually part of Melanesia. He does not know his geography. But he also thinks—and this is the doozy—that the President of Argentina is “Manual Labour”. The only Singaporean he ever talks about retired 10 years ago—Lee Kuan Yew. To top it all off—and this is the best one, especially as the Prime Minister has been talking about national identity—our Minister of Foreign Affairs reckons he is Chinese. How is that? And he can get away with it. Do members know why? It is because he—no one else—is the laughing stock.

Gerry Brownlee: What’s he going to do when he goes to Turkey?

Hon TAU HENARE: We can all surmise what he might do. One can always tell when the Government is on the ropes by the stench of a rotting carcass.

Here is something else. In my mind, the biggest failure of this Government is that prior to Christmas kindergartens nationwide went on strike for better pay and better conditions, as workers are wont to do now and then. Yesterday the brilliant news came through that the kindergartens and the Government had settled. I thought to myself, well done! Good news for everybody. Our kids will be safe.

Well, what was the settlement? This is what the union, on behalf of its members, settled for: absolutely nothing. They got nothing, zilch, and zero. All put together, that makes a big fat zero. So what was the strike about? It was actually about policy on the hoof by Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey, who said: “Crikey, how are we going to win this election? Not only have we have purloined $450,000 out of the taxpayers’ back pockets, but we have also offered 20 hours free to those union kindergartens that support us.”

Darren Hughes: Teachers union.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, no, no. Then all of a sudden there was a hue and cry from all the private providers, so during the election they upped the ante and said there would be 20 hours free for every teacher-led early childhood centre. So what was the strike about? Actually, the settlement was to settle on a working party for the next 12 months to figure out how the Government will implement this policy. One would have thought that the policy and the implementation programme had all been worked out in the 2004 Budget and that, bang, on a certain date, it was there. But the unions went out on strike. What was that for? Was it a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the poor rotting stench of the carcass over there? It was exactly that.

So the members of that union, the teachers of our children and our grandchildren, were used as pawns in the silly little Labour Government’s plan. There is only one word for unions that do that—scab. The union scabbed on its own mates, and everybody knows it. All one has to do is to look at the settlement that was released yesterday. Who won? Was it Labour that won? Was it the New Zealand Educational Institute that won? No one won. The biggest losers on the night were the workers, the teachers in those kindergartens. They did not get any new conditions and they did not get better pay. They went out on strike. They used their might as workers to strike for better pay and conditions but all they got was a 12-month agreement for a working party to figure out how to implement a Government policy. That has to be the worst settlement I have ever heard of in this country.

Darren Hughes: What would you do?

Hon TAU HENARE: In the minute I have left I will tell the member what I would do. I would directly target those 20 hours at the poor families that need them instead of giving them to the families in Remuera that do not need them. It is simple economics, I say to Darren Hughes. It is simple: stop bribing the public, stop pinching money from taxpayers’ back pockets, and we will all get on better.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time of New Zealand First is split into two 5-minute slots.

It is a real pleasure to follow a misery merchant like the previous speaker. He is a political retread who is a horrible example of what politicians can be.

New Zealand First is really looking forward to a busy year ahead as we begin to make a positive difference to groups of New Zealanders. We want to make a difference for the better. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is possible for those with goodwill to work together in the interests of New Zealanders. Our policy gains, secured under the supply and confidence agreement, are really significant, and they were listed in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. [interruption] I would like to tell that member over there that it often shows a fine command of the English language to actually say nothing.

As from 1 April, New Zealand First will ensure that the rate of superannuation is set at 66 percent of the average wage. That should really help our senior citizens and their living standards. It will particularly boost all of those people who are on fixed incomes.

Work is also going to be done to develop a seniors card that will be able to be used to identify the holder’s eligibility for all public sector entitlements, and which will be capable of being used for claiming negotiated commercial discounts. New Zealand First will also be investigating ways to improve options for senior citizens who may be eligible for foreign pensions, like some people over there, as well as New Zealand superannuation, an issue that all MPs receive numerous letters on. And, of course, with New Zealand First’s interest in senior care the issue of elder care will be addressed as a matter of priority in the 2006 Budget, an issue that even National members will agree with.

Better recognition can definitely be given to veterans of active overseas service, and New Zealand First, as part of its confidence and supply agreement, will be investigating the best ways of achieving that. It is definitely not a matter to be treated lightly.

The Prime Minister stated in her speech yesterday that 2006 has been designated the Year of the Veteran, and we in New Zealand First totally support that initiative. New Zealand First has also targeted child health initiatives in our confidence and supply agreement as we actively work towards the objective of having free primary health-care for all under 6-year-olds.

Pita Paraone: The bauble of power!

BARBARA STEWART: Yes, it is. We are sharing our baubles around. New Zealand First implemented such a policy when it was in Government in 1996, but we all know that the amount of funding for this policy has diminished so much that it needs to be re-implemented. Healthy children are a priority, Poor child health, long term, has an extremely high cost to everyone, and we need children to reach their full potential.

New Zealand First is looking forward positively to the journey that it is on, improving the living standards of our senior citizens and working towards improving the health of our under-sixes. We are also looking at our provision to work towards ensuring that all New Zealanders have reasonable access to 24-hour emergency health-care.

Now this is in total contrast to what the Opposition is trying to do. This week’s Main Report states that National’s view of the economy is at odds with economic forecasters—talking the economy down so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is interesting, indeed, for these merchants of misery and doom. In New Zealand First we want the very best for New Zealanders. I would like to remind National members that opposition from others is very often proof that one is on the right track, and we believe we are.

Ā, tēnā anō koe, ā, tēnā koutou o te Whare nei. Ahakoa kua tata kē te pau te rua marama, engari tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou mō te tau hou.

In spite of almost 2 months of the year having passed, I still want to take the opportunity of wishing yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone in this House, a happy New Year. I do so mindful of the fact that that is how my parents brought me up—to respect others, and I do so. However, I just want to make a few comments following some of the utterances of the previous National speaker. I remind him that I forgive him for his ignorance because he is my tamaiti, and I just want to point this out to him.

Hon Tau Henare: Mana muncher!

PITA PARAONE: Well, talking about mana munching, who left New Zealand First so that they could maintain their ministerial baubles of power? Now if that is not mana munching, then I do not know what is. But in response to his reference to my leader misquoting Fiji as being part of Polynesia I just say that his comments were in respect of the Prime Minister of Fiji who comes from the group within Polynesia called the Lau Group. Therefore it was his reputation that my leader was referring to. I also want to remind that tamaiti of mine that when he was last in Government with the National Party, that Government took the kindergarten teachers out of the agreement. So it is a little bit rich to hear him harp on about the agreements that have just been made.

Over the last 24 hours since the Prime Minister delivered her speech, this House has heard that this country has the lowest unemployment in the Western World. It is sitting at around 3 percent, as at the last December quarter. That is all well and good, but like all other statistics it is not so much what it reveals, but what it hides. What it does hide is the fact that the Māori unemployment rate stands at 7.6 percent. Although we might talk about what was, we ought to be talking about what is to be or what should be. I am really concerned, so is New Zealand First, about the high Māori unemployment rate. I can now see why there was very little reference in the Prime Minister’s speech with regard to Māori development. But there was some reference, and the words were “Hui Taumata”—the great gathering of Māoridom where they were given the opportunity, at their own expense, to advise the Government on what needed to be done for Māori. Where in the Western World would people be required to pay the Government for the opportunity to proffer advice, with the view that the advice would form the basis of Māori policy?

But it gets worse. How long has it been since we had the Hui Taumata? What has come out of it? I believe that it is true to say that to date nothing has come out of it. As I understand it we are still awaiting correlation of the issues that were discussed at Hui Taumata. A small group is being well paid to do that, yet that advice has not been given. But, like my leader, I too have a few emails regarding the National Party. I have one in my hand that emanates from National’s caucus meeting in Taupō. It states that National remains committed to removing unnecessary reference to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. They actually acknowledge that it is not as straightforward as they think it might be. But I tell my relatives in the Māori Party that there is a saying “beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” Quite clearly, after National’s perceived discussions with the Māori Party, they really have some concerns about what its supporters perceive they are doing.

