General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tēnā koe e Te Kaihautū o te Whare. I hope members are listening very carefully to the people in Kaipara, because today they have been short-changed by the Government. The level of disdain for the Government now comes not only from the tangata whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau, but stretches from the Northern Wairoa right through to Tainui. There has been erosion and destruction of faith and trust. Every opportunity was made available for John Key and Mr Hide to bring through in a gesture of goodwill something that would aid and advance race relations development in Aotearoa. But no, they sent Mr Hide out as a whistle dog fomenting racial discord, without realising that Mr Key, who loves to be popular all the time, had entered into a commitment with Ngāti Whātua and Tainui to do the right thing.

So it falls to this side of the House to do the right thing and to ensure that the new super-city and the governance model for the super-city are progressive and modern, and capture the essence of what Auckland is to be in the future—not tired, old, leafy immigrants or ambassadors from the east who cast aspersions on Kelston Boys High School and look after their own kids in Auckland Grammar School. No. Tangata whenua and Pacific Islanders are all written out of the script.

John Key went to Ngāti Whātua marae, listened to Ngāti Whātua, and made a commitment on that marae and to Tuku Morgan, and now he welshes on the commitment and walks away from it. He blames Mr Hide, but Mr Hide enjoys this type of reputation. He wants to let people know that not only is he a buffoon—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s the other word?

Hon SHANE JONES: No, I am not playing rugby and I am not punting. He also enjoys making a fool out of the Māori on that side of the House who, I can tell members now, will not be able to show up with any sincerity. They will not be able to show up with any mana to any Māori organisation, because they had the chance to come to this side of the House and make a statement of principle on how important democracy is not only in our parliamentary processes but also in a proper, trusted process for tangata whenua. Why do those members fear that? Georgina te Heuheu stood up to Don Brash, unlike the rest of them. They let her speak and take an independent position, and she crowed about how she enjoyed that entitlement as a consequence of being a member of that caucus. But that entitlement is absent today.

The reason those members have lost their way is that they have sold out for short-term political gain to keep Mr Hide in place. Auckland City is turning into a mess. Assets are being readied for privatisation, boundaries are being moved in the dead of night, and Māori are being overlooked.

Hon Members: Oh, oh!

Hon SHANE JONES: We hear from the back of the House evidence of necrosis of the mind in terms of those two Māori there. Rest assured, they will have to give an account as to why they have sold their own people out and deliberately misled the Māori Party. We feel aroha for the Māori Party, because its members are now realising, having joined into a pact with the National Party, that there is no way the pact will be delivered on, and they will have to give an account on the marae as to why they are prepared to prop up a Government that favours the rich, picks on the dispossessed, and marginalises Māori. The Government is held in place by the Māori Party. The Māori Party members will have to give their own account to the voters of Tāmaki-makau-rau and the people, the tangata whenua, who today have been sold out.

What are they going to tell the tangata whenua Māori of Auckland? Maybe they can have an advisory committee. Maybe they can come and give a pō’hiri, or maybe they can change some of the names, etc. Of course, the first name they will change is porohewa, which means bald head. We have seen two bald heads, Mr Henare and Mr Hide, reduce each other to a level quite unbecoming for this House. They are poor examples. One man ransacks parliamentary process, and one man will not own the words he uses as he tells the truth about how he really feels about Mr Hide.

The Māori population of Auckland has grown immensely. It is youthful; it trusted in what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister has misled them. The Prime Minister has not stood up for the Treaty of Waitangi; he has failed.

Before I call the Hon Chris Finlayson, I apologise to the Hon Shane Jones for the noise going on in the House. I was most unhappy with what was going on but I did not want to interrupt the flow of his speech, it being only a 5-minute speech. I say to Government Ministers who are holding discussions right now, including the Prime Minister, that if members want to have discussions during the debate, they will go out into the lobby to do so. The noise was totally unacceptable. Half a dozen loud discussions were going on, and it is just so discourteous to the House. I have no problem with interjections and interest being taken in the member’s speech, but I do have a problem with a babble of discussions. It is longstanding practice that if members want to have discussions with each other, they go out into the lobby to do so. I apologise to the Hon Shane Jones.

Mr Jones was slow off the mark this afternoon, but he proved once again that empty vessels make the most noise. That is the same Mr Jones who said that he and the Labour Party did not support Māori seats for Auckland. But I do not want to waste my time on Mr Jones.

I want to say something about the Leader of the Opposition: Mr Goff is finished as Labour leader. He will never be Prime Minister, and he will never lead a Government. Let me read to the House from a general debate contribution made by a senior member of the Labour leadership team in 1989: “Last week the Government caucus chose a leadership team for the 1990s … a team that is backed by … a united caucus .… The Labour Party and the Government caucus are united behind the new leadership team … The Cabinet, the Government caucus, and the Labour Party have been brought together in a manner that fills Government members with optimism.” Those were the words of Annette King, speaking just a few months before Geoffrey Palmer was rolled as Labour leader. By my calculation, if her previous predictions are correct, then Mr Goff has about 2 months left.

