Thursday, 13 February 2003

Thursday, 13 February 2003

Thursday, 13 February 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week it is intended that the House will concentrate on the first readings of bills on the Order Paper. It is also intended that if the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement is not finished today, then following its conclusion next Tuesday the first item of business will be to refer the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) back to the Local Government and Environment Committee or, pending discussions with other parties, the Government Administration Committee. First readings are likely to be done in the order in which they are listed on today’s Order Paper. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. I notice that the Government has reacted very, very quickly to public pressure on the Dog Bill, as it is going to be called. I am wondering whether we might see similar action—that the transport bill that deals with illegal street racing, known as the “Boy Racer Bill”, might also be brought forward on the Order Paper so that that pressure group can be satisfied as well.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): No. I hope, of course, that those boy racers will not be grown up by the time we do get the bill through.

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I seek the leave of the House, at the conclusion of the Prime Minister’s debate, to have the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill—that is the “Boy Racer Bill”—moved to become the second item of business after the Dog Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

BRIAN CONNELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard general murmuring. Can you identify who said no?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. There was objection. A lot of members heard it. That is the end of the matter.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Treaty of Waitangi—Education Programme

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Further to her statement yesterday that a “number of Government agencies presently have a role in dispersing information” about the Treaty, is there a plan for her Government to establish and implement an additional and distinct Treaty education programme, as promised in Labour’s 2002 election policy; if so, what principles of the Treaty will be included in that programme?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Labour’s 2002 election manifesto promised to establish and implement a Treaty of Waitangi education programme to improve the understanding of all New Zealanders. There is no reference to an additional programme, so I do not know what the member is precisely referring to. What the Government is proposing, however, is to build on and enhance information currently available to the public through Government agencies.

Hon Bill English: If there is to be no treaty education programme, why did the Government in the delegations tabled on Tuesday appoint Tariana Turia as the Minister directly responsible for educating the public on the treaty?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: There can be no education without information.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to have an immediate seating reshuffle, because clearly Margaret Wilson has caught Parekura Horomia’s dialect disease.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is just frivolous and silly, and I ask the member to stand and withdraw and apologise for that comment.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Mahara Okeroa: What information relating to the Treaty of Waitangi is currently available?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The information available includes historical publications relating to the treaty; Waitangi Tribunal reports of which there are now almost 80; Māori Land Court historical records, where it is appropriate; and commentaries on court decisions relating to the treaty. The Government proposes to make this information more accessible to individuals, schools, businesses, and organisations that are interested in being better informed about the treaty.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given Professor Matthew Palmer’s call for the Government to articulate clearly what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, when will the Prime Minister show some leadership and articulate those principles, or is that an impossibility?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The principles that guide Government action are those that were published in 1989. They are the principles for Crown action on the Treaty of Waitangi, which have been tabled before. The publication that was referred to by the Prime Minister yesterday includes principles that have been enunciated from tribunal reports and the courts.

Heather Roy: Could the Minister point me to the exact page number, or even the chapter, in her recommended reading, Understanding the Treaty, published by Te Puni Kōkiri, that says that partnership with iwi is a principle of the treaty; if not, has she not read the book, as I have?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No, I cannot give the member the precise page number. However, I would be happy to do so if the member would like to attend a seminar, which I am also happy to arrange for those who would like to be better informed.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister detail how the many experienced Māori and Pākehā treaty educators already doing this work in their communities will be involved in the Government’s programme, or will this programme simply be a Government agency public relations exercise?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: It is intended that the information that will be available will enable those agencies that are already doing valuable work to enhance the delivery of their programmes.

Hon Bill English: Has the Prime Minister consulted the Māori caucus about the following promise she made at the last election: that is, the Māori development policy as the second top priority “to establish and implement a treaty education programme to improve the understanding of all New Zealanders”, or is she so embarrassed about that undertaking that she has now backed down?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we talk constantly with our caucus and we talk with one voice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister asserting now that which she would not assert last year—that the Waitangi settlements principles are now to be regarded as the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; or did she discover that in the same way that Columbus discovered America—purely by accident?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I really do feel that a seminar should be held. The principles that I referred to in 1989 are those that guide policy making. Principles that guide negotiations for the settlement of specific claims were set out in, I think, 2000, when I revised them, and they are for a different purpose than the others, because we try to make the principles relate to the treaty.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order 362, “Quoting documents”. I am not sure whether the Minister has quoted from the book she has asked us all to read, but I thought that as she and the Prime Minister have referred to it, she should be asked whether she would table the Te Puni Kōkiri book, which is apparently so important. In fact, if it is as important as that, why has every MP not been sent a copy?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did quote from a book. She may like to make a comment.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I did not quote directly from the document, but in the interests of making information available, I will certainly table a document, and I will see whether one can be made available to everyone. I do understand how impoverished you all are at the moment.

Mr SPEAKER: Irony is never very helpful. I will just say to the member that she said she will table it. That should have been her answer.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Genetic Modification—Research Programmes

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: When are the various research programmes recommended by the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, investigating the risks of horizontal gene transfer, impacts on soil, and social and economic impact of releasing genetically modified organisms, due to be reported to the Government?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): The Government is spending over $6 million on research into the impacts of genetic modification. Much of this research is due to be reported back to the Government over the coming months, beginning with some research into economic impacts, due by the end of March.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What exactly will the Government do if the research into horizontal gene transfer and its risks, due to report in 2005, suggests that it was a bad idea to release genetically modified organisms over the preceding 2 years, and has the Minister discovered a miraculous way to close the door after the horse has bolted, or is she admitting now that research recommended by the royal commission is irrelevant to Government policy on genetic engineering?

Mr SPEAKER: Two of those three questions can be answered.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The royal commission recommended a wide range of research to be done. It did not say at any stage that we would hold up proceedings until the research was completed. On the concept of horizontal gene transfer, we are well aware that this is a debate that will rage for some time. The findings of this research are to inform the case by case decisions made by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The decisions that we released yesterday were to do with the framework of how such decisions might be made.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister cite any research on genetic modification that shows any difference in the effects of GM technology on the health and safety of Māori New Zealanders as compared with other New Zealanders; if not, why did she announce yesterday that the Act would be amended to include treaty principle amendments that would give Māori rights to participate in the process, not accorded to other New Zealanders?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: What I announced yesterday was that a Māori reference group has been established to advise the Government on amendments to the Act that would ensure it reflects the treaty relationship in a meaningful, constructive, and practical way.

Mita Ririnui: Why has the Government proposed this set of changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and why at this time?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The proposed changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that I announced yesterday implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. The royal commission recommended these changes, as part of an overall strategy to proceed with caution while preserving opportunities. The proposed changes give the Environmental Risk Management Authority another tool to make accurate assessments. The changes are designed to be in place by the time the moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms lifts in October this year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will this so-called treaty relationship that she asserts on the issue of genetic modification allow for intermarriage between Māori and European, or stop it?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I have no comment to make on that question.

Larry Baldock: How important does the Minister consider it is to the New Zealand economy and the advancement of scientific knowledge to amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to complete the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification to ensure that scientific progress is able to proceed cautiously in New Zealand?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Having resourced a royal commission, and having taken on board the extensive work that it does, I can tell the House that this Government considered it to be extremely important that the recommendations of that royal commission were implemented. They are about proceeding, with caution, while preserving the immense opportunities that exist. We saw some of those opportunities displayed on television last night when we were talking about the work at Ruakura. There are significant opportunities, and I welcome United Future’s support for moving forward to implement those recommendations.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If the Minister considers it so important to implement the recommendations of the royal commission, why is she not acting on its recommendation that food animals such as cattle and sheep should not be used to produce pharmaceuticals; and how is that described as proceeding with caution?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: From memory, I understand that the recommendation was about the use of bioreactors; it was not about the production of pharmaceuticals.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What is the difference between using an animal as a bioreactor and using an animal to produce pharmaceuticals—is that not the same thing?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: As I understand it, it is not. A bioreactor is when one may use that animal, then eat the food from it. We are not suggesting that that happens in any case whatsoever.

Iraq—Government Policy

3. Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) to the Prime Minister: In light of her statement that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation “strongly suggested a pattern of deception and concealment” of weapons of mass destruction programmes, why will her Government not support a second United Nations resolution designed to enforce Iraq’s disarmament?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Government believes that alternative options to secure Iraqi disarmament should be exhausted before the use of force is considered and mandated by the United Nations Security Council.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is only the credible threat of imminent force that gets any level of cooperation from Saddam Hussein’s regime, and how much longer can she expect that what she has called a small group of countries—in fact, our traditional allies and much of Western Europe and Eastern Europe—will be able to continue to provide the pressure to disarm Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two parts to the member’s question. The Labour-led Government has always accepted that an ultimate resort to force is necessary for the United Nations to secure compliance with its resolutions. The member also asks how much longer we would need to wait. Given the fact that the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission team has been in Iraq for barely 3 months and has only just reached the full personnel strength to carry out its job, we believe that it should be given the time to do that job.