Te mea tuatahi māku Mr Deputy Speaker kei te mihi atu ki a koe mō tēnei nohonga tuatahi o te Whare Pāremata, arā, mō te tau hou kei te haere.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am acknowledging that this is our first sitting of Parliament for this year, and also acknowledging your role as Deputy Speaker of the House.

I have listened to many politically desperate speeches. In the time that I have been in this House, I and many members have had the opportunity to listen to speeches from the Opposition. After hearing the last two speeches from National Party members—specifically from Wayne Mapp and Tau Henare—the mind boggles with imagination. Sometimes I think that perhaps they are suffering from some sort of amnesia.

I was interested to hear Wayne Mapp talking about stench. National having been in the freezer in cold storage for 6 years, and recognising that it is going through a process of defrosting, one wonders what Dr Mapp means by stench. From my experience, if one takes something out of the freezer and leaves it out in the sun too long, it begins to defrost and get pirau—that means it goes rotten—and then one smells the stench.

Then we had Tau Henare pointing his finger at his former leader, Winston Peters. I remember the advice that my whanaunga Winston Peters gave to his junior member who at that time was the member for Te Tai Tokerau. He said to Tau that the first lesson to learn when one comes into this House is to keep one’s ears open, keep one’s nose open, and keep one’s mouth shut. Today and this evening we have seen the member, who used to sit with New Zealand First and who then went to the National benches when I thought he would come here, sitting over on the other side. There is a description for members of Parliament like that—and one does not even have to go to the Māori dictionary. He is known as the “king of the waka jumpers”. “Waka jumper” is actually in the Māori dictionary, and that member knows what it is all about.

Perhaps Mr Henare could learn from the wisdom of his former leader, who said that he recognises the Year of the Dog and the Chinese New Year, and who then made reference to the National Party becoming a lame duck. Last night I met some Chinese friends and they told me a proverb about a lame duck. They asked: “Why did the lame duck cross the road?” I said: “How would I know? Why did the lame duck cross the road?” They said: “Because the duck wanted to end up as a Peking duck.” [Interruption] Mr Henare says it is OK.

Then Mr Henare went on to talk about when he was campaigning at Moerewa as the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau. Claptrap and gabble was spoken about that, and about promises about the Ngāwhā prison. I remind the member that he stood in this House, and he canvassed during the election, and he said that he would never, ever sit at the same Cabinet table with Jenny Shipley. That is a matter of record. The people of Te Tai Tokerau remember it, because he said it in Māori. I know that he suffers from amnesia, but the people of Te Tai Tokerau know that he said: “My principles, kia kaha, kia manawanui, that is who I am. I will never sit around the table with Jenny Shipley.”

Yesterday we saw the difference between the two leaders. Helen Clark made a very visionary statement about the future and the pathway of this country. She laid out the pathway for everybody to see, and she gave the solutions and the policies that would lead us down the pathway. I was sad, because I thought it was a great opportunity for Gerry Brownlee and his leader, Don Brash, to get up and make a big hit after the Prime Minister’s speech. I listened intently. I saw Gerry Brownlee but I did not hear him. But I heard his leader make a pathetic response to the Prime Minister. That is the difference between the two leaders. Don Brash was putting down this country, talking about doom and gloom, and talking about stench.

I say to the members of the Opposition that I know it is hard to put up an argument in Opposition when things are looking so good for the country. I know it is tough. I know that Tau Henare agrees with me that it is tough. How can they mount an Opposition debate that has integrity when we have the lowest unemployment in the OECD? How can they do it? My advice to my new colleague from the Māori Party is to open his ears, open his nose, and shut his mouth for 12 months before starting to spout out.

I have sat in this House and fought throughout for the introduction of the principles of the Treaty into domestic legislation. [Interruption] Yes, I have. That member is suffering from amnesia again. The only party—and I acknowledge New Zealand First—that has committed to the principles of the Treaty in legislation is the Labour Party. The National Party has publicly come out and said that not only does it want to abolish the Māori seats—here is Mr Henare suffering from amnesia again—but it also wants to get rid of the Treaty, let alone the principles of the Treaty.

One thing I have to hand to Don Brash is that he has turned it up. He said in his speech at Ōrewa that National is going to look very carefully at race-based policies and at repealing references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. That is what he said, and no wonder. I say to that member that Labour has fronted up and delivered.

I tell the Māori Party members that the time has come. The challenge is not to us as Māori members; the challenge is to them. There will be no more talk. The honeymoon is over. The Māori Party members will be judged at the next election by what they deliver, not by what they talk about. They will not be judged by the honeymoon, nor by patting themselves on the back and saying they are doing a good job. What they deliver will decide whether they will stay in this House after the election or whether it is “Pokare Kare Ana”. It is as simple as that.

The challenge is not to the Māori members of this Parliament. The challenge to the Māori Party members is to deliver on their promises. They said they would repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I am waiting for them to do that. The National Party said it would repeal the Act, but for different reasons—because it does not want any reference to Māori customary rights; it just wants the foreshore and seabed to be owned by the Crown. Members can ask Gerry Brownlee—that is what he said at the select committee.

Hon Tau Henare: No, no.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I am sorry, but I think Tau should go and see the local doctor or psychiatrist—one of the two—because he is suffering from amnesia. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your patience and consideration. Kei te mihi atu ki a koe. Ki a tātou katoa hoki o te Whare Pāremata, kia pono te kōrero.

[I acknowledge you. To all of us in the House, speak honestly].

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, happy New Year.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that a speaker may speak for a second time in a debate if it is to clear up a matter raised by a subsequent speaker in that debate, and if it is necessary because the person raising that matter has potentially misled the House or misrepresented the person who had spoken previously. I find myself in that position following the outrageous comments from the outgoing member for Te Tai Tokerau—or the late member, the list member, or whatever he is up there. I just wonder whether you could indicate that to be the case, so that our whips may make preparation for it later this evening.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that point of order. I think he has achieved what he wanted to achieve. In order to correct a misrepresentation a member needs to be very brief, for the member simply tries to negate what was said.

GERRY BROWNLEE: He can be called again, according to the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The speaker before the member?

GERRY BROWNLEE: No, the speaker who has been misrepresented. He may have a second call in the debate, even if he or she has spoken before, in order to rectify an otherwise difficult situation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I think that Standing Order 106—I am seeing clearly through my glasses—is very clear on this issue, so we will move on.

The Hon Dover Samuels must have had a bit of a memory blank. He stood there and said that Labour had delivered, but he has forgotten that he lost his seat to another of his colleagues from the north. Members do not lose their seats if they have delivered.

Hon Dover Samuels: Where’s your seat?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: It is the same as the member’s. In that sense, we are the same. If the member had delivered to his people in the north when he was an electorate MP, he would still be sitting in that electorate, and Hone Harawira possibly would not be here. So Mr Samuels seems to have had a memory lapse.

Let us see what Dover Samuels, his colleague Shane Jones, and Nanaia Mahuta, who is also from the north—who all have Ngāpuhi connections—do in the coming term of the Labour Government. The north is hugely represented in this Parliament. Let us see what those three MPs who sit across the Chamber do to deliver to their people in the north. That is one area where not a lot of progress has been made in respect of Treaty settlements or decent housing. Up there, there are still issues around health, education, and so on. Let us see what those members, together with the other member from the north who is part of Government, Pita Paraone, can deliver for their people of Ngāpuhi.

Hon Dover Samuels: What’s your problem?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: That member is the one in Government; that member is required to deliver. Let us see whether he delivers. In relation to the Māori Party, yes, those members are certainly on watch, but let us be clear: they have only four members in this House. The member Dover Samuels is in the Government, and it is up to him to deliver, not only to the people in the north but also to Māori in general.

The last week has seen a really interesting saga, with another Labour Government scandal unfolding. The public of New Zealand are definitely watching. The public usually does not want to know the detail of what we do in this place and, actually, I do not blame them. As long as they can get on with their lives, they are not always interested in what Parliament, the Government, and political parties are doing in this place. But, mark my words, they are very interested in the scandal that has unfolded in the last week. That will stick in their minds.