Despite this, Labour is presently engaging in some strange branding exercise, which is, quite frankly, embarrassing. Phil Goff may have been outfitted in a new camouflage jacket for Listener photo shoots, but the party has not changed. While Mr Goff has been throwing lambs over his shoulder, Helen Clark is busily text messaging MPs from the Big Apple for their general debate speeches. It is the so-called star-studded line-up of new recruits, but they are nothing more than Helen Clark’s former employees. Mr Goff is supposed to be in charge. The same Labour Party comintern that gave us the Electoral Finance Act is still pulling the strings, even if it has decided to dress Phil Goff in new clothes like some social democratic Ken doll. His re-branding, which Clare Curran describes as “a real man”, resembles only a left-wing women’s collective view of what a real man is supposed to be. Labour will take any opportunity to make Phil Goff look like a man of the people, but he is no man of the people; he is interested only in his own career, and he will say or do anything to advance it. To paraphrase what someone once said about Richard Nixon, he is the kind of politician who would cut down a tree, then mount the stump and make a speech about conservation.

This is not a speech about conservation; it is a speech about contrasts. Labour may have been a really bad Government, but it is a shocking Opposition. While the National-led Government is busily implementing a high-quality legislative programme, Labour members have chosen to spend their time singing Viet Nam War protest songs on bus rides of doom while they drive through safe National seats. While I was working on an overdue reform of the Limitation Act, that tribune of the working class, that authentic representative of the proletariat, Charles Chauvel, was following behind the Labour bus in his convertible—“Take Me Home, Country Roads”, indeed. While my colleague Simon Power was getting on with the long overdue reform of the defence of provocation, which Labour could have done if it had done something positive while in Government, Mr Goff was talking about repealing the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008. While Chris Carter was coming to terms with not getting airpoints for travelling on the bus and with being ignored by his colleagues, Steven Joyce was putting the final touches on a new transport agency for Auckland. While Annette King constantly abuses Paula Bennett, that great and fearless Minister of the Crown has been working on her Fresh Start package for young offenders and that wonderful Break Away package for school holidays. And so it goes on.

The current Labour Party leadership is useless, unprincipled, unpleasant, and uninspiring. Chris Trotter was correct when he wrote in 1994 that the likes of Mr Goff and Mrs King were past their use-by dates; regrettably, nothing has changed in the last 15 years. He said that in 1994, and nothing has changed in the last 15 years. The Labour members are totally unprincipled, and they are worse in Opposition than they ever were in Government.

Grant Robertson: Nasty little man!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I hope Mr Robertson enjoys that place, because he will be there for a long time.

I start by saying that if we were playing a game of rugby, the old, outdated rules would come into effect. One can tell when a team is losing, because they forget to play the ball, and instead they play the man. That is exactly what that previous speech, from Christopher Finlayson, was about. My whanaunga from Ngāti Awa, Paul Quinn, knows exactly what I am talking about. Sadly, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, forgot what the game was about. Maybe my whanaunga will take a call and highlight the issues that are really important today.

I want to make a statement: the issue of representation for Māori in local government is a significant issue, and not just for Māori. It has been around for a long time, as evidenced by a notice in the Auckland Provincial Government Gazette on Saturday, 6 May 1867. J Williamson, the superintendent of the Auckland province, gave notice that he had appointed Paora Tūhaere of Ngāti Whātua to give advice to him and the Executive Council on matters relating to Māori in the province of Auckland. It is a significant issue and an issue that will not go away. Māori will not let it go away.

The person who brought that statement to the House was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, Associate Minister of Māori Affairs. If Government colleagues are not listening to her; if they are not listening to the honourable Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples; if they are not listening to Māori and the iwi of the Auckland province; and if they are not listening to New Zealand in general, then who are they listening to? Let us take a guess. I take it that they are listening to one person whose track record on Māori representation has been obvious in this House for a very, very long time, and that is the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide. In 2001 National allowed Georgina te Heuheu to cross the floor and vote in favour of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill. Donna Huata as well sought permission from her party, the ACT Party, to do the same, and both members did so.

What has changed since that time? Absolutely nothing has changed, which we will note from the statement by the chairman of Environment Bay of Plenty in terms of the quality of Māori representation on that council. Mr John Cronin made it very clear that the Māori members on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council give advice not only on issues relevant to Māori but on issues relevant across the council’s responsibilities. Here we are, some 8 years later, debating an issue that we should not be debating. The fact is that New Zealanders, by and large, have accepted that Māori representation on local government is very important, that the voice of tangata whenua is very important, and that Māori who hold important assets at regional level should have a say at the top table. We do not see that happening in terms of this process.

It is interesting that the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has yet to report back to the House on its findings as part of the process of hearing submissions, yet the Prime Minister has already announced that Māori representation on this very, very important body, the Auckland Council, is out of the question. There is not a sound from the other Māori members, apart from the Hon Tau Henare. There is not a sound from the Māori Party members, apart from the Minister of Māori Affairs. Why is that? I send a challenge to my whanaunga on the Government benches to get up and make a statement about just where the Māori members stand on this issue. It is all right interjecting and heckling, and playing the player rather than the ball, but sooner or later, as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said, there will come a time when those members will have to stand up before their communities and make a statement about their position. Are they pro Māori representation, or are they not? Are they just going to sit here and do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to? Are they going to sit here and do whatever the Minister of Local Government dictates?