Tim Barnett: What support has the Government received from other political parties for its position on this issue?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Progressive party and the United Future party, I think, are broadly supportive of the Government’s stance. The Green Party and ACT both disagree. The former thinks we are too soft; the ACT party thinks we are too hard—or the other way around, actually—but, like the rest of New Zealand, we are still unclear on what position the National Party will take on this issue today.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer was an invitation for the member to give comments on other parties’ views. The question itself asked about support—and that was reasonable enough. Then the Minister went on to give other parties’ positions, and, in the case of my party, he completely put it the wrong way around. I strongly object to that. My party has taken a principled view on the matter. We think New Zealand should be supporting its traditional allies.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly correct. The Minister should not have done that. Does the member want a supplementary question?

Hon Richard Prebble: Did the Prime Minister see the British Labour Cabinet Minister make the statement on television last night that the UK would ignore a veto on a second UN Security Council resolution, and, if so, does the Government support the British position, especially as they claim that is the same view that was taken over Kosovo, for which New Zealand supported the United States and the UK; if not, why does this Government support a veto from, say, France or Russia?

Hon PHIL GOFF: This Government supports acting multilaterally through the United Nations. That has been this country’s position since 1945. Though the member may not be aware, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are separate countries. We are an independent and sovereign country. We make our own decisions, notwithstanding that that member thinks we should follow other countries, without thinking for ourselves.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister agree with most intelligence analysts that Colin Powell himself was being deceptive, or concealing of the truth, in trying, at the United Nations, to prove a link between the fundamentalist al-Qaeda and the secularist Saddam, as he was doing again yesterday when he described bin Laden and Saddam as being “in partnership”, when bin Laden had just attacked Saddam as being an infidel, and called for his overthrow?

Hon PHIL GOFF: First of all, I do not accept the member’s first assertion about what analysts may or may not believe. Speaking for this Government, we have yet to see any evidence that links the Government of Saddam Hussein with the events of September 11. The member said, as others in the House may have observed, that Osama bin Laden had described Saddam, I think, as an infidel and said that while the terrorists should support Iraq, he did not support the sort of ignorant Government that existed in Iraq. It suggests to me that the position of bin Laden and Saddam—neither of whom is a person I admire; I abhor both of them—is quite separate in terms of their actions.

Ron Mark: Reflecting on that answer, I ask whether the Government has seen or requested any evidence from France, Britain, Germany, or the United States as to the types of military assistance they were lending to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The short answer is no, but some people will have observed inconsistencies in supporting Saddam at one point and not supporting him at another.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Minister aware of Colin Powell’s comments today that “We are reaching a moment of truth with respect to the relevance of the United Nations Security Council to impose its will on a nation such as Iraq”; if so, what steps does the New Zealand Government consider are still available to the United Nations Security Council, given the imminence of the threat implied in Mr Powell’s statement, to both lead to the disarming of Iraq and to prevent unilateral military action from being taken against it?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am aware of Colin Powell’s statement today. I do not accept that war is inevitable, although I must say that I think at this stage war is likely. It can be avoided, of course, if Iraq complies with the legal obligations on it. Equally, we would ask that the United States observe the procedures of the Security Council and that other methods that are still available, including pressure on Iraq by the international community, be allowed to run their course before any commitment of force is made.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Why is the Government irrevocably committed to multilateralism, as it has said many times, even though that effectively means that a veto by France, Russia, or China would end up determining New Zealand’s own foreign policy?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I would observe that Resolution 1441 went through the Security Council unanimously, with the support even of Syria. That shows that there is a will in the international community that Iraq should comply with the obligations on it. What we are saying is that time should be allowed for that process to be followed through before force is used in this instance.

Tertiary Education—Standards

4. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What is the Government doing to promote excellence, relevance and access in the tertiary education system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): Today we are formally launching the Tertiary Education Commission. This new Crown entity brings together the administration of all post-secondary education and training under one organisational roof. In its transition phase the commission has already been involved with such policies as the selection of seven centres of research excellence, the design of the new performance-based research fund, the expansion of industry training, the introduction of the Modern Apprenticeships programme, the introduction of the Gateway programme to schools, and the allocation of regional development grants to polytechs throughout New Zealand.

Helen Duncan: What specifically will the commission do to promote excellence, relevance, and access?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Excellence will be promoted through such policies as an expansion of centres of research excellence, the introduction of a full performance-based research fund, and the introduction of a performance component to tuition funding. In relation to relevance, the commission will work with charters and profiles presented to it by all institutions throughout the country that want public funding. Those charters and profiles will have to show how institutions will advance the education and training of all New Zealanders, and, in particular, areas like industry will be dealt with. In relation to access, institutions will be asked to ensure that all learners have an open choice in relation to what education they do. For example, the promotion of Māori and Pacific Island students right throughout the university system will be one of the goals.

Simon Power: How do his reforms promote excellence, relevance, and access in the tertiary education sector, when the net effect of his system of charters and profiles is that if Steve Maharey does not like it, students do not get to study it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can offer a seminar to the member on this issue, when he has finished with the treaty one, if he would like it. But, in fact, if I take the profiles, for example, they go to the Tertiary Education Commission, not to me. I will not be making choices about what people do or do not study.

Hon Brian Donnelly: How does the Government’s raising the fees for NCEA by almost 100 percent promote access to tertiary education, particularly for students from average to low-income families, when a recent report shows that the 2002 fee level already acts as a significant barrier to children or students getting on to the first rung of the ladder of learning and access to tertiary education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The important part of a standards-based system, as the member himself knows, is to ensure that we have a quality system suitable for this century. It will cost more money to drive that system, and one of the ways of recruiting that money, of course, is through fees.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Why does the Government believe that a New Zealand Qualifications Authority - approved qualification in surfing from the Southern Institute of Technology—see Oreti Beach—where students who have demonstrated an aptitude and interest in surfing learn such practical and theoretical skills as surfing techniques and maintenance of surfing equipment, actually assists and promotes excellence and relevance in tertiary education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can tell that the member is not a surfer. One of the things that needs to be done when one is assessing whether a course will be relevant for students in this country is not to jump immediately to conclusions. One of the things that surfing qualifications may well do is introduce people not only to tourism industries, which, in this country, of course, are large, but also to industries all around the world. So maybe the member might like to look at the course, first of all.

Indigenous Rights—United Nations

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Was New Zealand represented at the United Nations negotiations towards an international statement of indigenous rights at a Geneva meeting from 2 to 13 December 2002; if so, what was the position that New Zealand took?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): The answer is yes. New Zealand strongly supports the development of a constructive and widely applicable declaration that would allow indigenous people, who in many parts of the world are severely disadvantaged, a basis to assert their rights. However, New Zealand has difficulty with aspects of the current draft that would have to be changed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that this minority Government supported the right of indigenous people to self-determination at that conference, as inferred in the Age, a Melbourne newspaper, on 26 December 2002, and if that is the policy being asserted abroad, is it the policy the Government intends to implement back home here in New Zealand?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking on behalf of a party enjoying 50 percent of the vote and of a minority Government, I point out that from his comments the member is probably not aware that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights agreed to many years ago by this country and by Governments that he has been a member of, there is a right to self-determination. New Zealand has qualified that right in terms of this document, in terms of not impinging on the integrity and sovereignty of a country, and it shares that position with many like-minded countries at the meeting.

Martin Gallagher: Could the Minister further clarify the approach that New Zealand is taking to help achieve agreement with other countries on a declaration?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The working-party consists of both States and indigenous peoples, and there is a vast gap between the positions of those two groups. New Zealand’s approach has been to work with like-minded countries, and examples of those would be Canada and Norway. We are trying to find wording that would be broadly acceptable both to States and indigenous peoples. The nature of this working-party is that its outcome can only be achieved by consensus. We are helping to find that consensus.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: What status would a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples have under New Zealand law, and would the Government regard it as a binding document?