Events slip into the past, but some remain to be reactivated by a subsequent occurrence. Helen Clark’s behaviour around putting her signature on a painting she did not do, and the way she just slipped that incident off her back as if it did not matter, sticks in the mind of the public. Helen Clark’s motorcade sped at speeds of up to 180 kilometres an hour to get to a rugby match, and she let others take the chop for that, with not so much as an “I’m sorry”. That sticks in the mind of the public, too.

This week that sort of behaviour has been reactivated by the Labour Government, which has been found wanting in the way it has spent parliamentary funding. Actually, that parliamentary funding is taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. This Government has been found to have gone outside the law in the way it has spent that money, but are we surprised? Not at all. That has been the pattern of this Government since it came to power in 1999. Its members believe that they are above the law. They behave outside the law, and when found out they try to shrug it off as if it does not matter. Well, it does matter. The public of New Zealand remember those things, and they will remember this. It is not finished.

Helen Clark’s MPs may have praised her speech, but we watched her yesterday and she knows she is in trouble over this latest scandal. Only so many times can she shrug these things off. Eventually, if people behave in ways that are outside the law, they will be done. A colleague of mine said earlier that a stench has descended over the Labour Government. That stench will not be removed no matter what Helen Clark or her cronies do or say, because it will now stay there totally. It will not move.

I refer briefly to some of the things the Prime Minister said yesterday. She has all the centre-right language—“transformation”, “investment”, “higher productivity”, “business investment”, “skills acquisition”, and so on and so forth—but she has had 6 years to deliver some of that transformation. Business has been telling her that for 6 years—

Hon Member: Six long years.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —6 long years—and now, unless something happens, it might be 9 long years—but will Labour have transformed the economy at the end of it? No, it will not have, because it does not know what is required to transform an economy. Labour members can have the language, but unless they have the action to follow it up, they will not do it—and they do not.

So National will be watching and challenging. Unfortunately, we will be disappointed, just as the New Zealand public will be disappointed, and just as business will be disappointed. A party cannot know those things if, largely, it has not had experience in the business world. I do not know whether Labour’s ratio has improved in the last 6 years, but on balance it is very low, and unless people have invested their own money, they will never know what it takes to get higher productivity and to transform the economy.

The other point I refer to in respect of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday was her discussion on national identity, building a country that is united, and building our national identity. Again, the words are there, but like all things, we have to have the actions to follow that up. The surest way to build national identity is to ensure that all New Zealanders not only have the opportunity to reach their full potential but, indeed, do reach their full potential. Cohesion and unity come only when all New Zealanders feel they have a stake in this country, such that they can make a contribution to it and feel good knowing that they have made a contribution, so that they have not only contributed to their own lives but to the lives of all other New Zealand citizens, as well.

People cannot feel any of those things if they are some of the 150,000 schoolchildren who cannot read or write. There is no way people can feel they have a stake in this country if they are those children. After 6 long years, we are still not seeing the light in the eyes of too many of our children—not under this Government—because they will never feel like they have a stake nor will they be able to make a contribution.

People cannot feel cohesion if they live in South Auckland in conditions of poverty and poor housing, and have been doing so for the last 6 years. Not a lot has been done in parts of South Auckland by this Government, no matter what members on the other side of the House say. People cannot feel that they are part of a united nation if all they are feeling is despair and desolation. They cannot feel any of those things, either, if their life is drifting away while they sit for months and months—sometimes years—on a waiting list, and the Government seems content to build the health bureaucracy here in Wellington rather than put hard-earned taxpayers’ money into more health services.

I will make some comments briefly about TVNZ. A group of New Zealanders came out today and called for something different to occur. Their suggestion may be impractical for a fully funded public broadcaster, but their proposal states that what we have now is not working. The Minister of Broadcasting, Steve Maharey, has presided over a total shambles with TVNZ, and he sits there with his smarmy manner and does nothing about it. It looks like we will have to wait until the public broadcaster reaches absolute rock bottom before the Prime Minister sacks the Minister from the job, because that is what should happen to him.

That was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, one of the great joy-germs of the New Zealand Parliament. She is one of the people who, every time she gets up, says so many positive and wonderful things. She is the kind of person we would ring if we ever wanted cheering up. We would call Georgina te Heuheu because she is so positive about New Zealand and says so many good things, and that speech just showed it. She really does see the glass as being half empty.

This year the Labour-led Government will continue to lead economic transformation, will continue to support families young and old, and will keep building a national identity. Those are the three things we will do this year, to make sure that all New Zealanders feel that this is the country they want to spend their future in. When the Prime Minister rose on Tuesday to set that out, not only did she have the statistics of 6 good years of Government behind her but she also had the ideas of where this Government will go in the next 3 years, and in the next 6 months. Just in the next 6 months alone—because this is only a 10-minute call—we will set up some of the things that the Labour-led Government will do for New Zealand to keep building that economic transformation, supporting families young and old, and building a national identity. No three things could be more important to our country this year, to make sure we have the kind of social inclusion and fair society that we need for all Kiwis. That is what this party in Government is absolutely committed to doing.

The National Party members, with their doom and gloom approach through this whole debate, are missing all the economic statistics that are out there for them. During the 6 years that Labour has been in Government, the economic growth rate has averaged 3.8 percent. That is at the top end of the OECD scale. This economy has done fantastically well in the last 6 years, but the Opposition says that that is just because of good luck and that the Government is completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens in the economy. But then if we look at what has happened in the 6 years we have been in Government, we see that company profits are up $25 billion. If we go back to the last 6 years of the National Government, we see that company profits went up only $12 billion. So we might say that when we can double profit, the Government is doing a pretty good thing for the private sector. Of course, National says that when Labour is in office it is all good luck, but when National is there it is because of its genius—all because of the economic brilliance of all those wonderful National back-benchers who have their degrees in economics. It is a farce. So 3.8 percent—

Mark Blumsky: Slow down. Slow down.

DARREN HUGHES: I have to speak fast, I tell Mr Blumsky, because I have so much to say in 10 minutes. I heard Mr Blumsky speak last night, in a kind of sing-song voice. Mr Blumsky is used to being downtown, I know, but he cannot treat Parliament like a karaoke bar, as he did when he was speaking last night. There is a man who needs speech training, and we will put some money into this year’s Budget, into the special education vote, to help him out—that is what we will do.

So we have a 3.8 percent growth rate over the cycle in the last 6 years in the OECD. This year, when we come to the bottom part of the business cycle, we still have a growth rate of 1.7 percent. Now that party, when it left office during the Asian economic crisis, had the economy in recession. Members might remember that in 1998 that Government had to cut the pension, because the economy ran into recession. It had to put up student fees, because the economy went into recession. But under this party in Government we have grown the economy. It is so good that even when we are at the bottom part of the business cycle there is a 1.7 percent economic growth rate. Don Brash, the guy who was the Governor of the Reserve Bank, still has problems with GST; he could not work out the GST on his TV ads. He made a big thing about being on the committee that invented GST, but when it came to paying his bill he could not quite get his abacus to work out how much he was entitled to by way of the Broadcasting Act, which is why the National Party is in front of the police at the present time.

Don Brash made such a big thing about how he was going to be the great understander of the economy that he got up at Ōrewa and said: “Guess what? We are going to have a recession.” Now, for the National back bench a recession is officially two quarters of negative growth in the economy, and Don Brash said we would get that. But if we go into the Budget we find we are at 1.7 percent of that cycle—that whole wave. So it is extraordinary for National members to come here, having refused to engage in the economy during the election campaign, and now, when they think things are going a bit awry, they want to jump on board the peace train. However, the problem for them is that all the statistics and growth are on the side of Labour.