As I said, there will come a time when they will have to front up, as all of us have fronted up over the years. Those members highlight the fact that the Labour Māori members did not cross the floor when voting on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, although anyone can do that. That is easy. What is hard is to stay here and hold one’s ground to make a bad situation better. That is why people send members here: to be their voice in this House and to stand up for the issues they consider to be a high priority. That is exactly what Labour members have done over the years.

What we did not hear that member, Mita Ririnui, talk about was the Labour leadership woes. There are big problems in the Labour caucus, and anyone in New Zealand needs only to turn on a television set and he or she can see Labour’s problems in the regular polls coming through to people’s lounges right across New Zealand. The most recent TV3 poll rated the Labour leadership of Phil Goff at only 6.5 percent in the preferred Prime Minister ratings. In 1999, when Phil Goff called the barbecue and 12 MPs turned up to roll Helen Clark, she was polling at 23 percent. Phil Goff currently is polling at 6.5 percent. Lo and behold, what has Labour decided to do? The Labour caucus has decided that this Labour weekend it will go across all of New Zealand and have big barbecue meetings. That is probably because the Labour caucus is instigating these to get ready to roll Phil Goff.

What did TV3 do? It sought public opinion on who should roll Phil Goff. These are the people whom New Zealanders thought would be a better leader than Phil Goff. We have the Hon Annette King, who is polling at about 15 percent. We have similar poll ratings for the Hon David Cunliffe, at about 15 percent. We have heard this afternoon from the Hon Shane Jones—another aspirant who is busy sharpening the knives with his Māori Labour caucus. He is sitting at around 7 percent in the polls. Lo and behold, we have two people who are not even in Parliament whom the public think would be better leaders than the Hon Phil Goff. Laila Harré is at about 7 percent, and the Labour Party president, Andrew Little, is at 4 percent. Wait for this! Twenty-one percent of New Zealanders in this poll did not support any of the people whose names I have read out. What is more, 23 percent do not even care about Labour. The other interesting thing is that Helen Clark, who is currently running the United Nations Development Programme in New York, polled at about 8 percent. The other interesting thing that the Labour Party is extremely worried about is its membership, which was about 50,000 in 2005. Currently its membership is below 10,000.

Labour has huge issues. Not only are New Zealanders not listening to Labour but Labour’s membership is leaving in droves. What did Labour members decide to do? They decided to get on a bus and reconnect with New Zealand. They came through my electorate, the wonderful electorate of Ōtaki, and thought they might be able to reclaim it. No one was listening to them there, apart from the cafe owner who was very pleased to take money from them when they had their lunch in the cafe in the main street of Levin. On TV I saw the Labour members sitting in the back of the bus, with David Shearer strumming on his guitar and leading the songs. But this is a Labour Party that is not focused. New Zealanders are not listening to Labour.

What New Zealanders are listening to is the positiveness coming out of the new Government, and they are seeing the great job that the Hon John Key is doing as Prime Minister. Just today the Prime Minister announced, along with the Hon Paula Bennett, that $84.5 million will be going into youth initiatives. National will be getting tougher on youth offenders, and it will be focusing on a great initiative, which I think is wonderful, called Break Away to help schoolkids to be able to attend programmes in the school holidays. It will be focused into high deprivation areas of New Zealand—indeed, I have some of those areas in my electorate—because, as many people in this House will know, if youngsters do not have something to do during school holiday time, they roam up and down the main street of our towns and cause havoc. If we can get them into the programme that has been announced today, it will be a fantastic way to get them off the street.

The other important announcement today is about the 500 places in respite camps. These are for those being cared for by people such as foster parents, grandparents, and other people who are looking after kids, particularly in the 5 to 8 years age group. I know, as a young parent, that it is particularly difficult to look after kids at times. If we can give them an opportunity to go into health camps, in areas like mine, that will be fantastic.

I am happy to take a call in this debate, and it has been a telling week, has it not? This week has been where the rubber hits the road. Despite all the photo opportunities and all the nice, hollow words we have heard from National members about supporting the Māori Party and Māori issues, when the rubber hits the road, what happens? They back off. It is the same old National Party that stood behind Don Brash, the Ōrewa speech, and the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboards. We really should not be too surprised.

I will refer back to the Hansard of what has been said before in this House on this issue. The first quote is from the Hansard relating to the bill of my colleague Mita Ririnui, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill. This allowed the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to have Māori seats. Those seats are there now, and they work very, very well. The sky did not fall in. Racial segregation has not descended on the Bay of Plenty. But here is what Dr Wayne Mapp had to say about that legislation allowing for Māori seats in local government. He stated: “If we look at the lessons of other countries—those countries that have divided their franchises on the basis of race—we see that, almost universally, there is a sad picture.” He went on to state: “The reality, and Mr Ririnui would try to deny it, is that this bill has served to divide the community that he comes from. This bill makes it harder for people to think of each other as equals,”. Well, the reality is that that has not happened.