Hon PHIL GOFF: We are talking about a declaration, and not a convention. That means that it cannot contain legally binding commitments. The instructions we have given to foreign affairs officials there is that the outcome should be consistent with New Zealand laws and the New Zealand constitution.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the Norwegian situation is for a separate Parliament for its indigenous people, and is it not also a fact that what has been pursued by this Government implies clearly a separateness and a separate sovereignty, and are we to have that back in this country if we are to be consistent?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Once again, no, the member is not asserting facts. What Norway wants to do within its own law and constitution is up to Norway. That is certainly not the path that New Zealand is taking, or would take.

School Children—Physical Activities

6. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) to the Minister of Education: What initiatives have been put in place to encourage greater physical activity of school children?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Getting kids off the couch and into physical activity is an important focus for the Ministry of Education and Sport and Recreation New Zealand. Those agencies signed a protocol earlier this month and have identified a number of priorities, including increasing understanding amongst teachers and students of the benefit of physical activity, promoting opportunities to access those activities, establishing environments that are enjoyable, safe, and supportive for young people, engaging parents and communities, and monitoring achievements and engagement in order to inform future development. It is fair to say that in the last 5 years we have not made much progress.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Are there any particular projects to encourage increased physical activity?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. For example, the school physical activity project comprises a mix of professional development for teachers, physical activity coordinators, and research. Sixteen schools are involved in the project in four clusters, each with a coordinator.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the just-announced protocol between his ministry and Sport and Recreation New Zealand has, as one of its highest priorities, promoting physical activity that is culturally appropriate and that embraces the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and noting that no Minister in this House is able to tell us what those principles are, can he explain to the average physical education teacher how he or she might embrace such principles and promote such culturally appropriate physical activity?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not only could I do that but I could also invite Dallas Seymour to give teachers a good seminar on it.

Barbara Stewart: Noting the item in today’s Dominion Post about the risk of cancer for children who use playgrounds made from arsenic-treated timber, does the Minister consider that there is a problem in New Zealand’s schools; if so, what he is doing to eliminate that danger?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I clearly have not got to that point in the Dominion Post yet, as I started the day in Auckland. If it is a serious report I will ask my ministry, and especially the Ministry of Health, for advice on that question. There have been some other relatively wild allegations in the past on the question of pollution in playgrounds, which required kids to eat about a bucket of dirt a day to get poisoned.

Mike Ward: Does the Minister not think that enabling children to walk and cycle safely to school are sensible options for reversing the predicted epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes; will he be briefing the Minister of Transport on the desirability of making safe cycleways and walkways around schools, and of reducing the incidence of major highways around schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The answer is yes. Of course the member is right, and it has been explained to him before.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Assessments

7. DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Education: What evidence is there to support the claim by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that the NCEA is designed to ensure “valid, consistent, accurate, fair assessment, at the national standard”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): There is a lot of evidence in the process and the results. For example, in the external assessment the markers are experienced teachers, trained by a chief examiner. A sample of 8 percent of every marker’s work is checked by a panel leader. The panel leader’s work is also checked. If any marker’s work is found to be unsatisfactory he or she is replaced, and the scripts that he or she has marked are redone. The big difference is that we are not afraid of scrutiny of our marking system. I think that one of the key and most obvious points is that under this system people have stayed with standards, and that has meant there has been a broad range of results from subject to subject. Those standards are high, and we are insisting that they are met, unlike the previous School Certificate system in which, if too many people failed, some were bumped up for a pass.

Deborah Coddington: How does he reconcile his answer with the facts that in maths, for example, there were twice as many excellences for internal assessment, compared with external exams, and half as many failures; and does that not raise serious questions about schools giving inflated internal grades?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not at all. I think the member, as she gets better briefed, will understand that what schools do quite regularly is that if students can clearly not reach the standard, the entries are withdrawn. That results in a higher achievement rate percentage for people who finish an internal assessment, compared with an examination. That is not an option once a student has already sat the examination.

Hon Richard Prebble: No, it’s completely wrong right now.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is not right.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the NCEA’s cost to parents has been doubled by the Government to $150, that the taxpayer is now contributing $300 per candidate, that it is costing schools at least $50 per candidate, and that that quantified portion now makes up in excess of $500 per candidate, can the Minister not see that the bureaucracy and costs of the NCEA are out of control and that there is an urgent need for a review to reduce those administration costs in order to get a qualification that is effective without costing that sort of amount?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: One of the major problems I faced on becoming Minister was a system that had had a lot of work done on it, especially by Wyatt Creech. Dr Lockwood Smith, in fact, started the standards-based approach. It was a system that was logical and coherent. The problem was that when Nick Smith was the Minister of Education, the Budget did not put in one extra cent of resources.

Jill Pettis: What evidence is there that overall the marking of external assessment against national standards was accurate under the NCEA last year?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The New Zealand Qualifications Authority advises me that of the 800 NCEA exam markers, all except two were consistently marking to the national standard. That means that the vast majority, 99.8 percent, of exam marking was satisfactory the first time. The work of the two markers found to be inconsistent was totally redone prior to the scripts being released.

Deborah Coddington: Where is the fairness and consistency between subjects, when only 0.3 percent of students who sat biology achieved excellence compared with 35 percent who sat information management, which is basically filing, and does that not raise serious questions about the integrity of his “anonymous moderators”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not at all. What it shows is that students understood and met the standards in one area and did not in the other. I do not take the ACT approach of dropping standards in order to get top-up averages.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a question. He then made up our policy, and talked about it. He has made a mockery of the whole of question time. He tried to say to us that fewer people passed external examinations because the poor students were not allowed to sit them. We all know that cannot be right. This Minister should give logical answers. When he cannot do so, he just makes them up.

Mr SPEAKER: The member was not strictly correct on one of the points that he made. However, he was correct in asserting that the last sentence of the Minister’s answer was unnecessary in relation to the question concerned.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It occurred to me earlier, when I came down to the House, to make this point of order, but I really wish to bring this matter to your attention. Before coming to the Chamber I watched question time on Sky television, and I observed an answer given by the Hon Margaret Wilson. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that Ministers’ answers such as that may generate levity here because we think Ministers are making fools of themselves, but that the reputation of this House, when people see on the television screen Ministers giving answers like that and Opposition members’ objections being dismissed, becomes seriously damaged. I ask you to raise the issue with the Standing Orders Committee, which you chair, with a view to tightening up on the Standing Orders in that respect.

Mr SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this particular question. The member came down to the House and did not raise the matter then. There is some point in what the member has said, but that is why we have elections. When members make the wrong decisions the people watching that on television can vote differently at subsequent elections.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that that last point of order should have been ruled out for one simple reason. I have noticed an increasing tendency for such points of order to be raised well after the event they refer to. It used to be a very clear ruling in this House that points of order had to be raised at the time the event occurred. If they are raised later, they are no longer relevant. That point of order related to an answer that was given substantially earlier in question time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My colleague’s objection was triggered by his observance of Margaret Wilson’s answer and the answer given by Mr Mallard just now. The relevant point I wish to raise is that if we are to wait for the 2005 election, or whenever the Government throws in the towel, then we will not correct this impediment to the public disclosure of public information in the way that this House conducts question time. I say again, with no reflection on you, that I have never seen in Western democracies those kinds of answers being given in the way that they are acceptable in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, a point of order should be raised when the event occurs. Had the member raised the point solely about the particular question that was being asked, that would have been a point of order and in order. However, I think that our question time compares very favourably with most others I have observed in the Western World. In fact, our question time is far more orderly and more information is given than elsewhere. I also think that certainly applies to those people who ask questions, and who take a lot of time to think out good and serious questions and are able to ask them.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 372 states that Ministers’ answers must be concise and confined to the subject of the question. We have had two answers from Mr Mallard, the first to my question about the costs of the NCEA, and the second to a question asked by my ACT colleague in respect of the standards of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. In both instances all we got from the Minister was a barrage at me about something that occurred in 1999 and something equally irrelevant for the ACT party. That is why this House rightly asked you, as Speaker, to ensure the Minister concerned answers the questions.

Mr SPEAKER: That is why, rightly, as I have now judged, thanks to the member, I ruled that the Minister was wrong.

Metiria Turei: Given Labour’s education policy, which begins: “Quality education is a basic right. It must be available to all children without regard to wealth or income”, how does the Minister justify charging any fees at all for NCEA assessment, or does he not consider assessment to be part of a child’s basic right to a quality education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Of course a lot of assessment is part of a right. The House will be interested to know that last year the applications for relief as far as fees were concerned were a very small proportion of the amount that this Government had set aside for it. We will do a better job this year of making it clear that that facility is available.

Teacher Shortages—Secondary Schools

8. BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the assessment of Bali Haque, president of the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand, that the shortage of secondary school teachers at the beginning of the 2003 school year constitutes a “crisis”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): No.