I have heard National speakers in this debate say: “Oh yes, we did talk about the economy in the election, because we promised huge tax cuts.” Well, that is all fiscal policy. They offered the biggest tax-cut bribe in New Zealand history—which did not add up. That is clear. They went around giving away free money and they still could not win the election, even though they tried to play the race card and give away free money. So those members went around the country on fiscal policy alone. They did not engage the Government on any of the other economic settings, which is why we are doing so strongly at the present time. Don Brash went to Ōrewa, but with nothing to say. [Interruption] I will have a little drink. I saw Mr Blumsky’s eyes light up at that line.

All these things will be happening this year, for the economic transformation we need. Now, what does it actually mean? First of all, the unemployment rate in this country is the lowest in the world. I do not know what National members think about having a job, but there is nothing more liberating for people than to have a job, draw a wage, and pay their bills—and this country has the lowest rate of unemployment in the world. It is a great success for a Labour Government to be able to deliver that.

In my electorate of Otaki unemployment fell by 30 percent in the last year alone. We have more people in work than ever before. That is a great thing for New Zealand. So what will happen by way of supporting families young and old? On 1 April this year we will see a massive expansion of the Working for Families package, with tax relief for people who actually need it. I see Gerry Brownlee over there, who has weathered well over the summer. Gerry Brownlee, under Don Brash’s scheme, was going to get a $92-a-week tax cut, thanks to Don Brash. My constituents, the majority of whom earn under $30,000 per annum, would get nothing under National’s scheme, except for10 bucks a week. Mrs Bennett shakes her head, because being a list member she would not know about constituents and people who are on the bones of their backsides, trying to get ahead. We do, and that is why families young and old get a deal under the Labour Party.

Gerry Brownlee wants his $92 a week. We know where that would go. I think it is fair to say it would be a consumption-led tax cut. We will invest the cut into families young and old, and 350,000 families will get it.

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

DARREN HUGHES: Oh, the big man does not like it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no particular point of order. I just thought the member needed a chance to breathe.

DARREN HUGHES: I am always grateful to the member, and can I say that he looks so good sitting at the moment on the National back bench, trying out his new chair for when he gets rolled big-time, very certainly.

Funnily enough, John Key has been a very miserable person in Parliament this week. Normally he comes in bouncing and smiling, saying “Gidday mate” and talking to everybody. He has looked sour, despite the very interesting hair dye he has applied over the summer break, which is quite interesting I think. It is a rather unusual way to get some coverage—a North and South requirement, probably. I was wondering who John Key was talking about when he said that a National front-bencher was “doing him in”. First of all I thought it might have been my neighbour to the north, Simon Power, because I know he is in a little bit of a positioning mode at the present time. But I thought, no, that would not be right. Simon is a very gentlemanly kind of person. He would not backstab anybody. Everybody blamed Gerry Brownlee. I do not know what it is when things go wrong, but people look at Mr Brownlee. It is a strange old thing. I do not think it was him, either. People say that it might have been Mr English, because he has that kind of Catholic thing, with “keep hate alive”, and he is still feeling bitter, so maybe it was Mr English. But I do not think it was him, either. I do not think anybody has been bad-mouthing John Key. I think John Key said that about himself, to get himself on the television news. I think John Key backstabbed himself in order to get himself a little bit more coverage, and I think it was very cruel of him to make a big fool of himself, and his colleagues, in that regard.

The other important thing that is happening for families young and old in March this year is that we are putting up the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour. We have lifted it from $7, when we became the Government. National, which complains about low wages in comparison with Australia, has opposed the rise of the minimum wage every single year, so let me ask its members this question: will they oppose the minimum wage going up in March? They do not know. They sit in Parliament all night and do not read their policies. We will put up the minimum wage to give working people a chance to get ahead and to do better. So there is the Working for Families package, and the minimum wage is going up, and they are leading to a much stronger economy for New Zealand.

The other thing, of course, is that on 1 April we will increase the superannuation rate for pensioners. My colleagues have been very unfair to the Leader of the Opposition. They have been saying that he is “Dr Doom and Gloom”. But I noticed Don Brash smile during one part of the Prime Minister’s speech. When she said that the pension was going up, that old man smiled like a Cheshire cat. He saw that money going into his bank account and he wanted it. That was the one point he found attractive about the Prime Minister’s statement. So for all our pensioners in New Zealand—over half a million—there will be a rise in their pension on 1 April. [Interruption] Bob Clarkson likes that; I know what he will do with that money. And for students, of course, the student loan policy, a very popular and very good policy, will come in on 1 April, as well.

We move through to 1 July. What do we see then? People aged between 25 and 45 who visit primary health organisations will get cheaper access to primary health care. This is fantastic stuff. It is part of the Labour vision for health care. The asset-testing threshold will go up on 1 July, and the threshold for the rates rebate scheme, which will help so many low-income New Zealanders, will go up to $500 as well.

So whether it is economic transformation, families young and old, or the building of a national identity so that Kiwis can feel proud about where we are in the South Pacific in the 21st century, Labour, under this Prime Minister, is doing great stuff. I know the Opposition hates it. I know they cannot stand this Prime Minister, because she is a successful Kiwi who loves her country, who does good by the people who live in this place, and who is leading us forward into the 21st century. This woman works so hard that, following three or four leaders of the Opposition down the track, she will still be here, boxing on, standing up for New Zealanders, and bringing about economic transformation, delivering for families young and old, and building a national identity we can be proud of.

How does Darren Hughes do it? How does he hold his breath for 10 minutes, take a drink, and speak at the same time? It is quite extraordinary, is it not? While we are on the subject of the member for Otaki, I ask how a safe Labour seat with a big margin can be turned into a marginal seat? The answer is to give it to Darren Hughes, of course.

Labour owes the hard-working taxpayers of this country about half a million bucks—money that it stole to fund its election campaign in 2005. There is no point in pointing the finger at anybody else, as the Labour Party speakers have done today, because not one but two official bodies have said the pledge card was an election expense. So the advice for Helen Clark is simple: cough up; give the money back. Is that not what any decent, reasonable person with a tiny bit of integrity would do—just simply give the money back? To do otherwise would be to tarnish the reputation of every member of the Labour Party caucus. I am tempted to give that advice, but even I concede some people in that caucus do not deserve that reputation. It is simply a matter of doing the right thing. I ask members whether they remember the pledge card—“I signed it; I’m accountable for it”. Well, that suggests to me that any reasonable person knows what the course of action should be, which is that Labour does the right thing and sets the ledger square.

But when it comes to matters of integrity it does not always go that way with our Prime Minister. Would it not be deliciously ironic if the Prime Minister used the excuse that she signed it, but she did not actually draft it? Every member of the Labour Party to date who has stood up and taken a call has tried to spread the blame, rather than take accountability for his or her actions. Labour members are working on the premise that if enough mud is thrown at the National Party, some of it may stick. But rather than accepting accountability, which is what the Prime Minister pledged Labour would do if it got back into power, it is reverting to type and blaming everybody else.

The problem with that approach, other than that it is completely without honour, is that the Labour Party and the Labour Party alone has been named as being in breach of the regulations—nobody else. The Prime Minister has been on notice on this issue since May 2005, when the Auditor-General finished a report, sent it to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and asked to have an audience with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in order to deal with the matter and resolve it as a matter of urgency—to fix it for once and for all. But, to her shame, the Prime Minister declined that request, and I have to say that on the evidence I have seen to date, the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is complicit.

At the steering committee this morning, the chief executive of the department was asked when and by whom he was made aware of this issue. He responded in May 2005, or thereabouts, and was advised by the Auditor-General personally. I asked whether he had briefed the Prime Minister. He said he had mentioned it to someone, but he could not remember to whom. There was no file note. He had no recollection of the person he had spoken to, and he was very clear that he did not brief the Prime Minister. That is despite Mr Wevers, the chief executive, writing the following in the department’s annual report, regarding the second point of responsibility that the department has: “The second is policy advice provided across the range of issues that arise in the conduct of government business. As the political head of the government, the Prime Minister requires a comprehensive overview of emerging policy issues and ongoing government activity, as well as access to information on any and all issues that arise.” He steadfastly said that he did not think that this issue was important enough to brief the Prime Minister on, yet he wrote in the annual report that providing such advice was one of his key responsibilities. It beggars belief.