Then we had Tony Ryall’s Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill, where he stated, and this is very interesting: “If this bill passes,”—to repeal the Māori seats—“it will repeal the provisions of the Local Government Act that allow there to be separatist race-based legislation,”. He stated: “They are not necessary, and they are divisive … The National Party view, which we enunciated in our election policy … is that race-based representation is no longer needed in New Zealand, … We believe that it is divisive.” That was from Tony Ryall.

I will also speak about the Local Government Act 2002, because there is some really good stuff in the debates on the Local Government Act, where we allowed councils to have Māori seats. We also provided for Māori consultation. Dr Nick Smith stated: “Then we have the separatism provisions: the way in which we are to change a long-term, 160-year tradition in the way we elect local members, by introducing apartheid. I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Carter, who proudly boasts that he protested against apartheid in South Africa—but he is going to introduce it into New Zealand—that he should get on his feet and defend that. It will divide New Zealand. What is separate representation if it is not apartheid?”. That is what the Hon Dr Nick Smith said.

Then Wayne Mapp stated: “the foundation stone of democracy is the equality of citizens, whereby we have equal right of participation. Some people say that we should have separate legislative provisions; I say we should be able to learn from experience and not have provisions that advance inequality.” [Interruption] Members opposite might want to listen, because they may come up on my list very, very soon.

Bill English stated: “[The Local Government Act] creates two standards of citizenship:”—remember that phrase: two standards of citizenship—“one where my relationship to my ancestral land, sea, air, … counts for nothing; but if a person has a brown skin, it is in the law.” That is what Bill English had to say.

I have to mention the quote from this member, because it is such a good one, even though he is not in Parliament now. It is from Brian Connell. Do members remember Brian Connell? He stated: “Anyone who has sat in this Chamber and listened to Dover Samuels for any length of time will be forgiven for forming the opinion that getting Māori to speak up is easy, but getting some of them to shut up is the problem. This strange little clause guarantees the voice of Māori groups in the consultation process, and it seems like another of the Government’s separatist agendas.”

I ask whether any members are really surprised that we are standing here today with a National Government once again refusing to allow Māori representation on the Auckland Council. I ask Māori Party members when they will say that enough is enough. When will they say that it is not good enough to be rolled out for photo opportunities with the Prime Minister at every single opportunity, and then to be ignored on all the things that count?

What did the Māori Party get in the Budget? The Green Party, which is part of the Opposition, had a stand-up press conference with the Minister, it got a press release in the Budget pack, and it was lauded by Gerry Brownlee, and what did the Māori Party get? It is National’s coalition partner! I tell National members that they should start treating the Māori Party with respect. Having a flag flying over the Auckland Harbour Bridge for one day does not make up for this kick in the teeth for Māori.

The member who just resumed her seat, Moana Mackey, is very good at showing righteous indignation and having a genuine, righteous, fierce debate. But let us face reality. The Labour Opposition is in disarray. It is in disarray. Labour members are clearly still smarting from the comprehensive rejection the New Zealand public handed out to them in November last year. We have only to look at their faces. Their faces tell the story of anger and self-entitlement; it is written all over them. Labour members cannot get past the fact that New Zealand did not want them. The public had Labour for 9 years. It took the New Zealand public nowhere. New Zealand said “Enough” and sent Labour packing, and the Opposition cannot get over it.

Members opposite have spent the last 9 months flailing around, looking for answers, and now they are turning on each other. It is like watching flesh-eating bacteria as it turns in. Any illusion of cohesion is dissolving in front of us. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff, sits at an astounding 6 percent—6 percent and dropping—and we can only assume it is due to the constant stream of texts from New York. The texts from New York keep him going. That is where the leader gets his advice from. He says: “What do I do now? Quick! Text Helen! She’ll tell me. We know how to do it! Don’t worry, Helen is on the end of the phone, and she’ll tell me what to do. Never fear, Vodafone is there.”

Why is Phil Goff still there? When Helen Clark was at 23 percent, the party tried to roll him, and now the leader is at 6 percent, but he is still there. Why is that? I will tell members one thing we know. Annette King told us that “Crown Prince David Cunliffe” is not ready. He is just not ready. “Take a pill, David Cunliffe. You’re just not ready.” And as Dover Samuels quite usefully points out, the rest of them are basically retreads. They have done their time. In 1994, even Chris Trotter—that eminent left-wing spokesman—was telling us that those members were past their use-by date. Yet still they are being wheeled out.

So why is it that Labour members continue with this absurd illusion that they are behind Phil Goff when they know that they are not? Do members know why it is? It is because Helen Clark and Michael Cullen made them promise to support Phil Goff for 3 years. They said: “Support Phil for 3 years.” It is a pact. We knew it. They have a pact to back Phil Goff, come hell or high water.

Mr SPEAKER: The House is certainly enjoying the debate. I just wish members would cut me in on it, because I cannot hear a word the speaker is saying. I apologise to Amy Adams for interrupting her speech. I do not mind interjections, but, my goodness, I just cannot hear the speaker, and it is helpful if I can. So I ask members for just a wee bit more reason, please.