Bernie Ogilvy: If the teacher shortage is not a crisis, how else would the Minister describe the situation whereby schools were short of 388 teachers in January, and now, 3 weeks into the school year, there are 199 actual vacancies to be filled, according to this week’s Education Gazette?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Schools, of course, are closed in January, at the time of the Education Gazette, therefore I do not regard that as a crisis. I am advised, in fact, that in February this year there are 111 vacancies, 30 fewer than at the same time last year.

David Benson-Pope: Can the Minister please detail Government action to address secondary staffing pressures?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Mr Speaker, given your advice on brevity, I will list only some of those actions. The Government has spent around $37 million over 3 years. It has targeted recruitment and provided funding to encourage New Zealand teachers to return, taken graduates from around the country to Auckland, created teaching scholarships to get more people into training, in particular, in priority subjects, given a lot of retraining for former secondary teachers and provided allowances for that, and provided conversion courses at full pay for primary teachers, etc.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that in the 1990s the same age bulge hit the primary sector and that National successfully managed teacher supply to ensure that every classroom of children had a teacher, how has he so mismanaged secondary teacher supply that, for 2 years running, thousands of children have arrived at school, in schools all over New Zealand, without a teacher?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think, as the member is aware, that is not correct. As he is aware, this Government has increased the number of staff in secondary schools, and, in fact, the total vacancies advertised at the peak point were fewer than the extra teachers we put in over and above roll growth. So the ratios were better this year than last.

Bernie Ogilvy: In the light of that, how will shortages be addressed in the long term, when I note that the average age of the secondary teacher workforce is 49, yet since 1999 the number of secondary trainee enrolments has declined 10.5 percent and the proportion of those who graduated has slid from 76 percent to 66 percent?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There are some interesting statistics, and I am willing to work with the member on them. My advice is that at the end of last year there were 1,765 secondary teachers in training—up 120 from the year before.

Air New Zealand—Qantas

9. Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in the House on 8 October 2002 regarding a partial sale of Air New Zealand to Qantas, “If he means whether I have, in an official capacity, received advice that there is such a proposal, the answer is no.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon Roger Sowry: How can the Minister reconcile that answer with the fact that he received, on or about 10 May 2002, Treasury Report No. 2002/648, entitled: Air New Zealand Update on Proposal for Strategic Partner—a report that contained the annexe titled “Air New Zealand - Qantas Proposal for a Strategic Partnership”; and is the reason the proposal was not advanced along the lines of the timetable detailed in the report—which suggested that a decision would be made in late July—due to the fact that the Government had no intention of going about that before the election?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Absolutely not! If the member would care to actually talk to people in Air New Zealand, they might care to tell him that negotiations were not concluded until 24 November.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister recall his comments to The Australian in January of this year that “a horror scenario” would be disagreement between competition watchdogs, which could squash the proposed Qantas - Air New Zealand deal; and if he does recall that, will he advise the House whether, in the light of that “horror scenario” coming to pass, the Government will direct Air New Zealand to withdraw from the proposed arrangement?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If that scenario comes to pass, the proposal will fail, because it requires the consent of both regulatory authorities.

David Parker: How did the proposal evolve, and when was it presented to you as holder of the Crown’s stake in Air New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As is well known, Air New Zealand and Qantas were in discussions for most of last year, and there was a great deal of speculation surrounding those discussions. The fact they were occurring was scarcely a secret. The papers released by the Government yesterday show that as late as August, when Treasury was invited, there was still “some uncertainty as to whether proposals will eventuate at all”. Members should note the meaning of that language. As I said before, I understand that the final details were concluded the night before the proposal was submitted to the Government on 25 November.

Hon Roger Sowry: If the Government was not concerned about this proposal being advanced before the election, why was the proposal to sell part of Air New Zealand to Qantas christened by the Government “Project Vanilla”, and Qantas given a code name of “K”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government never christened anything “Project Vanilla”—[Interruption] No, that is what Air New Zealand described the project as being. The Government was entirely “tasteless” in those matters.

Rodney Hide: Was the real reason for denying any knowledge of this deal the fact that the Minister had been advised, back in May, about the upcoming election; and if it was not the upcoming election, given that the papers clearly show that what he told this House and the public of New Zealand was false—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry. I will ask the member to restate his question. I will be now listening carefully.

Rodney Hide: Was the reason that this Minister denied any knowledge of a deal that he had been advised of as far back as May last year, the fact that there was an upcoming election—where he did not want this deal discussed—and if that was not the reason, why should anyone take what he says seriously when the papers he released show that what he said is at variance with what is in the papers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it is not. There was no deal in May. If there had been a deal in May—

Hon Bill English: Same stupid game.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Same stupid leader, unfortunately. If there had been a deal in May, Air New Zealand would have had to announce it to the New Zealand Stock Exchange. Those are the rules.

Hon Roger Sowry: I seek leave to table a Treasury Report dated 10 May 2002, to the Minister of Finance and Treasurer, with an annexe entitled: “Air New Zealand - Qantas Proposal for a Strategic Partnership”.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know you listened very carefully to my question. The primary question did not discuss a deal, as Michael Cullen alleged; it was a proposal. That is what that Minister denied any knowledge of. That is what the papers show he had been advised of in May.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the member’s question asked about a deal. I suggest he consult his own notes.

Gangs—Palmerston North

10. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: What initiatives is he putting in place to deal with the gang situation in Palmerston North?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce), on behalf of the Minister of Police: The police instituted Operation Snag in February 2002, which has maintained a high profile in quickly dealing with gang incidents, and has included 39 arrests of gang members and/or associates.

Ron Mark: In respect of gangs, why has the Minister not brought legislation to the House similar to the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002, which would make it illegal to associate with, be a member of, or finance any gang-like organisation so listed on a similar register, or is everything that the Minister said when Labour was on its anti-gang crusade between 1994 and 1997 nothing more than hot air, as we suspect?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: In the light of the very good work that has been undertaken in Operation Snag, I think that question is very unfortunate. I should also advise that member that in the period they have operated, the police have recovered 15 firearms and issued driving-related offence notices amounting to fines of over $50,000. Property valued at $32,000 has been seized via the court processes, and, of course, some significant sentences of imprisonment have been imposed. I think the police are working very well on this very difficult issue.

Hon Steve Maharey: Can the Minister advise whether the police initiatives have been supported by a range of other agencies resident in the excellent city of Palmerston North?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, Work and Income, Housing New Zealand, Child, Youth and Family Services, the local council, and numerous community agencies are working very closely together to address the underlying problems within the community. Issues relating to those matters cannot be addressed in isolation. This is a model whole-of-Government approach, and is welcomed by the police.

Hon Tony Ryall: In view of the fact that gangs are making many millions of dollars through their control of the vile methamphetamine trade and associated violence, when will he progress legislation to allow the courts greater powers to confiscate the assets of those drug-dealing gangs, or will I have to set up a seminar for the Government to understand that if we take the money off the gangs, we can cut their power and influence?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: If the member had been listening to the answer I gave to the first supplementary question, he would be aware that property has been seized via court processes.

Dr Muriel Newman: Given the fact that the answer to my parliamentary question for written answer No.16044 revealed that gang apprehensions have increased by over 30 percent since Labour has been in power, why is the Government not giving the problem of gangs the same urgency that it is giving the problem of dogs, or is the answer that dogs cannot vote?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Maybe I misheard the member, but I think she said the rate of gang apprehensions had increased by over 30 percent. I would suggest that the police are doing their job very well.

Marc Alexander: In the light of the out-of-control gang shootings in Palmerston North, can the Minister advise whether he has done anything to change his own view that, in his words, Hansard, Volume 560, at page 1863, 14 May 1997: “At the moment it is the gangs who are organised, not the Government.”; if not, is it not time that he did?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I should make the point that last weekend, when that particular event occurred, was the anniversary of a gang associate’s death, which brought many gang members back to town. There was considerable tension around that, but those extra people have now left town. The police responded very well to the situation.

Ron Mark: Has it escaped the Minister’s memory that the last time the nation saw such inter-gang warfare was in 1996, and the result of that was an innocent woman being shot while sitting in her car at an intersection in Addington, and is that what it is going to take before this Government outlaws gangs?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: An event that occurred in 1996 that did not result in the banning of gangs in the period of time that that member was part of the Government makes his question somewhat ironic.

Māori Television Service—Chief Executive

11. KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Is he satisfied that the chief executive recruitment and appointment process followed by the Māori Television Service Board was appropriate and thorough, as a member of the interview panel for at least one of the short-listed applicants was then appointed to the position by the board; if so, why?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): As I said yesterday, I have been advised by the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri that the Māori Television Service Establishment Board has offered Derek Fox the transitional chief executive position. No contract has been entered into yet. The chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri will sign the contract once documentation and assurances have been provided.