But what is more incredible is Winston Peters’ defence of this Government. Am I missing something, or what? Was it not 2 or 3 months ago, when Bob Clarkson kicked Winston Peters’ backside out of Tauranga, that Winston Peters cried foul and said anyone who supposedly blew his or her budget was a demon who should be dragged before the courts, and that due process should take place? Winston Peters tried to vilify Bob Clarkson, and now he has the temerity to stand up and say that the Government has acted with integrity.

Yesterday Mr Peters told the House that in Chinese culture this was the Year of the Dog. He would know, would he not, because he has become the Prime Minister’s personal pit bull terrier? He savages National at every opportunity, regardless of the fact that his colleagues all around him are cringing. Mr Peters is an old dog, who has slowed up somewhat. The wily old fox, the Prime Minister, has got him exactly where she wants him, which is out of the country more often than not, and with a job with responsibilities so that he actually has to do something. When New Zealand First does not have Winston Peters in attack mode, it is only a shadow of its former self. Being preoccupied with that has drawn the New Zealand First members’ teeth. I say that Mr Peters has betrayed his caucus colleagues—it is about time that someone told him this—that he has betrayed his voting public, and that I think he has condemned his colleagues to the political scrap heap, come the next election.

The argument has been put that this is a fragile Government coalition, and it is—primarily because of the notorious volatility of Winston Peters—[Interruption] He is a man who was attracted to the baubles of office, but he is notoriously unreliable and unstable. He is like a pit bull terrier: people never know when he will turn on them. But I do not think that the Government will fall over. I think this is the proposition: because Winston Peters had his backside kicked in Tauranga, by virtue of the great efforts of my colleague Bob Clarkson—a tremendous outcome, against all the odds; an outstanding achievement—he was a man who was desperate for a lifeline, and the Prime Minister, who had her political instincts very well honed, sensed that and told Winston Peters that if he supported this Government, she would make him the ambassador to London when New Zealand First gets condemned to the scrap heap. That, in my view, is exactly what will transpire. Winston Peters, being in a desperate state, grabbed that offer in both paws. So when he stands up and gums the bones of the National Party, I allow myself a wry smile, because I reflect on a politician who was once a real firedog, but who is now withering on the leash.

One of my contentions is that it is OK for the Government to articulate how successful it is when things have been good, but what is the strategy now that things will get tough economically? I was looking for some direction from the Prime Minister to address that issue, and I believe the country was waiting for that direction, as well, and we were disappointed. We were not surprised, but we were disappointed. We will be looking to take the Government to task over the next 3 years on that issue alone.

I am proud to speak in this debate. I feel privileged to be part of a Government that has acted early to implement its key election promises, just as it has done every election since it was first elected in 1999. This Government has already made a huge commitment to transforming our economy; to providing security and opportunity for families, young and old; and to building pride in the unique national identity of New Zealanders. Our programme for this term and beyond as spelt out in our Prime Minister’s speech will ensure that this Government continues to make a real difference for the next 3 years, the next 3 years after that, and another 3 years—on and on.

It has been strange to sit on this side of the House and hear the National Party lament the state of wages for New Zealand workers. I did not know the National Party was trying to be the workers’ friend; that would be a first. It certainly has not been until now, and I know that workers throughout New Zealand will have difficulty believing that the leopard has changed its spots—or, should I say, that the lame duck has changed its quack. While we are talking about accountability, I am still waiting to hear National members own up to the responsibility they bear for driving wages down when they were last in Government in the 1990s. Typically, we have heard no new ideas from Dr Brash about how to increase wages or improve the economy, other than the tired old prescriptions he learnt in a neo-liberal economic theory decades ago. The world has moved on, I say to Dr Brash, but the National Party remains stuck in the last century.

Dr Brash talks vaguely about increasing productivity. Let us be clear about the National Party’s version of productivity—that is, work harder for lower wages in unskilled, dead-end jobs. That was the policy of the 1990s. There was no investment in training in skills, there was the killing off of apprenticeships, and the privatisation of industry training. And those members wonder why wages have slipped and we still have a critical skills shortage! Productivity under National means restructuring, lay-offs, and work intensification. National does not believe that workers have any interest in productivity, and believes that the control of it should all be handed to business on a plate through a set of vicious work rules.

Let us be clear: there will not be any interest among New Zealand workers in National’s approach towards improving productivity, if it is to come through labour-market arrangements that favour employers so that businesses grow and the benefits trickle down. We tried that, do people remember? And the benefits trickled up, and flooded out of the country. John Key, the wonder boy of the National Party, has the same last-century views about the labour market. The last time National tried doing this with the Employment Contracts Act and other poverty-enhancing measures, they embedded a low-wage mentality that still endures among some employers.

So what is different about today’s National Party prescription? The only mantra National members can think up is the difference between Australian wages and our own. It is easy to hold up graphs, but that does not tell the real story. Let us do some comparisons. Tax is not cheaper in Australia; the top tax rate in Australia is 47 percent. Additional taxes include a stamp duty on a home purchase, medical levies, payroll taxes, and accident compensation charges that are twice those of New Zealanders. Conditions for Australian workers are well ahead of ours, so the cost of doing business is more expensive, although—thanks to this Labour Government—we are catching up on some of those things.

The minimum wage is equivalent to NZ$13.85 an hour, and it is underpinned by a strong award system. Most workers stay on the minimum wage for only a short period of time before moving on to higher wages. Minimum sick leave is higher than ours, annual leave has been at 4 weeks for years, and there is a minimum 9 percent employer contribution to superannuation. There are casual loadings, long-service leave, and leave loadings. Why is that? What is the difference between New Zealand and Australia? It is that Australia did not introduce the Employment Contracts Act during the 1990s—surprise, surprise—along with other punitive measures designed to reduce the cost of labour. Compared with increases in wages in Australia through the 1990s, wage increases in New Zealand were tiny.

That is the real reason wages are behind; it is National’s legacy, and this Government is having to fix it. I want to know whether National is serious about bridging the gap between New Zealand and Australia, because if it is, it will support the minimum wage going up to $12 an hour and support the youth minimum wage bill going to a select committee next week.

It will be interesting to see whether the Australian Government’s industrial relations reforms will have the desired effect of reducing wages and conditions by forcing workers into a similar situation that National did with New Zealand workers in the 1990s. That is one way of catching up with Australia, I guess—where wages are driven down by draconian industrial reform. I suspect we will see a lot of workers wanting to come back to New Zealand over the next couple of years, because we will look good beside John Howard’s reforms.

This Government believes we have a responsibility to assist families, young and old, and workers on modest incomes. I do not know who the Opposition talks to out in the community, but the families I talk to have welcomed the Working for Families initiatives, and I am delighted that the confidence and supply agreements that Labour has entered into mean that low-paid workers can look forward to a minimum wage at $12 an hour by 2008, should economic conditions permit. Those same workers have had the minimum wage increased by 46 percent since Labour became the Government, and the chronic low pay that many have experienced is well on the way to being addressed through this Government’s policies.

Around 77 percent of families with dependent children will qualify for Working for Families, and the dramatic effect it will have on child poverty in New Zealand is the most significant thing the Government has done to address the inequities that were exacerbated in the 1990s. It has been rather tiresome, I think, to sit here and listen to the National Party’s tired themes of tax cuts for the rich, punishing those not so well off by making cuts in health and welfare, attacking Māori, and reducing workers’ rights. Tax cuts are great news if one is rich. When National cut taxes twice in the mid-1990s, most of the $2 billion tax cuts, or 71 percent, went to the highest earners. I have no doubt that if the present Opposition were now in Government—and thank goodness it is not—we would not be debating increases for working families, or introducing new policies that will improve the lives of families. We would be debating cutting holidays, reducing minimum wages, and reducing workers’ rights on the back of tax cuts for the rich.

I do feel a bit sorry for the new National members. I do not want to hold you totally to blame for what happened in the 1990s, but you do need to understand that what your party did—

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think the member should be using the word “you”. She is actually addressing you, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is right. The member should not bring the Speaker into it.