AMY ADAMS: Frankly, it is not surprising that I am getting to members opposite. The truth hurts. They know it is the truth. They know that the only reason they are still backing Phil Goff in the job is that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen made them promise to do so. They said: “Give him 3 years. Back him for 3 years, come hell or high water.” So now they are wondering how long they can last. How long will that pact last? I can tell members that it is not looking good. The cracks are showing. The numbers are being worked.

Do members know what is happening? Labour members said: “We have been in the centre long enough. We don’t actually live in the centre.” The left-wing forces are gathering. They are going back to their socialist roots. The numbers are being done. The trade unionists are coming out. They are going back to their socialist roots. The pact will not last long, and if I was Phil Goff I would be worried. Despite the fact that the options are few and pitiful, when one is on 6 percent, pact or no pact—

Paul Quinn: Parekura?

AMY ADAMS: Parekura Horomia could challenge, we never know. We have already had Shane Jones’ bid. We know that Shane Jones wants to make a bid.

On this side of the House we are more interested in getting stuff done. Our leader has our support, which is more than the Labour Party can say. We are focused on the young people of New Zealand. We are focused on opportunities. We are focused on futures. We are providing solutions for our young. We are addressing youth employment and we are addressing youth offenders. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

From listening to the debate in the House over the last 2 days one would think that Parliament lives in a vacuum. On Friday we had the result of the referendum on smacking. On Friday night we were told that just on 1.5 million people had voted No in the referendum—87 percent—but has anyone raised that issue in Parliament? Have any other parties raised this issue in Parliament? No, they have not. Only the ACT Party has raised this issue in Parliament. It was an overwhelming No vote of 87 percent. Fifty-six percent of people voted in the referendum. More people voted in that postal referendum than voted in the MMP referendum in 1993. The question was very simple: should a light smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? The answer was an overwhelming no. As the Family First organisation pointed out, the percentage of people who voted No in that referendum was higher than the percentage who voted for the Labour, National, and Green parties combined in the general election last year. The figures were National, 45 percent; Labour, 34 percent; and Greens, 7 percent. Eighty-five percent voted for those three parties, and 87 percent voted No in the referendum.

That vote was achieved against a background of a massive campaign of misinformation. We even had the Prime Minister, no less, talking about the Dr Seuss question. What it showed is that New Zealanders are not fools. I say to Carmel Sepuloni that New Zealanders are not fools. They are not fooled by politicians. They knew exactly what they were voting for. We owe it to them to listen. My colleague Heather Roy quoted John Key when he spoke at a function at the Salvation Army just on 2 years ago. John Key said: “in reality no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. But if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime. It’s poor law-making to write a very strict law and then trust the police and the courts not to enforce it strongly.” That is what John Key said. He said that we should not pass laws if we do not intend to enforce them. I say to this Parliament that the people of New Zealand have spoken. Eighty-seven percent of those who voted have said to us that we should not pass a law to make this illegal.

I tried to get an urgent debate on this subject yesterday, and you ruled against me, Mr Speaker. I stood here at 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon and I moved the adoption of my member’s bill. The voices of opposition came from throughout the House. At 12 noon today my member’s bill was drawn. I say to all members of this House, and in particular to the National and Labour members, to listen to the people of New Zealand. Very shortly my bill will come up for first reading and they will have a chance to send it to a select committee. I say to the Labour members that they should not ignore those 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted in the referendum. But to those in the National Party, I say that they can do better than that. They can make this a Government bill and refer it to a select committee. The Prime Minister and Cabinet can vote to make this a Government bill. We cannot afford to ignore that 87 percent of people. When I moved the adoption of my bill yesterday, the ACT Party stood alone as the only party in this House that was prepared to represent the 87 percent of New Zealanders who were not fooled by the people from Barnardos and the Green Party who tried to dismiss this referendum.

The people who supported the yes vote knew overwhelmingly that the law was opposed by the great majority of New Zealanders. They sought to dismiss this referendum and to undermine it before the first vote was ever cast. What New Zealanders have said is that they are not fools. I say to members, and in particular to National members, that they should listen to those people. This issue will not go away. The timing of my bill being drawn from the ballot could not have been better. If National members think that this issue will go away, I say that they should look out for the 2011 election. The people of New Zealand are not prepared to be treated with contempt.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. We know the statistics surrounding Māori. We know we live shorter lives, we underachieve at school, we fill unskilled low-paid jobs, and many of us have lost touch with our language and customs, and our culture, whereas 170 years ago we Māori were in control of our lives. We Māori had our structures; we Māori had our lores—l-o-r-e-s. We had our laws—l-a-w-s—and we had our beliefs and ways of doing things. Now we have very little. Māori have been relegated from the position of decision makers and masters of our own destinies to being powerless, marginalised observers, which is a shame because we have so much to offer.

We have so much as a people to contribute, and if we were just allowed to have a meaningful voice at the Auckland Council table, maybe we could contribute to turning round those statistics that plague us. What is this National - Māori Party - ACT Government so scared of that they are unwilling to give Māori seats at the council table? What is it that scares this Government about Māori contributing to the running of Tāmaki-makau-rau? Do they not like us? Do they not trust us? Do they not value us? This is not an issue about race; it is about honouring the Treaty of Waitangi, which I was taught at school, and as a teacher I myself have taught to schoolchildren, is a partnership. I apologise now to those schoolchildren for the deception: there is no partnership.