Katherine Rich: In the light of the fact he told the House yesterday that “Mr Fox is one of the most conversant in te reo, which is a principle of delivering the service to households in this country”, can he explain the thinking behind appointing John Davy, a non-Māori - speaking Canadian, whose only command of the language extended to mumbling “kia ora”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Mr Davy was a bad choice, and the nation understands that. Mr Fox is a good choice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question sought an answer from the Minister as to the appropriateness and thoroughness of a process, and, for 2 days in a row, he has made no attempt to answer it. I am saying that in any other jurisdiction, in any other democracy, he would be fired.

Mr SPEAKER: That last comment was totally unnecessary and was, of course, nothing to do with a point of order. In his point of order the member asked whether the Minister addressed the question. I adjudged he had.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point is this: I am asserting that in other Western democracies a Minister who cannot answer the question, or refuses to answer the question, is fired by his leader, by Parliament, or by pressure from his peers. How come these incompetent Ministers stay in their jobs, doing this day in and day out—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; that is a political point that is being made.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point raised is, in my view, a very good one. The primary question started with the words “Is he satisfied”. It asked for the Minister’s opinion. The same question was asked yesterday. The Minister, yesterday, did not say whether he was satisfied. Today he has done exactly the same. At some point, Mr Speaker, are you going to rule that Ministers addressing a question actually have to answer the question? Addressing the question does not mean just making some reference to the topic that the question alludes to, which is the appointment process. The issue is whether the Minister, who is the person collecting the salary, is satisfied that due process was carried out. We have no indication at all on that.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Speaking to the point of order, I assure those two previous speakers that I am very clear and satisfied at this stage about the due process. Certainly, if I am unable to live up to the supposed ranting and ravings of other Māori members in this House, then that is another issue. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I adjudge that the Minister addressed the question. He made his point in the first sentence. He should not have continued with the second sentence, but in the first sentence he answered the question, again. So he answered the question, but that does not necessarily mean that members will be satisfied with the answer.

Dave Hereora: Who will replace Mr Fox as the chair of the Māori Television Service Establishment Board?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: This is a matter that I and the Minister of Finance, along with the chair of Te Pūtahi Paoho, the Māori Electoral College, will consider.

Mr SPEAKER: We come now to question No. 12. [Interruption] No, I am sorry, New Zealand First has used its questions.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are allowed 11 questions on some days and 10 on others. It makes sense to us that we get 11 questions when we have two principal questions, and 10 when we have one principal question. That is your ruling to us privately, behind the scenes.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me say to the member that that is a novel point—one that I have not heard until this moment. But in view of the fact that I want to start the year by being reasonable, I will allow this day to be one of the “11” days. However, next week it will be 10—twice.

Pita Paraone: Given the Minister’s expression of confidence yesterday in the ability of the newly appointed chief executive officer to the Māori Television Service, why did he not agree with his recommendation to accept the offer from CanWest of its TV4 channel, given that the accessibility of that particular channel is far superior to that of the UHF channel provided by this Government?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: UHF transmission through Broadcast Communications Ltd has proved to be a realiable and commercially attractive option for Prime Television, TAB, and Sky. There is no difference in quality between UHF and VHF. I tell that member that no matter whether UHF or VHF is used, satellite transmission is also necessary, and that is the reason.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister explain the logic behind spending tens of thousands of dollars on two international recruitment searches, only to appoint the chairman who commissioned the searches in the first place, and can he tell us how much this has cost the New Zealand taxpayer?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Sometimes, as in hundreds of appointment processes in the country, it works and at other times it does not. I cannot give that member the cost of it, but I am certainly prepared to forward the figure to her.

Katherine Rich: I seek leave to table the job profile and briefing notes used in the search for the chief executive of the Māori Television Service.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Resource Management Act—Renewable Energy

12. DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Energy: Why has the Government announced changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 to give greater weight to the national benefits of renewable energy?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): Developing renewable energy is the most sustainable way to meet New Zealand’s future energy needs. Perversely, however, it can be more difficult to obtain a resource consent for a renewable energy project than for a fossil fuel burning plant. A wind farm, for example, is likely to occupy more land than a thermal power station. The proposed amendment to the Resource Management Act will add renewable energy to the list of matters to be considered when consent decisions are made. This will give clearer guidance to commissioners on the national importance of renewable energy, which will be balanced by the many other considerations relevant to their decision.

David Cunliffe: What advice does he have on the potential for developing new sources of renewable energy in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: A substantial analysis done for the Ministry of Economic Development last year confirmed that New Zealand has very significant opportunities for renewable energy development. The resources include hydro and wind power, geothermal energy, bioenergy from sources such as wood waste and landfill gas, and solar energy. The analysis indicates that over the next 20 years, almost all new electricity generation is likely to be renewable, at a cost of a little over 6c a unit. This suggests that the Government’s renewable energy target of an extra 30 petajoules a year by 2012, while challenging, is within reach.

Gerry Brownlee: Noting that the Minister has now described hydro capacity as being part of the renewable energy definition, I ask whether he can give us an undertaking that the resource management changes will assist in the process of consenting Project Aqua on the Waitaki, and can he further give us some assurance that the Government will look at changes to the Conservation Act, to make projects like the Kotuku scheme at Dobson also possible?

Hon PETE HODGSON: In respect of Project Aqua, I do not think I can give the member the assurance, because I am not at all sure that the Project Aqua consent applications will not be put in ahead of the law being passed. It is my hope that the law will move into the statute book this calendar year, but I rather suspect that Project Aqua may well be jumping the gun.

Gerry Brownlee: That is an extraordinary answer, and I seek the leave of the House to ask one further question of the Minister at this point.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to comment about the quality of the answer, but the member is perfectly entitled to ask for leave. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Ken Shirley: How will greater weight given to renewable energy under the Resource Management Act assist this country’s looming energy crisis, when much needed new generation proposals, such as Pohokura gas and the Arnold River hydro at Dobson, are delayed and frustrated by the same Resource Management Act, together with Government bureaucracy—and the Minister has just conceded that this will make it harder to get new projects through the Resource Management Act. How on earth is that going to overcome the crisis that is looming?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I seem to not have given an adequate explanation. The idea of the legislation change that I announced on Tuesday was to make it easier for renewable projects, which typically have a larger footprint than non-renewable, to get consents.

Gerry Brownlee: Existing ones can’t.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member said “Existing ones can’t.” For example, Pohokura is consented. For example, the combined cycle gas turbine at Huntly is consented. These are not issues. The member would like them to be issues, but they are not.

Gerry Brownlee: They’re under appeal.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Of course they are under appeal. Most significant consents are under appeal. Most appeals are heard in a timely manner, and many appeals are declined or modified slightly. However, Gerry Brownlee’s comment that I gave a remarkable answer means that he has remarkably unclean ears. Let me do it again very straightforwardly—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister’s answer is already far too long. That comment was out of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I withdraw and apologise.

Gordon Copeland: Will the measures the Minister has now taken answer the basic question that New Zealand businesses want assurances on—that is, will there be an uninterrupted supply of electricity to satisfy demand at reasonable prices over the next 2 or 3 years, and on into the future?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is one of dozens of things the Government is doing to lead us towards exactly that future.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In view of the need to develop renewable energy somewhat faster than we thought because of the somewhat speedier depletion of Maui, does the Minister think that this measure, along with the project finance scheme, will be sufficient, or do we need more national-level measures to encourage renewable energy developments?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There is the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy; there is the work out of the Kyoto Protocol that the member refers to in the projects part thereof; there is the possibility of joint initiatives or other trading systems arising out of the Kyoto Protocol, especially as we approach 2008; and there is the change that this question is about. Together, they start to change the policy direction of this country, somewhat.

Question No. 7 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): It has been drawn to my attention that in answering question 7, I inadvertently misled the House when I said the panel leader’s work is also not checked. In fact, it is checked.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ): I seek leave to table the information that shows the increase in gang activities since Labour has been in power.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 12 February.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First will be monitoring the Government’s progress in asset testing closely, and will be bringing any lack of progress to the attention of the people of New Zealand. New Zealand First has been pushing for a law change for many years in this area, and we will continue to push on that front. The Labour-led Government let the elderly down in its last term by failing to deliver on its promise of removing asset testing for those elderly who need long-stay geriatric hospital care services. The Government has made these promises to get votes, not in one, but two elections, and now cannot afford to stall any longer. Action is required on these issues as soon as possible.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General): The Prime Minister’s statement to this House last Tuesday clearly demonstrated that this is a Government that has a clear economic and social programme for New Zealand to go into the 21st century. That programme understands that our well-being as a people and as a country is dependent upon fostering those uniquely New Zealand characteristics of fairness when dealing with others, equitable access to and distribution of resources of the country, and, of course, support and encouragement for those people who are prepared to have a go—or, as it is sometimes referred to in policy papers, innovation and risk-taking.