DARIEN FENTON: I do not hold the new National members accountable for all the things that happened in the 1990s, but I will hold them accountable if they do not do something about the dreadful policies that their party continues to advocate. [Interruption] By the way, can I just tell the member opposite that the South Auckland working people voted for Labour. I am sorry that she is not on this side of the Chamber, but the South Auckland working people voted for this Government. She can lament all she likes, but they know who is on their side.

That hard-core, left-wing, unionist rant certainly will not increase the credibility of Dr Cullen’s financial team and policies—he must have been cringing in his seat, having to listen to that sort of stuff. It really was like a historical relic, something from the north of England, maybe. Putting up with that was like being at a unionist meeting back in the 1960s, and it certainly was entertaining being on this side of the House.

But there is no question that this Labour Government has now been shown to be entirely rotten to the core. New Zealanders have heard all the excuses. We have had to put up with “paintergate”, we have been expected to swallow a load of rubbish about speeding motorcades in Timaru, we have had to shrug our shoulders over “Doone-gate”, and now Labour expects New Zealand to believe another tall story over the pledge card.

It is funny, is it not? If Bob Clarkson had been found to have spent $1 more than his $20,000 allowed for electoral expenses, he would have lost his seat, been kicked out, faced a massive fine, and lost his reputation. Labour uses $450,000 of taxpayers’ money to solicit votes, and what is the response? Its members say that it is no big deal; they have done it for three elections and, well, the electoral law is a bit unclear in that area. I can tell members that the law is not unclear, and Labour has to front up, pay up, and take its medicine.

The flip side of this deviousness on the part of Labour is its opportunism, its sheer lack of principle, and its grasping for power that goes unabated. What most New Zealanders would have found galling, if they had even bothered to listen to that speech from the Prime Minister yesterday, was this quote: “There is an evolving New Zealand way of doing things, and a stronger New Zealand identity is emerging. It is important to develop that distinctive New Zealand style, identity, and set of community values. As a Government we will continue to prioritise policies that contribute to a strong sense of national identity.” She talked about Labour’s New Zealand way. In other words, the message is clear: “New Zealanders, your national identity is going to be cooked up on the ninth floor of the Beehive for you. You are going to be told how you feel as New Zealanders and you are not going to have a choice in the matter.” I can tell members that if Labour thinks it can define national identity in this country, it has got another think coming. New Zealanders have always been strong and independent, and, frankly, the people of this country do not need the Government to tell them who they are or how they will behave.

As Labour continues to engineer our society, it is also going to claim credit for every little bit of stuff that it can along the way. Whether it is the Rugby World Cup—never mind the fact that the Prime Minister cannot stand rugby—or it is a blockbuster movie that we have made in this country, we will find that this Government claims the credit. The Labour Government is determined to muscle in and get some of the reflected glory.

But, unfortunately for this Government, the real job of Government is to grow the economy and to lay out a vision that it can act on. Frankly, the members over there on the Treasury benches have not got a clue. Today in question time it was actually embarrassing for the Prime Minister. Dr Brash asked the Prime Minister if she could name one economist—just one—who believes that the policies of this current Government are going to grow productivity in New Zealand to the point where our incomes overtake Australia’s in 10, 20, or even 30 years. She could not name a single one.

Brian Connell: Are you sure?

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, it is just possible that she does not know the name of any economists—after all, this Government is not keen on expert advice. Treasury told it, in the briefing to the incoming Government, that it was not on the right track, but the Government did not want to hear about it. What was the advice? It was to get rid of the carbon tax, revamp the Resource Management Act, and cut personal and company tax. After pressure from the National Party—

Mark Blumsky: The carbon tax has gone?

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, the carbon tax did go. The Resource Management Act remains a massive problem. This Government tells us that, yes, it will be reviewing business tax and it will put things out to public consultation. Well, it is pretty simple: business tax needs to be cut right now to ensure productivity. Unfortunately, tax cuts to grow the economy are an ideological step too far. The sad fact is that the experts in the field of economics just do not agree with the Prime Minister and the Labour Government. But Treasury agrees with Dr Brash that there are certain steps that we have to take to grow this economy.

It was pretty interesting yesterday when the Prime Minister spoke. Frankly, members over there on the Treasury benches looked pretty bored—not too animated—but, boy, did they get animated when Dr Brash stood up to speak. Why? Because they know that Dr Brash is on the right track and, despite what they say, they know that Dr Brash is the one leader in this country who can connect with the New Zealand people. Labour knows that it is getting sadly out of touch and I think it might be time that some of those Labour death row members went out and spoke to people in their electorates. They would be interested in some of the stuff they would hear.

Actually, quite a few of them do not have electorates. It is interesting that if one goes to a few parties around Wellington, one can hear candidates further down the Labour list insisting they will be in this House by the end of the year. That must make Labour MPs feel great, if they lost their seats and came in on the list. Perhaps, like Dr Sutton over there, they are in the departure lounge for, maybe, Niue—if they are lucky.

It is a sad fact that this Government has got so out of touch. We heard a bit before about Working for Families. I can tell members that New Zealanders do not want middle-class welfare. They do not want to be made into beneficiaries. They want the opportunity to stand on their own two feet. Unfortunately, Labour just does not get that.

Chris Auchinvole: They don’t like that.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: They do not like it at all. I can also tell members that on the day that the people in South Auckland switch on to the fact that Labour does not actually represent their interests—that Labour is totally out of line with their values—the Labour Party will be gone, and it will be gone for a very, very long time. The Labour Party that one sees now does not represent its traditional constituency. For too long Labour Party supporters have shown faith in that party. They have had to suffer all sorts of changes in philosophy and direction. Helen Clark could tell loyal Labour Party supporters that the Government was starting labour camps and they would think it was great because it would mean that there were more jobs. I do not know about some of those supporters.

This pledge card debacle is just one more nail for this Government. Labour has stitched together a ragged coalition of the discredited. It talks about our talking the country down. I can say this: give Labour another term and it will have taken the country down. There is no better way to talk the country down than by sending Winston Peters overseas to represent us. The Prime Minister cannot find an economist to back her up, because there is no economic plan and there is no vision to back up. We all know in this Chamber that this is the last Labour Government we will see for a very, very long time, and that will be the saving of this country.

What wishful thinking! In fact, we heard that comment, made in hope, from a number of members of that party back in 2002. We also heard it back in 1999.

I was walking down Lambton Quay today and I was looking at a copy of North and South magazine that had the headline: “National Velvet”. I thought it was something about Elizabeth Taylor. I thought it was one of those reruns. The star of that movie was Elizabeth Taylor, who has been suitored six or seven times. But no, it was not. I had another look. It was not about Elizabeth Taylor; it was about John Key. What was obvious—I have not read the article yet—was that the John Key machine, or what there is of it, was getting the rumour mill going and starting the positioning. To the idea that Mr Key is under angst because he was somehow destabilising the leadership at their Taupō retreat, I say: “Excuse me!”.

I know that the member who has just resumed his seat is from Northcote and that, like me, he occasionally reads the Dominion Post. I do not often agree with the Dominion Post, but I found that the editorial on 9 February was interesting when it stated—and it is one of the most conservative newspapers in this country—that Dr Brash and his colleagues had not got off to a good start in 2006. I quote from that newspaper: “His caucus retreat should be concentrating on how to make Miss Clark unhappy. Instead it is too publicly devoting too much of its energy to the jockeying”—including that “National Velvet”—“among Dr Brash’s senior colleagues over who should be his replacement. Dr Brash knows how destabilising that sort of thing can be to a leader, and that gossip and rumour can be destructive.”

This is what was stated by the Dominion Post, a conservative journal in this country. I continue: “There are good reasons for Dr Brash’s leadership to be under question. National went close in 2005, but there are no prizes for second place in politics. There were gaffes, and Dr Brash was responsible for a good number of them. He was embarrassingly unfamiliar with his own party’s policy, and he failed to handle the revelation that the party had received support from the Exclusive Brethren with anything approaching the deft aplomb that was needed. The obvious successor is finance spokesman, John Key, but he is so far not showing the appropriate skills in pursuing what he has made all too evident is his ambition.”

