General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today I asked Dr Cullen, the Acting Prime Minister, a simple question: “Why did Helen Clark not go to Liam Ashley’s funeral?”. He could not answer it. He could not answer because everyone knows now that Helen Clark does not weigh up these events in terms of human tragedy or accountability, but purely in terms of political utility. That is why Damien O’Connor keeps his job as Minister of Corrections. It is not because he should, but because for now it seems to suit Helen Clark. All that shows to the public is that she has lost her moral and political compass.

At the core of the Liam Ashley tragedy is the notion of accountability. If someone is in the care of the State, the State has a fundamental duty to keep that person alive. The duty is not to give those people underfloor heating, or comfortable squabs—maybe they should have that—or whether the handcuffs are just basic ones. The duty of human care is to keep them alive. I would have thought that Liam Ashley’s funeral was a funeral the Prime Minister might have gone to, because the State failed in its duty. The simple basic fact is that no single person anywhere has borne any accountability for the tragic death of a mixed-up young New Zealander in the horrifying, claustrophobic environment of the back of an inadequate prison van. Nothing that the Ombudsmen’s report brings forth has changed that.

Helen Clark still has not got the message. One would think that the polls would be sending the message to her, but no, she has not got it. She cannot tell the difference any longer between a failure of accountability, the duty to protect human life, and, to use that delightful phrase of hers, moving on. The reality is she has not yet calculated that it is in her political interest to sack Damien O’Connor. The day she thinks it is, she will.

Then there is another tragedy she has got mixed up in where a Government agency was said to be responsible. We questioned the Inland Revenue Department this morning about whether it knew whether the Muliaga family were getting all their Working for Families entitlements, which we estimate could have been as much as $400 a week. The Prime Minister has spent a week saying that these cases should be referred to welfare. Well, the Muliagas were not on welfare. They were a working family. They should have been the target of any family assistance package, but they might not have known that, because when they see the ads on TV, it is not families like the Muliaga family they see, is it? It is the people whom Helen Clark is politically worried about who are in that ad. They are a well-paid, comfortable, Pākehā family who can afford to text across the lounge. It is not the Muliaga family, and that is why the voters of Mangere know that the Government led by Helen Clark and Phil Goff has lost its direction.

The ads on TV are telling Labour’s core supporters who it is that Helen Clark really cares about—a family on $80,000 with one child who get assistance from the Working for Families package. They are not really the Muliagas, and that is why she had to turn up to the funeral—she was trying to make up the gap. She is playing catch-up politics and she got it wrong, but, then, she has got most major political decisions wrong since she got re-elected. She got the pledge card wrong, Taito Phillip Field wrong, and the smacking bill wrong. She was wrong to back it and then she was wrong to compromise with John Key to get it through. She got that wrong. She got the Department of Corrections and Damien O’Connor wrong, the Kuchenbecker case wrong, and the Ashley case wrong. Can Mr Goff get up and tell us one political decision Helen Clark has made of any difference since the 2005 election that she got right? The next one she will get wrong is rejuvenating the Labour Party—as if that were possible.

The list of things that this Government has got right is legend. There are 347,000 new jobs. The unemployment figure is a small fraction of the figure in the legacy left by the failed Government in which Bill English was Minister of Finance. We have a KiwiSaver scheme that is applauded for answering the longstanding problem of lack of saving in this country. We have a Working for Families package that delivers for people at the time they need it most—when they have kids and need help.

That member can talk all he likes about the prison system today. Sitting opposite me is Nick Smith, a former Minister of Corrections. When he was the Minister and when prisoners got out of Pāremoremo prison, the explanation given was that the boundary fence was not supposed to stop the prisoners escaping but only to slow them down. Then there was the guy who escaped from his security guard when he had a broken leg and was tied to a drip. The security service let him get away, and it could not explain that, either. That member knows that drug use was six times as much when he was the Minister of Corrections than it is today. He knows that. He knows that the escape rate was 78 percent higher. The member from wherever it is in the Manawatū knows that in his local prison at Linton they used to hand drugs through the window of the cells, because there was no fence around the prison. That is how bad it was under the National Government.

So let us not have Bill English come into this House with all the rubbish he is talking. He, Maurice Williamson, Tau Henare, and Tony Ryall are the failed faces of a failed National Government in the 1990s, when this country went backwards. We see the same old tired faces, but there are a few faces that we have not seen much of lately. Mr Ryall is kept off TV. Judith Collins is kept off TV. Gerry Brownlee—they try to keep him off TV. These are the faces that the public do not like to see, because they are the faces of a National Party that has very little appeal.

That National Party is essentially the same National Party that was in place at the time the emails were sent, on which the book The Hollow Men was based.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon PHIL GOFF: That is right. They are the same people involved in that level of corruption, from the party that would have you believe that it stands for the common person, but when you read the emails, you see that what they actually believe is a different thing again.