The statement also showed that this is a Government that does what it promises, and thereby provides people with confidence and security. New Zealanders know where they stand with this Government, and that is why they support it—unlike the National Party, which is yet to overcome its identity crisis and start acting like a political party. However, in fairness, I must note that Mr English did acknowledge that this is a hard-working, productive Government, and that it will be rewarded for its efforts with another term in Government, at least.

I also detected in Mr English’s speech what I understand the psychologists call transference—that is, he tried to make the argument that Labour is a tired, divided caucus searching for direction. When the evidence is clearly stacked against him on this matter, one must ask what he is really talking about. It is his own caucus, of course. I can tell him that wishing it on to the Labour caucus will not make the agonies of splits and divisions in the National caucus go away. It will only prolong them until the inevitable happens and there is a change of leader and the hard work of listening to New Zealanders with an open mind to form a policy begins inside the National Party. As one who lived through a period of divisiveness inside a Labour caucus, I can assure Mr English that, as always, he does not know what he is talking about. He is merely uttering his own fantasies, but that will not make them reality.

Although it is not the role of the Government to assist the Leader of the Opposition, in one respect I think it is important to do so. Mr English has suddenly become uncertain as to what is meant by citizenship and whether there is one standard of citizenship. I want to assure Mr English that there is only one standard of citizenship. If he is uncertain as to what that means, he should look at the Citizenship Act of 1977. Sections 6, 7, and 8 of that Act clearly set out what it means to be a New Zealand citizen. I shall not matronise the member by reading out the sections. However, it is clear that if a criterion is fulfilled through birth, descent, or grants, one gains New Zealand citizenship. Further, as Butterworth’s New Zealand Law Dictionary 5th Edition states, to be a citizen is to be a full member of a civil community who enjoys certain privileges in that community and is subject to certain obligations. It goes on to state that the status of New Zealand citizenship may be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act.

In a legal sense, the status of citizenship in reality attracts few rights and obligations, and they relate mainly to participation in the democratic process. As some members of this House are only too aware, to be a member one must be a citizen. However, to vote one needs to be a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident. Increasingly we find that people can now hold dual citizenship, which raises the question of what exactly is Mr English talking about when he talks of citizenship. If he wants to debate this issue—and we on this side of the House are very happy to engage in such a debate—then he should define his terms and stop shouting meaningless rhetorical slogans. I also remind the member that some of us treat these issues very seriously. We are aware of how important and precious it is to be able to participate in the democratic process and within the public life of this country. Labour members follow in the tradition of those who fought long and hard for the right to vote as individuals, regardless of what property we owned, and regardless of what our gender or race was. We take these issues seriously. Therefore, we are prepared to debate with those who obviously do not.

I want to take this opportunity also to congratulate the Prime Minister on that section in the statement that affirms the Government’s commitment to make available more information about the Treaty of Waitangi, so that we can have an informed debate. I can only endorse and agree with her statement that it is unfortunate that so many of us know so little about this aspect of our country’s history and how it relates to the nation we are building. As the Prime Minister noted, at a minimum the Treaty of Waitangi enables two peoples to coexist. At the maximum, it provided the basis for the building of a relationship of respect and recognition that can endure down through the generations. I believe that it was in that positive spirit that she said that we must continue to build our unique and special nation that is now the home to the peoples of many lands.

I fail to understand why, as a country and as a people, we do not celebrate the truly unique achievement of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is the envy of so many countries that seek to find ways to reconcile racial and cultural difference in ways of peaceful coexistence. As a country we were born not from conquest but through an agreement. While agreement, I know, does not always suit the temperament of those who wish to dominate others, this Government believes that the well-being of us all, as a people, depends on the reconciliation of difference, through the recognition that there are matters that bind us together as one people. That is the real stuff of citizenship. That is where the debate should be.

I have noted that some ACT members seem to find it amusing, or funny, that the document upon which this country was founded, by agreement—the treaty—should be still alive and well. I know they have trouble with their own corpses remaining dead, but I can assure them that in fact we believe, as a Government, that the treaty is a living document; it is relevant and it is meaningful, and those who wish to give meaning to that document, through their actions, will be those who will create the sort of country in which we can all be proud to live.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Normally when the House is nearing the close of a debate on a Prime Minister’s statement, we expect to hear a rallying call from the Opposition. We expect people to be getting excited, getting ready for a vote, and getting tense about a situation. We expect people to be in the House and ready to debate things. I, of course, will not breach conventions by saying who is not in the House, but I will say welcome to John Key; the member for Epsom, Richard Worth; Mr Sowry, and Mr Tisch. They are National Party people who are obviously not involved in whatever meetings are going on at the moment. I wonder what meetings are going on at the moment and what would be the subject of discussion. I could not believe that earlier in the week—I was absent from the House but I saw it on television—and so early in a term as leader, Mr Bill English conceded that he would be in Opposition again.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What did he say?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, he did not say he would be the Leader of the Opposition again. He said that this Government would be a three-term Government. He acknowledged that. Frankly, I feel a bit sad for him. I am not absolutely certain that Bill English really wants the job now. It is very clear from what one reads in the Southland papers, from the clippings over a period of time, that there is a very strong woman in Southland who wants him to be leader. I do not want to matronise him, or say that there is a matriarchal arrangement there, but it is not clear from looking at Bill English’s eyes whether he feels good, whether he feels strong, or whether he feels on top of even the job as Leader of the Opposition. I have never heard a party so openly saying: “We do not want to compete in the middle ground in New Zealand.” Just think about that statement. What does that mean for a party that was once a great party? What it is saying is that they feel they no longer have relevance to middle New Zealand, and cannot expect to get support. They want to move off to the right. They want to abandon the centre, and probably a bit of the centre-right, to the Labour Party. What does that mean? It means they cannot be in Government. They have given up. Maybe that is a realistic position.

If one looks at the talent on the front bench of the National Party one gets a bit worried. I can understand that. I made the point on the first day of Parliament this year that although two male members on the front bench of the National Party were wearing blue ties, four of them were wearing yellow. I do not want to overanalyse the situation and say there are deep psychological reasons that twice as many people on the front bench of the National Party were wearing yellow ties as were wearing blue ties, but I do get the impression that members opposite are more than a tad worried. Frankly, from a perspective of wanting to be a good Minister in a strong Government, I am getting slightly worried about the effect that that might have on the performance of this Government. A good Government needs a good Opposition. We need to have thorough questioning. We need to have proper debate. We need to have some insight into the activities of the Government, and we need people to be working hard on the other side, and focusing, and that just is not happening, frankly, apart from a few people in United Future who ask some questions, not always well guided but really with intensity and care. In terms of interrogation, I would much rather come to the House than go to my own caucus, because it is only in the caucus, and to an extent in Cabinet, that it appears that the thorough, in-depth discussion occurs with people who have thought about issues. As far as democracy is concerned and as far as strong Government is concerned, I think that that is a real pity.

I understand that over the Christmas holidays Mr Brownlee managed to burn off much of the support that he had for the leadership. He did not? I am not sure whether a member opposite said he did not—I do not know what to make of that. It is still my understanding that Mr Brownlee has burnt off much of his support, and what that means is that it is most likely that there will not be a full leadership challenge over the next few weeks. I would not go any further than that.

If I were in the National Party, I would look at a couple of things pretty carefully. I would ask: “Who, before Don Brash, had responsibility for policy development? Who was responsible for that shocking piece of work—the National Party manifesto—for the last election?”.

Darren Hughes: It wasn’t “Dippy Nick”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It was Nick Smith.

Jill Pettis: What about Annabel?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, Nick Smith was the person responsible for that policy. Although I am invited to by members here, I think it is probably not the best to go into the reasons that Nick Smith was the Minister in charge of the Budget that approved the money to Donna Awatere Huata and her family foundation.

Hon Ken Shirley: And Trevor Mallard increased it!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This member certainly did not increase it. The one thing I will say is that this member insisted on thorough evaluation of that programme. At some stage that evaluation will be released, and this member will ask some other questions. Did those members go to the fashion show?