I recall a Ngāti Hine kaumātua the Rev. Charlie Shortland describing the Māori world and Pākehā world as opposite banks of a river. The Treaty of Waitangi was the bridge that connected those two worlds. But the question he asked was this: since the signing of the Treaty, who has crossed that bridge most often and stepped into the world opposite? How many Māori have made that short trip, and have accepted the language, customs, laws, and culture of the Pākehā? Almost all of us have.

I ask members to contrast that with the number of Pākehā who have crossed back the other way and accepted the language, customs, laws, and culture of Māori? Except for a few courageous Pākehā souls, the traffic has virtually been one-way across that bridge, to the point now that there is a barrier across one end. In the case of the Auckland super-city council that barrier is preventing people from even starting to cross into the world of the Māori. That barrier allows the Māori perspective to be seen only from afar, and the distance between those two banks of that river is growing, and preventing the voices of Māoridom from even being heard.

Pākehā have nothing to fear from Māori. If diversity is strength, then Māori faces at the Auckland Council table can be only a good thing. If the Māori Party partnership with the National - ACT Government is meant to be a mana-enhancing relationship, why would Māori seats at the council table be any different? The precedent for Māori seats at the council was set by Mita Ririnui, who introduced a similar piece of legislation in 2001 that established Māori seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Environment Bay of Plenty Chairman, John Cronin, said just yesterday that the Māori seats there were working well. If it works well in the Bay of Plenty, it will work well in Auckland.

I have concern about the way the Māori Party has been treated. It voted for a Budget that cut funding and services to Māori communities because it had an agreement with John Key. Pita Sharples said recently that being in Government is about compromise. So those members ended up compromising on what they knew was right for a shot at being influential. It appears that John Key’s understanding of that agreement is to wheel out the Māori Party for photo opportunities when he wants to win brown friends and influence people, but then he disregards those wishes when the wishes may upset the nice white folk who voted for him last year.

There is no Māori influence in the National Party or the ACT Party, but I, along with many other Māori across the country, acknowledge the Hon Tau Henare for trying. New Zealand has no reason to be afraid of Māori.

I could not help but notice that one of my colleagues across the way was reading a paper and, I presume, imagining tomorrow’s headline, which will say “Shane Jones rolls Phil Goff”. Members can look at the smile on Mr Jones’ face. Let me tell the House something that Labour’s own people are saying. We have talked about quotes that Chris Trotter has made. He has asked “What’s the matter with Labour? Why is it making so little impression on even its hard-core supporters? And can anyone explain why Labour’s strategists still believe it’s intelligent politics to have their MPs recorded, singing songs on a bus, in the Tory-blue heart of Taranaki?”.

I have a photograph here of Phil Goff and Annette King sitting on the front seat of the bus, but they are soon to be sent to the back seat of the bus if Dover Samuels has his way. He has said that Mr Goff and his deputy should go: “My message to the leadership, to Phil and Annette, is it’s time to step aside. The retreads of yesterday have gone past their use-by date.” But I think he more poignantly said: “We have fundamental problems in the Labour Party. Right now the leadership does not resonate with the ordinary working people.”

The bus travelled through Taranaki, weaving its musical way to wayward New Plymouth, which had turned its back on Labour, where Labour members tried to resonate with the people. They sang “Hotel California”, “You Are My Sunshine”, and “Take Me Home, Country Road”. I am sure that Mr Hughes would have liked to sing “The Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round”, and perhaps Shane Jones would have liked to say “Phil Goff’s polls go down and down”. What great songs! But Annette King was quoted as saying: “We are telling the people we are still here, and we are in good heart.” You know, I think that probably a band whose songs those Labour members should have sung was a band called The Pretenders. John Armstrong, quoting the one he called or determined “Mr Hapless Hipkins”, who had made a faux pas, said that it was a lesson in why politicians are less than honest, because even when the wheels are falling off the political vehicle in which they are travelling it is said that things are always going swimmingly well, no matter how bleak and desperate the reality is.

I very much enjoyed what Harriet Palmer wrote in the Taranaki Daily News that day: “Taranaki is oozing with schmooze like it has never oozed before. Yesterday the region hosted no fewer than 25 Labour Party MPs after their ‘magical mystery tour’ hit the heartland.” The mystery is why they keep insisting on singing. The magic, I think, is that that is what it will take—magic—to turn heartland Taranaki anywhere near red. In fact, it will never ever get beyond deep purple, which in the end Phil Goff will get used to and eventually accept because Deep Purple was his favourite band back in the 1960s.

But the good news for Phil Goff and the team is that Cliff Richard is coming back to New Plymouth this summer, so Phil can bring the boys and girls in the bus back to town. This time they can sing: “We’re all going on a”—

Hon Members: —“summer holiday”!

JONATHAN YOUNG: While they are on their summer holiday, we, the members of the National-led Government, will be doing the hard work of turning this country round and getting us back on track, on those roads that our fantastic Minister of Transport is building.

Hon Darren Hughes: The Government!