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

Hon PHIL GOFF: You can try all you like, Mr English, to repackage yourself. You can do that as often as you like—

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

Hon PHIL GOFF: —but we know that what you are saying today is simply what you think you need to say to try to win public support. Yesterday the National Party—

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

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member sees himself as a young member and the face of the future of the Labour Party, but he has actually been here a long time—over 20 years, on and off.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Get to the point, Mr English.

Hon Bill English: He knows he cannot say “you” when he is addressing the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr English. The member will recognise that in his speech.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The fact is that nobody can trust the National Party. Just a little while ago John Key and National members—every one of them—were against the Kyoto Protocol. John Key said in this House that global warming was a hoax. The next minute he was saying that global warming will destroy us and that the Government is not doing enough. What credibility can the National Party speak with when it flip-flops on those basic policies? National members are not to be trusted. They are the same people who disclosed what they would do, in the book The Hollow Men.

They are the people who would strip interest-free student loans away from students. Do I get a denial? Are they for them or against them? They will not say, but Paul Hutchison did. That is the party that will do away with the Working for Families, which helps people when they most need help. That is the party that will not commit itself to KiwiSaver.

There was a great scheme under Norman Kirk that would have made this country a wealthy country and would have created the capital to get the growth and savings we needed as a country—but the Muldoon Government destroyed it. The Key-led National Party is promising to do exactly the same thing, which is not in the interests of this country. Notwithstanding the re-imaging that National members are trying to do, from what National members are saying privately, that is clear.

John Key is going around the country saying to National Party branches: “Don’t worry too much about what you hear me saying, because when I’m in Government I’m going to do something different.” I ask Mr English to deny that. That has been reported back to us time and time again. John Key is saying that what he says publicly is for public consumption but that given the chance, he will act for what the National Party has always been—a party that governs for a small minority of people with vested interests and people with wealth. That is what the National Party believes.

This week we saw the unprecedented move of the Reserve Bank Governor intervening in the currency market, something we have not seen since the dollar was floated in the 1980s. That came just 1 week after the Reserve Bank Governor had raised the cash rate to 8 percent, the highest in the developed world. This, of course, caused the dollar to rise, and speculators and investment funds went on a buying spree. We are doing long-term damage to our exporters, and, in fact, this is as good as telling them to nick off.

The Reserve Bank Governor explained to the Finance and Expenditure Committee the other day that the proposed record pay-out of Fonterra was a concern in that it would add inflationary pressures to the economy. So dairy farmers who were looking forward to some debt repayment and to replacing some plant and machinery are suddenly disadvantaged all over again. In other words, we are killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, all because the Reserve Bank Governor is required to rely on one single blunt instrument, which is the inflation target of 1 to 3 percent.

In New Zealand we either export or die. Export growth is reliant on a favourable dollar. So much work has been done over the past year on Export Year with Business New Zealand coming on board, along with the Chamber of Commerce, and we are finally getting somewhere by forming strong Government agency and business links designed to bolster our exports. Now that is being undermined by the high dollar. The Reserve Bank Act is too restraining, the focus is too narrow, and the governor needs new tools that will recognise the uniqueness of our economy, not some other foreign economy. We need a Reserve Bank Act custom-made for us, not imported from one of the other countries and for the convenience of those on foreign shores.

Exporters—and here we are talking about everybody from agricultural industries to manufacturers to high-tech software companies and the like—need our help. They are our lifeblood, and right now they need a transfusion of new thinking. We must rewrite the Reserve Bank Act. It must consider more than just inflation alone. Right now the only people who are benefiting from the Act are currency traders and paper shufflers. Exporters must be the priority, not the afterthought when things have got out of hand. For far too long in this country we have seen an economy relying on consumerism and forgetting about the lifeblood, which is exporting. We risk losing so much of our productive sector if we do not act now. It was this Parliament that created this problem through the Reserve Bank Act, and it is this Parliament that now must do something to fix it up.

The two old parties in this Parliament have long held the view that we should have a hands-off sort of an operation when we come to monetary policy. In recent years—and particularly the last year—that has been shown to be at fault and we must do something about it. New Zealand First has said for years now that we cannot rely on just the one mechanism of inflation alone. We must have the Reserve Bank Governor looking at things like exporting. We must require him to take into account the jobs in this country before he goes out and raises the interest rates that so badly hurt our exporters. The sheep farmers, the foresters, and the fishers in this country are all suffering under this extremely high dollar—a dollar that has only been exacerbated by the rise in interest rates we have recently seen.

It is ironic that within a week—as I said before—the governor had to come out into the market and buy New Zealand dollars. We think that has gone some way towards alleviating the problem but commentators, countrywide and overseas, are telling us that that will not work for long and it is not a long-term solution, and we agree. Something has to be done and that something is to rewrite the Reserve Bank Act.