Hon Ken Shirley: No.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That member did not. Richard Prebble did. He was one of the stars of the fashion show—and that sounds like a contradiction in terms. But Donna Awatere Huata paid for an ACT function—a fashion show in this Parliament—and that money has not been repaid. I want to know when will that money be repaid.

Hon Ken Shirley: You attended.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I did not attend that fashion show. I think it is outrageous that that sort of money—[Interruption] I think, as I indicated earlier, that it is probably better, because of knowledge I have, that I not go further with this. But I do want to say that, at some stage, people will focus on Nick Smith. They will ask whether it is appropriate to give $800,000-odd to Donna Awatere Huata in order to secure the ACT vote.

Darren Hughes: The ministry would have recommended it.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, my understanding is that the ministry first found out about it when it saw the Cabinet minute. There was no report.

Hon Ruth Dyson: No report to Nick Smith?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

Darren Hughes: The ministry must have recommended it.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I make it absolutely clear. It is very important that I, as the Minister of State Services, defend my officials in this matter.

David Benson-Pope: It was Nick Smith’s idea.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am not aware of whose idea it was, but I know that Nick Smith was the Minister of Education when money was taken out of a contestable fund for kids who could not read and was given to ACT in order to shore up their vote. It is just an outrage, and what it shows is something that in any other country would be called corruption.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): I start by moving an amendment to the motion that is before the House at the moment. I want to add the following words to the last amendment that was moved: “and that this House opposes the sale of shares in Air New Zealand by the Government to Qantas.” It will be very interesting to see how the Government’s very good friend, the United Future Party, decides to vote on that particular amendment. I predict now that, like every other vote that United Future casts in this House, and despite what it says outside the Chamber, it will fall back into line in the Chamber, roll over, and do exactly what the Government wants.

The speech from the Prime Minister, which opened this Parliament, lacked vision. There was nothing in it that will help the economy grow. The Prime Minister said that the speech would be boring, and it was—exceeding her own colleagues’ expectations. I have never in my time in Parliament seen so many Labour members of Parliament getting up to give speeches and saying “Well, you know, it was a boring speech, but I’m really happy with it being a boring speech.” That is what they said through gritted teeth. That is what they came to Parliament for. They came to Parliament for boringness, and they came to Parliament through boringness. Labour member after Labour member has stood up here and said that the speech was boring but that they were happy with a boring speech. I say to the Labour members that the nation is not happy with a boring speech. The nation wants some leadership. The nation wants some vision. The nation wants a political party that will go out there with a legislative agenda to make this country grow faster.

Nothing in the Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of this session showed that Labour members have any understanding of that, at all. Let us look at the legislative agenda. Here we are: Parliament has come back, and the Government has a chance to lay out its plan, its legislative programme, and what has it got? It has the Television New Zealand Bill. Well, we have been promised that for about 4 years. It has the Responsible Gambling Bill. That is the bill whereby the Government will take the pokie money off the hotel trusts that distribute it, and give it to other bodies—such as Lotto and, we understand, local government—to distribute. It is the bill that will, up and down the country, neuter sports clubs that rely on pokie money for equipment, travel assistance, and all sorts of other things. It is the bill that the Minister will not table the amendments for. But there will be more about that; that is the Government’s big bill. But it gets worse. There is the Racing Bill. That will make the country go faster! That will make us grow more! The Resource Management Amendment Bill is another bill that is on the legislative programme. Labour members have been talking about that for about 5 years, and they have not processed it, at all. I predict right now that they will not process that bill during this period. The Government even has the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) on its legislative agenda.

Pansy Wong: Which war?

Hon ROGER SOWRY: Yes—which war? Those are the sorts of visionary pieces of legislation that we got from the Prime Minister. What we did not get from the Prime Minister was the real agenda. What she did not refer to in the House, and what she will not talk about at the knowledge wave conference next week, is the agenda that Margaret Wilson so carefully laid out in a much underrated and under-reported speech just a couple of weeks ago. I refer to the agenda that talks about what Labour, with the help of United Future, is going to do to business. This is what Labour and United Future will vote to do to business. They will start by enacting pay equity legislation. That is the piece of legislation, which United Future will vote for, whereby some bureaucrat decides that someone sitting in the local racing office, for example, has worth equal to that of somebody who is working in another particular area of the economy and therefore should have pay equity. It is that sort of a bill; a bureaucratic nightmare, whereby bureaucrats decide the value of the worth of the labour in the marketplace. That is what Labour and United Future are voting for.

The Prime Minister did not talk about the holidays legislation, which Labour was not going to enact, at all. Weeks before the election, Labour promised, hand on heart, to the business community that it would not deal with that legislation during the next term, then all the Labour members traipsed into the House and voted for it just before Christmas. Now, Matt Robson is sending out newsletters to everybody, and saying: “That’s OK. Labour has voted for that. It will deal with it this year. We’re going to get the 4 weeks’ leave.” Labour members will not be saying that at the knowledge wave conference.

Margaret Wilson talked about adding sale-of-business provisions and contracting-out provisions to the Employment Relations Act. Those provisions are the ones that Labour took out of the bill after a barrage of opposition from business, but it will go back and sneak them in this year. Margaret Wilson laid that out in her programme, but the Prime Minister had her mind on loftier things, such as the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). Perhaps Margaret Wilson did not get the list of legislation to the Prime Minister in time for her to include in her speech, or perhaps the Prime Minister does not want to talk about legislation that is bad for business, just as she does not want to talk about treaty issues and education programmes. That is what I suspect. There was one speech from the Prime Minister, one speech to the business audience, and one speech from the rest of Cabinet to another audience.

It is a bit like the situation with the transport bill, currently before a select committee, that deals with public-private provision for the building of new roads in this country. The Prime Minister said that the Government would pass that legislation this year. The Minister of Transport, Paul Swain, and the Prime Minister are scurrying around, and saying to local government leaders and to business people: “Look, the bill won’t work. We know it won’t work.” I quote the Prime Minister. Last week, in a private meeting, she said: “I’ll be happy if you can convince the select committee to de-Green the bill.” Paul Swain is saying to mayors all over the country, because they are ringing up: “Please go hard with your submissions, because we have to control the Greens on this.” So they sneak around, bagging the Greens behind their backs, and saying something quite different. That is a bit like Labour members, up and down the country, who are outraged about the lack of roading in their districts. I have read that Labour members all over the country are going to make strong submissions to the Minister for extra roading funds. I can tell members that none of them will be successful.

Rod Donald: That’ll be right.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The Greens know that no Labour member will be successful. I can tell the Greens that Labour is out there shafting the Greens on the road transport bill all the way around the country, to the point where yesterday a large group came to see the National Party and said: “At the select committee, will you please vote with Labour to stymie the Greens.” I tell Labour members to come to us with a proposal, and we will see what happens then.

Hon Annette King: Who said that?

Hon ROGER SOWRY: Annette King sits there and chirps: “Who, who, who?” She should say inside the House the things that she says to the local government leaders in this region. She should say them inside the House where everyone can hear them. She should not say to local government leaders: “I’ll have a meeting with you, but I won’t have Roger Sowry in the room. If he comes into the room, we’re walking out.” Why is that? Because those members do not want to be held to account. Annette King does not want to be held to account. She wants to be able to say to the mayors: “I’m on your side. I agree. Paul and I want the Greens influenced. We want it taken down. Make a strong submission. We’re there.” She wants to say all that stuff in the safety of her own closet.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): Under Standing Order 343 I wish to make a personal explanation in respect of allegations made by Mr Trevor Mallard, the Minister of Education. Earlier in the afternoon the Minister of Education seriously questioned my integrity in respect of a Government decision in 1999 to fund a literacy recovery programme for disadvantaged children run by the Pipi Foundation. Under the Official Information Act I have sought copies of the briefing papers and Budget documents from that time to refresh my memory of the exact events.

It is of serious concern to me that Mr Mallard has refused me access to those papers. That has compromised my ability to respond to both his speech in the House today and to the allegations he made prior to Christmas. That sets a very unfortunate precedent about the ability of previous Ministers to answer questions about their own papers. However, I do wish to make the record clear with regard to my involvement in the decisions that led to the Budget decision in 1999 that made provision for the Pipi Foundation.

When I was appointed Minister of Education on 1 February 1999, the Budget process was well under way. There were about 50 individual bids involved in the process, including, of course, at that time, a disruptive secondary teacher pay round. Included in the proposals when I became Minister were a number of small grants and bids for non-Government organisation programmes, including the Pipi Foundation, the Pacific Foundation, Alan Duff’s Books in Homes trust, Project K, and E Tipu E Rea.