The editorial goes on to state that National has vast experience of doing these things quietly, and that usually when it has a coup it is quiet, it happens in the dead of night, and the knives are drawn like in some sort of Roman drama—

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I notice that there are members in the gallery who are interjecting on the proceedings of the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I did not hear that, but members in the gallery will not do that. Please be quiet.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: I can only assume that some of the National members are up in the gallery and have not realised that they need to come down to the Chamber if they wish to interject.

The editorial goes on to state: “Mr Key’s strategy appears to be to do his own destabilising, and to allow his willingness to take over to be obvious well before the ground has been prepared.” He needs more than the front-page of a glossy calling him “National Velvet” for that ground to be prepared. “This betrays an impatience and a political naivety that suggests he is not yet ready to tangle with Miss Clark.”

This year, 2006, we will see the unfolding of this great drama between Mr Key and the other contender for the leadership—not Mr Brownlee because he is trying out some back-bench seats, or else he is moving around the back bench tonight to stay close. That is what a beleaguered leader does. He or she moves around and stays close to the back bench to see what the back-bench members are thinking and saying. The Dominion Post goes on to state: “Adding to the mix is the prospect that former leader Bill English may believe that he can become New Zealand’s John Howard, and return from the political wilderness to become leader again. National’s MPs need to remember that voters do not elect parties that are unable to govern themselves. So far, they show little sign of grasping that.”

All I have heard this evening in the speeches from the other side of the House, as speakers on this side have mentioned, is incredible and appalling doom and gloom, incredible negativity, and an incredible selling-down of their country. What a pleasure it is to be a member of a positive and progressive Government that actually has a vision for this country and knows where we are going. This Government is on a roll and on the road, unlike the members opposite, who have to go to retreats in Taupō. We on this side of the House know that they are concerned about their future leadership. We would give Dr Brash a matter of months, and the reason he is still there is only that the two major contenders do not yet have the numbers sorted to make that inevitable push—which will come. That is as obvious as night follows day. I am proud to be a member of a Government—[Interruption] Obviously, a prominent member of this Parliament has just joined us—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I ask that the gallery be cleared. People have been warned once about interrupting proceedings. I refer to the people who were clapping.

A disturbance took place in the gallery. The gallery was cleared on the instruction of the Assistant Speaker.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: I am not sure whether they were cheering. I hope they are not from my Labour electorate committee.

Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In fairness to my parliamentary colleague, I think he should be given an extra 2 or 3 minutes to repeat those last few lines, because I certainly did not hear them. He was interrupted.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please continue, Mr Gallagher.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: I thank Brian Connell for his genuineness and kindness.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: I have a lot of time for that member actually, because he is an outspoken advocate. I do not agree with some of his philosophy, but I served on the Law and Order Committee with that member, and he was a good and hard-working member, and I think, frankly, that the members opposite should value him better. I think he captures the real spirit of the National Party: the outspoken maverick. In fact, we had one Mike Minogue as a predecessor in Hamilton West—he was a good, outspoken member—and we had Dr Shearer and Marilyn Waring. I think that that member comes out of that stable, and it is sad to see how little this miserable old National Party values an outspoken member who is prepared to call the shots as he sees them and give a bit of character and oomph into this Parliament.

I want to take the time I have left to compliment the Prime Minister on what I thought was an absolutely brilliant speech. I am so proud to be a part of a Government that is overseeing an economy where unemployment is at a record low, with the latest international consumer confidence survey finding New Zealand the second most optimistic country in the world. People would not believe it if they heard the doom and gloom merchants on the other side of the House, but fundamentally we are on a roll in this country. The latest merchandise trade figures reported a rebound in exports and a fall in import values. December’s dwelling consent figures were on the upside, inflation was down, and our fiscal position is sound. But it does not stop there. That is just the good and wonderful base.

On 1 April, as has been mentioned by speakers on this side of the House, it will be wonderful to see a big extension to our Working for Families package, whereby 60,000 more people will become eligible, so that 350,000 families will be entitled to family tax relief in 2006. That is what we are doing to help families, unlike the sneering from the doom and gloom merchants on the other side. We are increasing the rate of superannuation, and members opposite should hang their heads in shame because the last time they were near the Treasury benches, lest we ever forget, they cut superannuation. Of course, the big winner with our young people and their parents is that no interest will be payable on student loans for those who stay in New Zealand. What a profound and wonderful investment in our young people! What a wonderful investment in the future of our country!

Then on 1 July it gets better. There will be big improvements in the rates rebates scheme easing the burden of rates on many superannuitants and others on modest incomes. But it gets even better. The next phase of the roll-out of more affordable primary care occurs, extending lower doctors’ fees and prescription fees, through the primary health organisations, to 45 to 64-year-olds. Members opposite can laugh but that is better still. I am so proud to be a member of such a wonderful, progressive Government with vision for this country.

raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that was a very constructive speech. I had a sense that the member had a little bit more to contribute, so I seek leave of the House to give him another 10 minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he cannot seek leave for another member.

I have a few notes written here tonight, but I have had to add one. I will read it out: “That side of the House is like a tyre going flat—a lot of hot air escaping and heading nowhere.”

I sat yesterday and listened to the speech from the leader of the country, the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I must say I was upset to hear all the fluffy talk. There was a list of excuses trying to justify the past but no vision for the future. I have said it many times before, and I will say it again: the country is on a slippery slope, downhill. Nothing was heard yesterday to change my mind.

Let us take the police, for instance. The police are so busy dealing with the misdeeds of the Prime Minister, who is speeding around the country, signing pictures she did not paint, and going crazy with taxpayers’ cheque books to promote the Labour Party, they have very little time to deal with crime. The police are so busy with the Prime Minister’s affairs it is no wonder they cannot find time to sort out the Mongrel Mob in my electorate. It appears to me that Labour members and the leader of the country are serial lawbreakers.

Mr Mike Williams, the Labour Party President, is helping the police with their inquiries. I know that he will be very helpful to the police, because Mr Williams showed a touching concern about issues of overspending when he was helping Mr Winston Raymond Peters in his failed bid in Tauranga. Mr Williams found the time to help out Winston Raymond Peters, when it seems he should have been looking closer to home and checking his own party’s books. I just mention at this time that I have a folder with me, which is the petition. It is possibly worth $80,000 now. I am also certain that when it is proved in court that the Labour Party used taxpayers’ money to overspend illegally in the last election, all its members will be gentlemen and ladies—and possibly others—and resign from Parliament immediately. It was pointed out to me in the Tauranga case that if I had been found to have overspent by $1, I would no longer be a member of this Parliament. I would be prohibited from standing for election again. I think in fairness we should use that as a guideline, so that Labour members, both list and electorate, should resign immediately if it is proved that their party raided taxpayers’ funds to massively overspend the limit.

We, of course, look forward to another election in those Labour-held seats. We might be hoping in vain. They are strangers to the truth. I listened to the speech made yesterday by the previous member for Tauranga.

Hon Member: Who was that? What was his name? Winston Raymond Peters?

BOB CLARKSON: No, it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I would like to have a little chat about the Rt Hon—Winston Peters. I nearly forgot his name! He is pushing very hard for the waka-jumping bill. It certainly gives me the idea that he is worried about the loyalty of his party’s members. I can understand those members feeling slightly disloyal, with the way Winston has been acting lately. The “Prince of Baubles” cannot get loyalty by good leadership, so he wants to make it illegal for them to leave. Real leaders do not need to use the law to get loyalty. I can understand why New Zealand First members might want to jump ship.

I can also understand why members of the Labour Party would not want to jump ship. National would not have them, for a start. But if they did jump ship, it would increase the IQ of the Labour Party and lower that of the National Party. I think Muldoon said that, did he not?

But I come back to the former member for Tauranga, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—the Tauranga loser. By the way, that is now on his CV, and soon he will be a loser again when he pays me a few bucks. He did not stop whingeing after the court case was decided, and he continues to make allegations about my integrity and honesty. Well, he has a problem, because those remarks were made outside the House so no doubt he will be pleased to pay for them later.

Hon Member: Is the bankruptcy notice filed yet?