Last Saturday the Christchurch Press ran a story with the headline “John Key, overachiever”. It should have been headed “John Key, over-promiser”. The entire story represents an individual who will say anything to get elected, whose approach is to reflect the concerns of those he addresses, no matter whether they represent the party’s policy or not. This story confirmed the story I heard about a presentation to the party faithful in Christchurch recently where John Key said: “I will be saying things you won’t like hearing, over the next 18 months. Don’t worry, I am going to get us elected to Government.” That is what he said: “I am going to be saying things you are not going to like hearing, but don’t worry about it, I am just saying these things to get elected.” That is what he is saying very privately.

He is also saying, more publicly, that he will negotiate with any party because being in Government is what he wants to be. He does not care what he has to say or do in order to get here. That is because he has actually worked out something that Don Brash did not work out—that is, that one needs partners under MMP. I have to say that, despite his arrogant predictions of a landslide, he has finally worked out that he needs someone to negotiate with, and National has really trampled over every other party in this Parliament, and now he says he needs friends. He says terrible things about the Greens behind their backs when he thinks nobody is listening, but would offer them a Cabinet position in Government. All I can say to that is “Yeah, right!”.

I think this confirms what I read in the Independent back in April. This is a quote from an article on 18 April 2007: “One Auckland businessman said he attended a small, private dinner last month at which National’s deputy leader, Bill English, was a guest. English, he said, was open about the fact he and Key would do ‘whatever is needed’ to win next year’s election. National’s strategy, if one existed, was not about producing a coherent political vision or sensible policies to differentiate the Opposition from Labour. ‘They simply want to win at any cost,’ the businessman said. ‘Where’s the principle in that?’ ”.

Well, the bottom line is that there is no principle in that. Another businessman quoted in the same article said the National Party disappointed him. “ ‘Where is National’s direction and where is its traction?’ he asks. … This businessman says he cannot believe National is naive enough to try to tell voters it’ll sort out policy once it becomes the government. ‘They won’t get away with that,’ he says. ‘Voters aren’t stupid and National can’t constantly attack the government’s performance with no credible alternative. It takes a long time to put policy into place. We don’t have a hell of a lot of time and the expectations on the streets are enormous. But I don’t see too much articulate argument going on.’ ” I agree with that. I think that absolutely sums up the situation.

Let us look at the Press article. It states that John Key wants to know from the Press political editor what he thinks of the Prime Minister speaking out about the Muliaga tragedy. He actually wants to gauge what the media thinks before he decides what he will say and do. In this article John Key is asked the question: “Why vote for Mr Key?”. “Aspiration,” he says, “And we’re really nice people as well.” That was the answer he gave to students who are going to be voting for the first time in the next general election.

When he said National members were really nice people as well, he did not mention Tony Ryall running hospitals or Judith Collins running social development and employment. That is because—and I have heard this from many sources now—behind the scenes, he is telling people that if National did become the Government, the last person running hospitals would be Tony Ryall, and the last person in charge of social development and employment would be Judith Collins. He is telling people behind those members’ backs that they are holding those portfolios only in Opposition.

If members look at that article, the strategy that this guy has developed all becomes very clear. The students grilled him about whether National would keep Labour’s interest-free loan scheme. The answer was “probably”. As to whether tax cuts would drive up interest rates, he said: “Not if it’s done properly.”

That deep political insight was from Lianne Dalziel, underachiever, and what we have seen from what she has just outlined is a lack of understanding of what politics is about. She criticises John Key for working hard to get elected. Well, hello—what is the aim of every single political party that has ever come to Parliament in New Zealand’s history? It is to get elected and to be in Government. Then she criticises him for talking to journalists. Does not everybody? Does not every member of Parliament talk to journalists? Is that not what we are supposed to do? The whole idea that people can make small talk might be totally anathema to the Government side of the House, but on the Opposition side members are working very hard to get elected to govern.

One of the things we would like Labour members to do, to make sure they do not get elected to Government ever again, is to change their leader. I have an idea: they should appoint Steve Maharey. Steve Maharey, who has been the kiss of death for every single portfolio he has touched, would be the final nail in the coffin for Labour.

I would like to spend my 5 minutes talking about the failures of Steve Maharey, but I have to say there is not enough time to do so in any general debate. Do members remember the Community Employment Group? He was the guy who brought to us bread-tag earrings, hip-hop tours, and the much-vaunted social entrepreneur scheme that lasted all of about a couple of years before it died a slow death. When the Minister took over Television New Zealand, that company was worth in excess of $1 billion. It would be lucky to be worth a third of that now. He is the person who gave birth to the charter, which has brought us more reality shows than we have ever seen on New Zealand television before. He has created a television company that is now a mere shadow of its former self.

Then, of course, he got stuck into tertiary education. He spent $400 million just thinking about tertiary reforms. He took the Tertiary Education Commission from a staff of 30 people to a staff of over 330 people. We do not know what they are doing. He also oversaw the debacle that was the wānanga and the massive growth in community courses, which brought us highlights such as homeopathy for pets, pendulum swinging, colour selection, twilight golf—which was one of my personal favourites—and also the radio singalong courses.