JONATHAN YOUNG: I have to ask the question that Chris Trotter asked: what is the matter with Labour? I ask Mr Hughes why it is making so little impression on even its hard-core supporters. It is because its members are all on a summer holiday, or maybe they are in a season of winter solace, instead. But we know that coming up very shortly, in October, they will be into their barbecue season, and barbecues, of course, can be very dangerous places, as we heard the Hon Nathan Guy say. He said that it was in January 1999 when Phil Goff invited 12 Labour MPs to a barbecue where a challenge to Helen Clark’s leadership was cooked up. This is the amazing thing. That frying, roasting, and broiling of their party leader occurred at a time when Helen Clark was polling very, very positively—at 23 percent—in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. I fear what is going to happen in this barbecue season. I fear what is going to happen on Labour Day this year when the barbecues are rolled out and everybody around the country is talking about how Labour is getting on, where we are going, and what is going to happen.

In this week’s poll, Mr Goff has slumped 2.6 points to just 6.5 percent in the preferred Prime Minister rates—still behind Helen Clark, who is no longer in politics or even in the country. Her legacy lives on, like a ghost keeping the Labour leader awake well into the night.

Mr SPEAKER: Is some honourable member going to take the call?

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it correct that the next call is a Green call for the general debate?

Mr SPEAKER: That is my understanding, if the Green Party wishes to take the call.

I rise to explore further some of the issues that were debated on the last members’ day, concerning the issue of aggression through the use of armed force, and New Zealand policy on this matter. On 19 August Government MPs expressed some views on the matter of aggression, and it may be worth—respectfully—seeking to correct any misunderstandings on their part in this respect. Their view was, essentially, that observing the crime of aggression imposed unacceptable political constraints on our national leaders. It is, I think, salutary to reflect on the global movement that is gathering pace in criminalising aggression, and to realise where the international community actually stands in 2009.

For most of the history of human conflict—for the better part of 5,000 years—there has been what is best described as the “free market of war”: political and military power combined in the one person, who has been always free to engage in indiscriminate slaughter with impunity. The measure of greatness was in the art of conquering. It is only in the last two centuries or so—almost in the blink of an eye—that it has dawned on our nations that we should develop a political framework to avert war. Yet war remained lawful. It is in fact only in the last century that humankind has sought to make war illegal. The League of Nations commenced that movement, yet war remained legal if all avenues of pacific settlement had been exhausted. It was within the living memory of only the older generation among us that war was finally made illegal; under the United Nations Charter there is only the legal and the illegal use of force.

In 1947 the trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo made it clear that aggression was a crime in customary international law, and that leaders would henceforth be called to account as individuals for such a crime. We have hanged people in that name. In 2002 the International Criminal Court came into force with jurisdiction to adjudicate on the three core crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Under the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court, there is a fourth crime for which the court will soon have jurisdiction: the crime of aggression. The preconditions are twofold: agreement on a definition, and agreement on the jurisdictional relationship between the UN Security Council and the special prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The necessary work is almost complete on this, and it is expected that at the review conference in Uganda in May or June 2010, the 109 countries that are members of the court will adopt aggression as a crime justiciable by the court. When that happens, these 109 countries will proceed to implement that international agreement in their domestic law, thereby making aggression a crime in their own domestic penal codes.

New Zealand is one of these countries. We have maintained a longstanding policy, under both Labour and National Governments since the early 1990s, of unswerving support for the International Criminal Court, and for its jurisdiction over the four crimes of greatest concern to humanity. That includes aggression; aggression will be a crime. I mention this background because sooner or later—perhaps next year or a little later, but before very long—this Government will be required to agree, along with all other 108 States that are parties to the International Criminal Court, that aggression is a crime. That crime will be a crime in domestic law in the first instance, and an international crime through the International Criminal Court in the second instance. It is therefore important that any comments that Government members make in this House on the question of aggression remain consistent with longstanding New Zealand policy, and do not make that policy look inconsistent when the Government confronts this issue in the very near future. Thank you.

The most forlorn and wishful words uttered in this Parliament in modern times came at question time this afternoon when the current Leader of the Opposition, in one of his long-winded questions, said: “There is no hope for the Prime Minister.” Already the Tui beer advertisers, having salivated at the very prospect, have started printing their latest billboards.

The fascinating thing when Mr Goff makes such comments is watching his Opposition colleagues collectively sinking lower and lower in the benches opposite until we are left with just furrowed brows and shaking heads visible above the bench tops. It is no wonder their former colleague Dover Samuels is calling on the current Labour leaders to fall on their swords. It is surely better to have an honourable acceptance of the inevitable than to succumb to the knives that are being sharpened behind them. Or perhaps the Labour leaders should take their lead from the garrulous blogger from Rimutaka, Mr Hipkins, who admitted this week to his adoring readers in the Cayman Islands and Kazakhstan in 5,000 breaths of fresh air that fair-minded Kiwis like what the National Government is doing and will not be turning their attention back to the Labour Party any time soon—certainly not while the fresh young team of Goff, King, Mallard, and Hodgson are setting the pace.