BOB CLARKSON: Yes. I can hear the sound of cheque books closing all over Tauranga—the cheque books that funded his indiscretions during and after the election. He should have a few more drinks and just get his head around the fact that the election is over. He has lost. The “Prince of Baubles” has got to grow up and be a man, take the lesson on the chin, and realise he is a has-been in Tauranga.

But let me get back to this hopeless Government. Its members cannot blame anybody else but themselves for the state the country is in. The health system has gone down the drain over the last 6 years and is not performing. Who was the Government for the last 6 years?

Hon Members: The Labour Party!

BOB CLARKSON: Who is to blame for the poor health services?

Hon Members: The Labour Party!

BOB CLARKSON: Who were taken for mugs?

Hon Members: The taxpayers!

BOB CLARKSON: Apprenticeships have gone out the window in the last 6 years. Who was the Government in the last 6 years?

Hon Members: The Labour Party!

BOB CLARKSON: Who wasted money on stupid courses and dim ideas?

Hon Members: The Labour Party!

BOB CLARKSON: Who paid for those stupid courses?

Hon Members: The taxpayer!

BOB CLARKSON: The taxpayer has been shafted by Labour, left, right, and centre.

I would like to mention a couple of things in a more positive way, because I do not like being negative, actually. Unfortunately, when one is dealing with negative people it is a bit awkward. I refer to the country’s roading. We keep talking about production, and Labour keeps talking about building platforms. Well, those platforms must be big, because Labour has been building them for 6 years. They must be like a big ship in the sea. Transport is the main thing for production. If there are no roads there is no production, because one cannot get from A to B. So for goodness’ sake, I say to the Government, start building some roads in a decent manner—get the fuel tax out of the consolidated account and let us get some action!

The Government keeps raving on about houses, and I hear that the Hon Michael Cullen has been raving on about a few things I said about housing in my maiden speech, when I referred to National spending billions of dollars on housing if it got in—with Don Brash’s approval, of course; he will be our leader for years to come.

Darren Hughes: They didn’t clap that.

BOB CLARKSON: They understand. National will be coming out with a policy on housing and we will get the job done. Labour is failing miserably.

Paula Bennett: Sock it to ’em, Bob.

BOB CLARKSON: No, I have not got too much more to say, really. But when I collect the money from Winston Peters—he has had his 12 days to pay it—all National Party members are invited along for a few free drinks.

Hon Member: Have you told Winston that, in exchange?

BOB CLARKSON: I would invite Winston, but as he might drink too much I will not do that.

If listeners did not know, that was the best speech of the night from the National Party, and it came from one of the young, up-and-coming, dynamic National Party MPs who have come into the House, Mr Bob Clarkson. Tired old MPs—people like Brian Connell, who has been tossed aside—will be worried that people like Mr Clarkson have come in to take over and push them out of the way.

The other tired old person in the National Party who should be worried is the leader, Mr Don Brash. Well, it would not be fair for me to use my own words, but it would be fair to use Dr Brash’s words. Let me quote: “If I deliver I’m secure. If I don’t deliver I’m history.” Well, Don, you are history. You have it bang on.

We have had a couple of other fine, honest speeches in the House tonight. One was from Mr Coleman. He said: “Don’s on the right track.” Well, you are on the track, Don, but you are on the rails—a bit like the Kelburn cable car that Mr Blumsky over there is so proud of. You are heading downhill very, very quickly and you should look around behind you. Look around, Don—

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Once again we have the Chair being brought into the discussion. The Minister should know better.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): We have been a bit lenient tonight. A number of members have done that on several occasions.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I apologise. Don Brash’s days are numbered because the National Party, under his leadership, cannot work out what it stands for. It cannot work out a direction. It has flip-flopped over every single policy that it has laid down in front of the people of this country, with the most recent being the nuclear ships policy.

We know that Murray McCully is the last of the loony liberals. Murray McCully has been known for years and years as being a closet liberal. Well, he finally came out of the closet the other day and said: “I think that our nuclear policy is a load of codswallop.” I think Murray McCully is right. The problem is that Don Brash, Lockwood Smith, and all the National Party members went out on the hustings and said: “We will stick to our nuclear policy.”, because they think they need guidance from the US in all things.

Craig Foss: Let’s talk about prisons.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I will talk about prisons in a moment. I am very happy to talk about prisons.

On Māori policy, Treaty issues, and asset sales National has done a flip-flop. You name it—the National Party flip-flops on everything, like a colony of barking seals, every time. Every time National lays down a policy before the people of New Zealand someone will pipe up and say: “No, sorry, we have got to change that.” Well, when the National Party can establish an identity, and it has a leader who has support from each and every one of its members, then maybe it will make some progress. In the meantime we will lead this country into the future in the same way that we have led it for the last 6 years.

Of course, not everything the National Party does is a flip-flop; the Ōrewa III speech was just a flop. I tell Don that that was just a flop. Mr Coleman exposed himself—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Dr Coleman.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Dr Coleman—sorry. Which kind of doctor is Dr Coleman? Does he make us sick or make us well?

Dr Coleman exposed what a true Tory is. He said: “New Zealanders don’t like welfare.” Well, most people in this country understand that welfare is the bottom line that makes this country different from most other countries throughout the world. It was built on a welfare system that ensured that every young New Zealander, regardless of one’s race and upbringing, had a fair opportunity to a good house, to a good education, and ultimately to a good job—if one had a Labour Government.

Dr Coleman just exposed the fact that most of those National Party MPs, many of them born with a silver spoon in their mouth, want to dismantle the welfare system of this country. If they get their hands on the levers of power in this country ever again, that is exactly what they will do. They will sell assets, dismantle the welfare system, and privatise the health system. We can be sure of that.

It is very important to go back to a couple of key issues. The difference between the Labour Government and the National Party is leadership. We know where we are going. The Prime Minister laid out in her speech in this House yesterday where we are going for the next 3 years. When Don Brash got up, he did not know where he was going. And the National Party does not know where it is going. That is the problem, because National Party members do not know who they should follow. Is it Tom and Jerry, or Bill and Gerry, or John and Gerry? Who is it?

We can look not too far back in history and see what happened. On 3 April 2005 Dr Brash said: “Bill English has my full support.” Yeah, right! John Key has come out more recently and said: “I have very publicly on dozens of occasions outlined my unconditional support for him. I actively worked hard, and will continue to work hard, to ensure that he is a very successful leader.” I say to John that he has failed the first challenge, because he has not assisted Don Brash to become a successful leader. Don Brash is a failed leader, and John Key’s endorsement is that he is a failed supporter. So National Party members do not know who they have got to follow.

Dr Brash has said: “There’s been nothing which you could call a coherent or organised plot.” I say to Don that he should look again. John Key said: “There is no grand master plan behind the scenes, like we go after him after six months.” Well, they might give him 9 months. The question is: where does that leave the National Party?

I take the opportunity to emphasise, once again, that Labour has shown strong leadership for this country for 6 years. It has led us through to the lowest level of unemployment in the Western World, and we continue to have low inflation and strong economic growth that has outperformed just about every other country in the OECD. That is because we have leadership. The Labour Government has leadership. We have unity and a sense of purpose that the National Party does not have.

The problem is that the National Party is looking for some leadership. In the past it has looked to the US. National has looked to that friendly country over the Pacific, the US, and has said that it would have been in Iraq because it wanted to be there with its friend the United States.

One thing I will never forget about being in this Parliament is that I was in a Government that refused to be drawn into that war, and that hundreds, if not thousands, of New Zealanders remain alive today, because Helen Clark led the Labour Government. If Don Brash had been Prime Minister, he would have killed thousands of New Zealanders by rushing into the Iraq situation. That issue alone is enough to say that the Labour Government has led this country properly for the last 6 years.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been tolerant because you have said that you were letting things go. However, that member has continued throughout his 10 minutes now to refer to our leader by a name other than the name that has already been ruled on in the House today as the way he should be addressed. His correct address is Dr Don Brash—not Don or Don Brash, but Dr Don Brash.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, but the member’s time has expired.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.