Then, of course, the Labour Government, not content with causing chaos in those other portfolio areas, decided to inflict Steve Maharey upon every single New Zealand child by putting him in charge of the education system. If we look at what he has done with the 20 free hours policy, we see that that policy was very clear in 2005. Every single 3 and 4-year-old child was to have access to 20 hours’ free early childhood education come this July.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 92,000 of them.

KATHERINE RICH: There were 92,000 kids who were going to get it. Parents will be very disturbed and angered when this thing rolls out to find that not only will they not have it locally in their centres but also they will be asked to pay money on top of that. I do not know what the Minister’s definition of the word “free” is, but on this side of the House we think it means no additional payment. The part charges, plus the reductions in quality, plus, in some cases, asking staff to take a pay cut will not wash with New Zealanders.

This week we heard his bizarre announcement about changes to tuck shops and canteens. The National Administration Guidelines state that only healthy food options will be sold in schools. But then the Minister—back-pedalling at a rate of knots during the day—proceeded to personally exempt foods. He issued a list of all of the foods that would be OK in tuck shops post the Steve Maharey regime. He listed pizza, cakes, sausage sizzles, sausage rolls, and pies. The humble pie was safe under his new National Administration Guidelines. I do not know whether the Minister does not understand what the phrase “only healthy options” means, but I would say that if he did a survey amongst Kiwis, none of the foods that he personally exempted would be included.

Finally, I refer to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). After 6 years of this Government telling us that everything was OK with NCEA and that all the criticisms were unwarranted, it has come out and basically implemented the changes National has been calling for, for years. New Zealanders see through this Government. They are sick and tired of it, and that is why they will elect National come the next election.

That was the Paris Hilton of the National Party. When she talks about fizzy drinks, we know which member has had too much Coca-Cola for many years—Nick Smith.

Only Bill English could stoop as low as he did today. Just after we had had the debate about the corrections tragedy, only Bill English, pretending to be some sort of statesperson, could stoop so low as to dance on the grave of someone who had died and play semantic political games.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s what Helen Clark did.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Nick Smith interjects on me. Of course, Nick Smith was the former Minister of Corrections whose claim to fame was that under his stewardship he signed the prison van vehicle contract with Chubb. I am told that, given his reputation, he was the first Minister of Corrections to have his own rubber cell.

National members would do and say anything to win. The facts are this—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reference the Minister has just made is very typical of the personal denigration the Government makes when it is in trouble. We have just had a chat about—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s the point of order?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. That is a yellow card, Mr Cosgrove.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The personal denigration made by the Minister is, I think, quite inappropriate in this House. If we are to have members making those sorts of slurs on people’s characters, the standards in the House will really go through the floor. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I listened, I heard what the member said, and I waited for a reaction. I ask the member to withdraw.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This is a typical Tory party. These guys have had one or two good poll results, then what do we have? We have the typical slouching in the seat, the swagger down the back, and then they use the “L” word. John Key goes out and pronounces that there will be a landslide, the biggest since 1951. Here is what Colin Espiner said about this: “And yet Key should be extremely careful about using the ‘L’ word. Besides tempting fate, those who use it risk being branded arrogant and complacent by the electorate.”

I tell the National Party members to read their history. We now have John “Dewey” Key. I refer to Thomas E Dewey, the former Governor of New York and Republican candidate in the 1948 US presidential elections. The Republican polls had him doing over Truman. All the media said that he would waltz in; it would be a landslide. The day before the media ran the headline “Dewey defeats Truman”. What happened, of course, was that Dewey was so arrogant that the people worked it out.

I say that Tory arrogance is amazing. National members are going to their mates in the Business Roundtable and saying, as they did in 1990—as I was there, I remember it—“We will say and do anything to win. We will say we will give a tax cut. We will say we will adopt all the promises and all the programmes that Labour has done that are popular, and then say we will do even more.” They forget that people are smart. They forget that John Key speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Even the sensitive, delicate one over there, whom I point to—Nick Smith—knows that.

Nick Smith is, of course, an interesting guy. He yells out in the House: “Untruth! Untruth!”, when anybody refers, as David Parker did on Agenda, to the fact that John Key had a road to Damascus experience when he had said that climate change was some sort of big international conspiracy, but then John Key came back and said: “I am a believer.” When David Parker ran that one on Agenda the genius opposite—I will not use the other “L” word—said that. He just makes it up. He thinks that nobody reads what he said. Well, very few people read what he says, but the commentators do.

National members will not tell us what they will do in relation to student loans—we have now worked that one out. Will they tell us today whether they will keep apprenticeships? Will they? Will they tell us today whether they will keep KiwiSaver? In 1995 Nick Smith’s Government abolished the Apprenticeship Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Never did.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He says it again. In 1995 National abolished the Apprenticeship Act. Would a National Government maintain the apprenticeship numbers? National members will not say. Would they do what they did in 1975-76 when they pulled the rug out from every pensioner and pulled the pin on the Kirk superannuation scheme?