The member is spot on in his assessment, though whether he finds his analysis personally career-enhancing will ultimately depend on which of the many pretenders to the throne is left standing when the looming battle in the Labour caucus room is over. As the New Zealand Herald’s political commentator John Armstrong wrote a few days ago, it was an important political lesson for “the hapless Hipkins” that “even when the wheels are falling off the political vehicle in which they are travelling:” he needs to insist “that things are always going swimmingly well no matter how bleak and desperate the reality.”

So what have Mr Armstrong’s media colleagues had to say about Labour’s problems lately? Bill Ralston wrote: “The problem is at the moment the Opposition is pursuing a scatter-gun approach, attacking … the Government with a knee-jerk hostility. This largely falls on deaf ears”. Labour’s very good friend Mr Christopher Trotter laments: “What’s the matter with Labour? Why is it making so little impression on even its hard-core supporters? And can anyone explain why Labour’s strategists still believe it’s intelligent politics to have their MPs recorded, singing songs, on a bus, in the Tory-blue heart of Taranaki?”.

Television New Zealand’s Guyon Espiner picked up the theme when he noted: “It was probably a good thing Phil Goff wasn’t driving the bus”—to nowhere—“because right now he appears to have little sense of direction.” The problem is, as John Armstrong concluded: “It took a while for Goff to work out that people were simply not listening to what he and Labour had to say.” Mr Espiner even recommends that Mr Goff should take a leaf out of the Prime Minister’s book. I ask members opposite to listen up. Mr Espiner suggested to Phil Goff: “Maybe Phil, you should cuddle up to Key a little bit. See what happens.” That is excellent advice.

Nine months into the new Government’s term a wonderful contrast is apparent. I am proud to be part of a Government that is united and determined and is tackling the issues that matter in these challenging times. The focus of the new Government is on easing the pain of the recession. It is on responding to New Zealanders’ concerns about law and order with a huge raft of measures being capably driven through by the Hon Simon Power, the Hon Judith Collins, and others. The focus is on increasing resources to the health sector, and on redirecting efforts and funding to essential front-line services. We have committed to boosting education, to fixing the school buildings that were falling down under Labour, to dealing with special-needs funding, and to boosting literacy and numeracy, which will help New Zealanders to get ahead in life.

We have been out and about listening to New Zealanders, who hold a wide range of views on climate change, and we have set a realistic—demanding but achievable—carbon emissions reduction target that is in line with our pre-election commitments. We have been enhancing our relationship with our Māori Party colleagues, focusing on raising educational and training aspirations for Māori and facing up to their health challenges, and the list goes on. We are getting on with the job, and New Zealanders love it. What does Labour offer in response? It offers weak and divided leadership in the House and disingenuous tut-tutting outside it.

Just for the record, I point out that that was the member for Hamilton West, Tim Macindoe. I never thought there would be a worse member for Hamilton West than Grant Thomas, but I think such a member has arrived now.

Paul Quinn: What happened?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have won three different electorates, I say to Mr Quinn. When that member wants to run, I hope he runs against me every time. I will take him around and introduce him to people; it will do my vote a lot of good.

I was in Hamilton yesterday at the funeral of Rufus Rogers. He was a member of Parliament who was born in 1913. He was involved in the Labour Party from the mid-1930s up until as recently as a month ago, at the Rufus Rogers branch of the Labour Party. When I came back and looked at the news, it caused me to reflect on the Waikato members in Parliament, not so much in Dr Rogers’ period—1972-1975—but those immediately afterwards: the Minogues, the Shearers, and the Warings. They were the true people of the National Party, the people who had the intense integrity to stand up in this Parliament for their views and to cross the floor—the way that the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs has done in the past on the question of Māori representation in local government. I thought that Mr Henare was misdirecting his anger yesterday when he was addressing Mr Hide. The person whom he should have been addressing was the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who indicated that Mr Henare could not vote according to his conscience; that he could not stand up and do what he thought was right. He indicated that Mr Henare could not take a principled stand.

Mr Henare has been made a fool of. He went around Auckland with a subcommittee of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which he led from marae to marae, and he told the people on those marae that the Government was listening. We know now that back in June, before all that had occurred, the Prime Minister and the leader of the ACT Party had done a sweetheart deal, and all those visits were a total charade. It was an embarrassment to this Parliament. It was a personal embarrassment to Tau Henare, who was leading the subcommittee. I say to Mr Henare that it is about time he stood up to the Prime Minister and talked to his colleagues who believe the same as he does. It is time he crossed the floor and supported the amendments that will be moved by this party and by—I am almost certain—the Māori Party, as well, in order to do what is right in Auckland and do what he campaigned on. In fact, if we look carefully, we see it was something Rodney Hide campaigned on as well.

I want to make one other point in this short debate: I like the comments of “Honest” John Carter. “Honest” John Carter has been talking about the fact that the contract that is being offered to workers in his electorate—and in that of every other electorate member in the country—is a crock. The people who are working on behalf of Telecom through a contractual arrangement are being forced out of their employment. They are being made redundant with no redundancy pay at all. They are being offered a contract that will, in some cases, halve their wages. They are being made to pay $60,000 for equipment, yet there is no guarantee of work. I say to “Honest” John Carter: “Thank goodness there is one Tory who will stand up for his electorate.” It is a pity there are no more.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.