I predict this. National members say they oppose KiwiSaver. They voted against the corporate tax cut, even though they campaigned on it. In a couple of months they will work out that these are not bad policies and that as a party they should just adopt them; they will work out that they should neutralise it and adopt anything that looks like a good policy because they do not have any of their own.

When was the last time Nick Smith got off the Diet Coke, got off the caffeine, and gave us a policy? He should name one. I ask the member to give us his policy on climate change. He does not have one. He is hollowed out, as people know.

The Minister who has just spoken, Clayton Cosgrove, was described recently by the Listener as too sinister to ever be a leader of the Labour Party. If we were to compare him to anyone, I would have to say Tony Soprano. He is the hit man of the Labour Party, more interested in spilling blood and dark deeds.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at being compared to Tony Soprano. He has more hair than I do and I do not think it is fair on him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is a frivolous interjection that can lead to disorder. The member has his first yellow card.

Simon Power: You gave him a yellow card before.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, you did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not. I know what I did.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I have noticed that the position of High Commissioner in London will become vacant in March next year. That is the truth of it, and we just know that Helen Clark is looking at her bench mate, Michael Cullen, and thinking that there is something that could be done there. The Speaker, Ms Wilson, could go to London. Michael Cullen is the big embarrassment of the Labour Party; the man who denies New Zealanders, at every single turn, the opportunity of getting a tax reduction. Helen Clark is thinking it is time for him to go sideways to the role of Speaker. I was not at all surprised to see that Labour decided that Phil Goff would lead off today. Labour is grooming him and getting him ready for the role of finance spokesman. That is the truth of it. That is what Labour is trying to do, because it knows it is in a deep hole.

We had only to listen to all of those speeches today; all of those speeches were about National winning the next election. Labour members know deep in their bones that we will win the next election and that they are going to lose it. That is why they spent all their time complaining about how well we are campaigning, complaining about the policies we are developing, and complaining, for heaven’s sake, that we even talk to journalists. Can members imagine that? They are complaining about the fact that we talk to journalists.

In our region, the Auckland region, we have to listen to Labour’s failure, and Dr Cullen is leading that litany of failure. He has been going around Auckland for at least 12 months saying that he is the man to reform local government.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha, ha!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, well, it is humorous—derisory, even, because even Auckland local authorities have given up on Dr Cullen. They know that he simply cannot deliver. The fact that Labour has Judith Tizard and Mr Burton as the lead players, along with Dr Cullen, says it all, really. No one in Auckland has any belief or faith in the possibility of local government reform before the next election. This Government is deeply beset by malaise. It has no traction. Everything is spin, everything is reports, everything is denial. Even the reports of the Ombudsmen are denied, as was so eloquently pointed out by Mr Power today. The Government is in complete denial of its impending fate, and the public are saying “Just go! We are sick of this Government, and we want to see the end of you.”

Whenever the public asks for something meaningful—that after 13 years of surpluses it is about time for a tax cut—what does the Government say? It says that KiwiSaver is as good as it gets. So we had to listen here, about a month or so ago, to 40 minutes of the Budget speech with only one idea: KiwiSaver. How important is that for the future of New Zealand? Actually, it is not that important. This Government has simply lost its way and it is evident right across all of its portfolio responsibilities.

We heard today the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues talk about action plans, strategy documents, planning bodies, and consultations. In fact, she was even confused about who is responsible for local roads. She happens to think that the Auckland Regional Council has responsibility for every little path and street throughout the Auckland region. With that level of knowledge, it is no wonder people have lost faith.

On behalf of the people of the North Shore, I have to say to this Government that they are sick of it. They are sick of this Government. The last thing they want to do is to have to wait right through until November next year for another election. They want that election now, because the alternative they are faced with is more malaise, more spin, and more opportunistic attendances at funerals—not with any real intent of faith with the family but simply to gain votes, and the public saw through that. They saw the cynicism of that, and they are sick of it. I have to say that when a Government has run out of ideas and when a Government has no policies, it is time for that Government to go.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I listened to Dr Mapp’s speech with absolute interest. It was actually quite a good speech. There was not a lot of accuracy, but it was a good speech. As the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That is the only way I can describe that contribution to the House today. The member described the speech of the previous speaker, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, as “quite sinister”. Well, I would describe his as quite cynical. However, that is the nature of the debate we have had in the House this afternoon.

I listened to the debate surrounding Liam Ashley’s tragic death, and I acknowledge the Ombudsmen’s report and the rigorous debate that followed in the House this afternoon. A lot of the issues have been debated quite well and quite appropriately, but I also want to join the leader of the United Future party in acknowledging the tragedy of Liam Ashley’s death, and, particularly, the impact it has had on his family. Their subsequent response to the Ombudsmen’s report demonstrates their humility. They could have taken a much stronger position, but they decided to maintain their dignity and to remain considerably silent, given the circumstances. That is something this House needs to acknowledge this afternoon. On many occasions it happens that we get so wound up in a debate that we forget the people who have been affected by the tragedy. I put it on record this afternoon that I do acknowledge the tragic circumstances surrounding Liam Ashley’s death.

There has also been a lot of debate around the polls and about John Key’s leadership. I have been in this House since 1999, and he is the fourth leader of the National Party since then. In every case, the new leader has gone up in the polls but has also fallen in the polls not too long afterwards. It is interesting, when one reads the papers, to see the similarities, in terms of popularity, that John Key has with Don Brash. Don Brash, who was the third leader of the National Party in my time, was gone by lunchtime. But is it not also interesting to remember that although Don Brash is gone, the Ōrewa I and Ōrewa II speeches are still with us? If we think that the National Party has softened its approach in terms of extremism, particularly on race relations matters—or the lack of race relations—then we need to think again.

Later on in this House we will continue the interrupted debate on Tony Ryall’s continued attempts to erase Māori and Pacific representation from the landscape of this country’s political environment. He is a person who has tried to do that on many occasions and who has made many public speeches about his views on Māori representation, particularly at local government level, and at central government level. He is the same person who has repeatedly attacked Māori attempts to improve the health statistics of their own communities. In fact, he has also attacked attempts by mainstream organisations to achieve the same. To add insult to injury, that person will also go out there and tell people that he is the friend of the Māori Party. I am sure the Māori Party does not agree with that. Why would it? But like the Hon Lianne Dalziel stated earlier on, it is about power at all costs. That is what it is all about for some parties.

Those members made it clear that they do not go to funerals, no matter whose funeral it is. They say that if the Prime Minister of this country decides that she wants to make contact and join in the tragic parting, and share her sympathies with constituents out there in the community, at the very bottom of the community, then that is a bad thing to do. Those members should wake up and get a life. Politics is not like that any more. If a Government wants to be caring and sharing, then it has to take notice of what is happening out in those communities, particularly in light of Liam Ashley’s case and the circumstances surrounding the tragedy for the Pacific Island family in Auckland. You, Mr Assistant Speaker, would probably be more in tune with those circumstances than I would be.

When Opposition members in this House stand up and criticise the Prime Minister’s attempts to share in tragic circumstances and to provide support to those families, what sort of description would we give to an Opposition party that carries on in such a way? I would give it this description—Don Brash is still here. The views that he promoted at Ōrewa in 2004, and again in 2005, are still here.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. You know, the general debate must be the worst hour of the week in the House—an hour where people are slagged off for 5 minutes at a time. There is no policy debate, and no one smiles. It is all based on the politics of nothing. There is a Nat King Cole song that goes: “Smile, what’s the use of crying? You’ll find that life is still worthwhile if you just smile”—and so it would seem. All the psychological studies tell us that doors open to people who smile, people listen to people who smile, and employers look favourably at job applicants who smile.

So today I want to talk about a serious primary health issue, and I have to say how disappointed I was when the Minister of Health today said that he did not believe that oral health issues were as significant as other primary health issues. Yet we in the Māori electorates know the significance that poor oral health plays, and its impact on the overall well-being in our communities. It affects something as simple as trying to get a job—if someone smiles, people can see the damage to that person’s teeth at that time.

Two days ago in my electorate I spent time with dental health providers who told me about being constantly blocked in their ambition to provide quality dentistry to low socio-economic and vulnerable communities—and it is not the first time that a dental health provider has raised these matters with me. They showed me the policy spin—the Minister’s pledge to address “Māori, Pacific, rural, and low socio-economic populations that are all showing progressively poorer oral health”—and they shared with me their ideas around providing services that address the very real barriers of cost, of access, and of fear. But, despite their innovation, and despite their commitment, they keep getting turned away.

The district health boards say there is no money for low-income adults, and Work and Income’s subsidies are limited to the relief of pain and infection—preventive oral health is not a priority—and essential dental contracts for community cardholders who have infection and pain are being denied. They shared with me their belief that their services can reduce the pervasive inequalities, as most dental disease is preventable. They talked, too, of the all-important need to address the whole person and to make the connections between one area of health and another.

Oral health is as important as, and must be considered equal to, all other primary health matters that are fully funded by the Government. Oral health is a core health service issue. We know that it is linked to other chronic health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, malignant melanomas may appear orally, ulcers can indicate deficiencies in vitamins B and C, and infections may present first in the mouth. The World Health Organization has defined oral health to the extent that “an individual can eat, speak, and socialise without discomfort, pain, or embarrassment for a lifetime, and which contributes to general well-being.” It seems such a simple wish, a humble aspiration, to eat, speak, and smile. We have providers out there who want to meet those humble aspirations, and we know it can be done. In Rotorua, for instance, a mobile dental clinic operates under the Lakes District Health Board, and there is another two-chair mobile dental clinic that the Tipu Ora Trust will be shortly rolling out to service low-income families in schools. In Whakatāne there are six mobile dental clinics, which cover Tauranga, Whakatāne, Te Kaha, Murupara, through to Ruatāhuna. Yet, in Te Tai Hauauru, which has providers out there ready and willing, with mobile clinics, they are told it is not a key priority.

The Māori Party believes we can and we must return to a time when Māori again can have the finest teeth of any existing race, a time when the closing of gaps takes on another meaning—reducing regional difference, addressing whānau ora, and helping people to smile again. This is a Government policy that would go down well in Māori communities right throughout the country. I urge those Māori members on the other side of the House—who are talking and taking no notice of me—to introduce this into their communities. It might help them to do well at the next election. Kia ora.

The bit the Government has simply not got in this debate is that the reason it is on the ropes is that in almost every area of Government policy we see major failures. Over the period of the adjournment, in corrections, our economy, the performance of our State-owned enterprises, and climate-change education—in one area after another—we have Kiwi dreams being killed off because of failed policy from the Government. My colleague Simon Power has done an extraordinary job of identifying the failures in the Department of Corrections. The reason the National Opposition is angry, and will continue to pursue the Government, is that there is absolutely no confidence that those problems will be fixed.

We have seen the tragedy of Karl Kuchenbecker and we have seen the failure in relation to the death of Liam Ashley. Yet still we get excuses after excuses from this Government. We saw over the adjournment the failure of Government State-owned enterprises. We had Solid Energy New Zealand, a Government State-owned enterprise, spying on ordinary New Zealanders. We saw the awful tragedy of another State-owned enterprise, Mighty River Power, with totally inappropriate systems for cutting off the power of New Zealanders, and we saw another State-owned enterprise, Landcorp, being prosecuted and found guilty of breaches of basic environmental standards.

Then we saw what I thought was really a summary of one aspect of this Government’s failure. We saw tax freedom day. This is the day on which New Zealanders could finally start working for themselves. For the first time in New Zealand history, tax freedom day made it into the month of June—6 June was the day this year when, finally, New Zealanders were able to work for themselves. That was 7 days worse than a year ago, 27 days worse than when Labour came to Government, 4 days worse than the United Kingdom, and 30 days worse than it is in Australia. But what this Government does not understand is that hard-working New Zealanders want to keep the efforts of their own work, and they do not want to see tax freedom day continuously getting later.

We also saw, over the adjournment, interest rates rise to the highest level of any country in the OECD. Why that matters is that ordinary New Zealanders are out there, struggling with the dream of owning their own home, but under this Government that dream is getting so much worse.

Let me take an area that I am passionate about, which is climate change. We have heard so much rhetoric from the Prime Minister in talking about carbon neutrality. Over the adjournment we had the most recent forestry data. It showed that in the last year we have lost 14,000 hectares of forest. That is over 2 million trees. It is not surprising that we did not have a single Minister this year doing a photo opportunity on Arbour Day, because it was a day of shame. What is going on out there in New Zealand is a chainsaw massacre—7 million trees lost in just 3 years. Why does that matter? Those 7 million trees represent 25 million tonnes of carbon. How can the Prime Minister have the audacity to talk about carbon neutrality when we have that sort of chainsaw massacre going on in New Zealand?

I asked a simple, straight question of the Minister: will he let New Zealanders who plant trees this year get the credits from those so we might change those appalling trends? We heard all sorts of weasel words, such as: “Well, if they’re permanent forests they might.” But the Government is continuing to deny credits for people who plant commercial forests this year. That means we have vacant land. It is bad for forestry and it is bad for the environment, and that is why we are seeing this Government on the ropes.

The Government just does not get it. We do not want more spin. We do not want more distractions. New Zealanders just want good, solid policy. They want to be able to keep their money, which they work so hard for. They want to see tax freedom day coming earlier in the year, not continuously later. They do not want the highest interest rates in the world; they want real progress on those issues that are so important to New Zealanders.

I was a young worker in my first job when the National Government scrapped Norman Kirk’s superannuation scheme in 1975. I remember that, and so do thousands of other New Zealand workers, many of whom still tell me at public meetings about the betrayal they felt from that National Government. I remember that, and I remember—as do thousands of other New Zealand workers—the lying National Government’s dancing Cossacks campaign. It was the lowest point reached in New Zealand political campaigning, only to be matched by the hollow men in 2005.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can’t say that.

LESLEY SOPER: Yes, I can.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member will withdraw.

LESLEY SOPER: I withdraw. The lowest point reached in New Zealand’s political campaigning was that vacuous dancing Cossacks campaign, only to be matched by the hollow men and the hollow women in 2005.

We see all the old retreads on the National benches today: English, Ryall, McCully, Smith—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member must use another member’s full name.

LESLEY SOPER: Certainly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7.

LESLEY SOPER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We see all the old retreads on the National benches today: Bill English, Tony Ryall, Murray McCully, Nick Smith, and, of course, Mr Williamson. Leading them all is the man of shallow ambition—all style and no substance—the man with that disquieting smile and nothing behind it: Mr John Key. Mr Key reportedly leads the National Party. This is the same party that destroyed superannuation in 1975 and the same party that cut New Zealand superannuation to 60 percent of the average wage. It is the same party that abolished the Apprenticeship Act, instituted bed night charges in hospitals, and slashed benefits. It is the same party that brought us the “mother of all Budgets”, tax cuts for the rich, bulk funding, Work for the Dole, national testing and vouchers, and, of course, the selling of State assets.

Mr Key leads a superficial party, a party unable to come up with one new idea. It is a party with a leader that at the present time can only say that he will do everything Labour is doing but that people will get a tax cut, as well.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Sounds like Muldoon.

LESLEY SOPER: Yes, funny that! National is a party that seems to be able to come up with nothing other than bribing New Zealanders with their children’s money.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Sounds like Muldoon, too.

LESLEY SOPER: It sounds like Muldoon to me. Tax cuts, more roads, billions spent on broadband, bulk funding at the top rate—these are all some of the promises that have come from Mr Key and other National members recently. They are making promises left, right, and centre. Their numbers do not add up. How many nurses, teachers, and doctors will they have to cut to give their rich mates a tax cut?

Members should look at National’s track record of broken promises. The record shows at the moment that Mr Key seems to want to outdo the previous broken promises. He is promising different things to different groups, practically every day. He seems to be refusing to give straight answers on any questions, at all. Instead, he is telling people in every individual group what they might want to hear, or what he, as one of the hollow men, assesses that he believes they want to hear.

Interestingly, of course, the recycled leader-in-waiting, Mr Bill English, has had to contradict Mr Key a few times. They are obviously not agreeing on very much at the moment. And what do we think Mr Key’s real agenda is? It is the same agenda as that of the National Government in the 1990s—an agenda that drove good working-class New Zealanders into poverty. It is the same agenda as that which is detailed in The Hollow Men. In the end, Mr Key and his party are just the same old Tories with the same old agenda. Mr Key will promise Kiwis they can have it all, his party will promise Kiwis they can have it all, and in the end they will deliver nothing—broken promises; no goods.

New Zealand is privileged to have the Dalai Lama visiting our shores next week. He is currently in Australia. It was a little disturbing to me when I asked the Prime Minister a question yesterday about whether she would be meeting the Dalai Lama to be told by the Acting Prime Minister that the matter was still under consideration. I was concerned that this shows disrespect to such an important world leader—a leader in the Buddhist community worldwide and a Nobel Prize winner for his contributions to peace in trying to help solve the situation of the Tibetan people under Chinese rule and enable them to have full rights within a truly autonomous Tibet. I was disturbed, because this visit has been long in the making.

The Prime Minister’s office has known about this visit from the Dalai Lama for a couple of years, and it is now just a few days away from his arrival. Obviously, putting two and two together, one would think there has been considerable pressure from the Chinese Government, which was certainly the case in Australia. The pressure there initially convinced the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, and also the leader of the Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd, not to meet the Dalai Lama. But after a huge public outcry—of which the Australian Greens party was a part, particularly in the form of Senator Bob Brown—the Prime Minister John Howard suddenly found a little space in his diary, and the leader of the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd, also seems to have found space in his diary, to meet the Dalai Lama. That is very good, although, as an indication of the pressure from the Chinese Government, a spokesperson came out and expressed its “strong dissatisfaction and staunch opposition to the Australian side for allowing the Dalai Lama to (come to) Australia to engage in splittist activities,”—“splittist activities”, despite the fact that the Dalai Lama accepts that Tibet will not be completely independent, but will be, in his view, fully autonomous within China. Obviously, the Chinese officials are taking an interest here, too. The Green Party was visited and asked whether we would be seeing the Dalai Lama. Of course we are, and we will be part of a reception hosted by the Hon Nick Smith on behalf of the Parliamentary Lobby Group for Tibet next Tuesday afternoon at 3.30 p.m. I hope there is a good turn-out of MPs at that event.

I think it is important that the Prime Minister meets the Dalai Lama, because if she does not it could be taken as the beginning of a slippery slope. All sorts of interpretations could be put on the situation, such as that it is because of the economic power of China. It could be interpreted that somehow in the background is the issue of the free-trade agreement and that we do not want to upset the Chinese too much in terms of pursuing that.

I still have hopes that the Prime Minister will meet the Dalai Lama. Yesterday in the House in question time, the Acting Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, told me he thought the Dalai Lama said he was coming here as a religious leader not a political leader. I think that comment was used a year or two back, which was the last time a Government leader met the Dalai Lama—that they were meeting, but not in the Dalai Lama’s capacity as a political leader. It is true that the Dalai Lama does not have a formal political title, but he does represent the political aspirations of the Tibetan people to self-determination within China. When one reads his speeches, it is clear they are very much political speeches promoting a peaceful Middle Way. In that respect he is seen, politically, as not only a religious leader internationally but a leading political figure.

Another thing I will be doing is putting a notice of motion on the Order Paper so that the Parliament can recognise the visit of the Dalai Lama and welcome his visit here, as other Parliaments have done.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.