The Budget process for each of those bids was the same. At no time did Donna Awatere Huata, to my best recollection, directly raise with me the subject of funding for the Pipi Foundation. I do recall discussing with her the issue of literacy and the broader campaign to lift standards among disadvantaged Māori children. At no time did Mrs Awatere Huata threaten me, nor did I have any knowledge of her threatening to withdraw her vote to support the Government on the basis of funding for the Pipi Foundation. My decision to support the Budget bid for the Pipi Foundation, as with the other non-Government trusts, was on the merits of the proposal. I did not meet Mrs Awatere Huata about the Pipi Foundation, nor did I meet any other member of the Pipi Foundation trust. My support was based on a written proposal from the Pipi Foundation, and discussions with officials about that proposal. Yesterday I received a copy of ACT’s privileges complaint to the Speaker. It includes a most inappropriate letter from Mrs Awatere Huata to the then Minister of Finance, Bill Birch—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I caution the member that he is unable to refer to the privileges complaint.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I only refer to it in respect of a copy of the letter coming into my possession, and how that affects the allegations made by Mr Mallard. I want to make plain—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It should not be referred to on the floor of the House at all.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I never saw the letter sent to Mr Birch at that time, or knew that it existed. I have subsequently spoken to Mr Birch, who well recalls receiving it, and being very angry about the appropriateness of it. I did, in a telephone conversation with ACT deputy leader, Ken Shirley, indicate my enthusiasm for the Pipi Foundation programme. I expressed concern to Mr Shirley about the association of Mrs Awatere Huata with the Pipi Foundation, and that the trust needed to ensure that it was quite independent. I had similar discussions with Ministry of Education officials, and made plain that the Pipi Foundation should not be accorded any lesser accountability because of Mrs Awatere Huata’s status as a member of Parliament.

I do recall, later in the year at a regular meeting of ministry officials, that the matter of the Pipi Foundation was raised. Concerned was expressed by officials that undue pressure was being applied over a contract issue, with the implied threat that the foundation would use Mrs Awatere Huata’s position to overrule officials on those contractual issues. I assured officials that I would stand by them, and again stated that the Pipi Foundation should be treated no differently from any other organisation. It is noteworthy that officials later in the year, at the change of Government, did not draw to the new Minister’s attention any concern over the propriety of the funding contract with the Pipi Foundation. That certainly would have occurred if they had been concerned that I had acted inappropriately and that the funding was being allocated for political rather than genuine reasons.

I also note that this Government has increased the funding for the Pipi Foundation, which is quite inconsistent with the allegations made by Mr Mallard that the previous Government funded the Pipi Foundation for political reasons only. I wish to unequivocally state that my support for the Pipi Foundation’s reading programme was based solely on the merits of the programme. I am appalled at reports that money intended for assisting children’s learning has been hijacked for other purposes, such as fashion shows, private telephone accounts, unrelated business expenses, and personal operations.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is getting off the personal explanation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Those reports raised very serious questions about the standard in reporting of non-Government organisations, thus my strong support for the inquiry of the Auditor-General and the Serious Fraud Office. If Mrs Awatere Huata benefited financially in any way from that funding, then she brings her party and this House into disrepute.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. I caution the member. It is a personal explanation.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I have to tell Roger Sowry, who made the last speech in this debate, that absolutely no one mentions his name at any meeting that I have ever been at. In fact, if it was mentioned, people are likely to say “Roger who?”. I disabuse him of the fact that we all sit around worrying about little Roger. We do not. No one mentions him. He is a nonentity. However, it is ironic to listen to Roger Sowry’s amendment to the amendment moved by his leader. The h-word immediately came to mind, because the amendment that he moved was that we oppose the sale of Air New Zealand shares to Qantas. Was the National Party not the party that wanted to sell the whole airline to any foreign buyer who would buy it? I thought that was what it wanted. In fact, I am absolutely certain. There is a little bit of the old h-word that has crept into that amendment. Do members not feel sorry for Bill English? He could not even get his amendment right. He had to send in the water boy to move another part to the amendment to the amendment. I do feel sorry for poor old Bill English—the bewildered look on his face, the frightened eyes, the shuffling of the feet. It really brings out the mother hen in me. Day in, day out, he is under attack—and that is just by members of his own party.

Then we heard from the icon of the National Party, Dame Thea Muldoon. She said: “We have to make the best of what we’ve got. It’s not as if there’s anyone else there.” Well, the one thing I do know is that Dame Thea knows a pig’s ear when she sees one. Bill English is increasingly becoming a tragic figure. Perhaps he is Hamlet—“To be or not to be.” In Bill’s case, it is a matter of “To be for or to be against, that is the question.” He wonders every day whether he should stand the slings and arrows of Gerry Brownlee or take arms against him. He is still making up his mind. Or perhaps he is Richard III: “My kingdom for a horse.”, he says, “Or anything to get me out of where I am at.” Maybe he is King Lear, betrayed by those who claim to love him. What about Othello? People can make their own list in regard to the tragic figure that Bill English has become.

He has become tragic because he gets so many things wrong. As the New Zealand Herald stated this week, he takes one step forward and two steps back. He must feel like going down to the bottom of the garden and eating worms. He has been told that what he has to have is profile, profile, profile. He has been told to get out there and get himself noticed. The trouble is that nobody recognises him. We went to the Tuatapere sports day, as members heard yesterday in an excellent speech from Lianne Dalziel. Bill arrived in his sunhat, which was missing only the corks hanging around the bottom of it. The problem with the sunhat was that no one could recognise him. In fact, nobody knew he was at his own sports day in Tuatapere. I say to him that if he wants to be recognised, he should get rid of that sunhat and get himself one of those loyal New Zealand ones with a brim on the front. Maybe then he might stand out and be identified as being the leader of the National Party.

He decided at Christmas to have a go at a bit of publicity. He thought: “I was an old health Minister, so maybe I could get the spurs on again—“

Hon Ken Shirley: What?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, he thought: “I’ll put my spurs on, get back into the saddle, and put out a statement on health.” The only trouble was, he got it wrong, yet again. He put out a statement saying that the new primary health organisations were going to provide 9-minute consultations. This is a man who prides himself on being a very successful Minister of Health. No one can remember what he did, but he thinks he was very successful. He also prides himself on the fact that he has a wonderful relationship with the Pacific Island community. So in his endeavour to make a name for himself at Christmas he tried to use the Pacific people to make a splash. He said that the new primary health organisation in south Auckland, a Pacific primary health organisation, was to provide 9-minute consultations.

Well, first, it backfired, because he got it wrong. Second, credible people like Dr Debbie Ryan and Dr Siro Fuatai said he had got it wrong. Third, the facts proved he had got it wrong. Dr Fuatai, who is the chair of one of the first primary health organisations in New Zealand, said this about the new primary health organisation: that they had now started to make the sort of real difference to the lives in south Auckland that he would have liked to make years ago. If Bill English was such a friend of the Pacific people, why did he not make an effort to reduce the cost of primary health-care for thousands of New Zealanders?

Dr Fuatai said: “We now have access to extra resources in terms of staff and time, and this has given us the stability to do the work for our people.” We are doing it, not talking about it, as Bill English is. Dr Fuatai went on to say: “The whole nature of patients’ consultation has changed. We spend longer with patients. People are now coming to us, not because they are necessarily sick, but to talk about how to prevent themselves becoming sick.” He said that the three practices were now seeing 20 percent more patients a day since they became a primary health organisation in July 2002. He said that one of the reasons people were coming was that consultation was free for children, and $5 or nothing for people on low incomes.

He said that reducing the price had helped people. We know that the cost of primary health-care is a barrier to people going to their local health professional, and we have decided that we will make a major effort in the next 3 years to reduce the cost of primary health-care to New Zealanders. If John Key were to arrive in his local hospital to have his hip replaced, he would have it done for free, regardless of the fact that he is a millionaire. He would have his hip replacement done free in a public hospital. But if he were to go to his local doctor because he needed some health care, he would pay top dollar, but so would every New Zealander who earns over $19,980. I do not know whether Mr Key could live on $19,980 a year, but that is the level of the community services card.

And what has the National Party said? It has said that it would scrap our primary health-care strategy and keep the community services card. They will keep that card and keep access to doctors and nurses in New Zealand for the very, very poor; whereas, we say that every New Zealander should have access to affordable primary health-care to ensure that they keep themselves as well as possible.

This is a major initiative by this Government. We have put in the money to provide for it. There has been no commitment by the National Party. In its health policy for the last election, primary health-care was not even mentioned. It did not get even a line. It could not care a hoot about primary health-care. We do, and the money has gone into it.

I want to share with this House this graph, with its very good colours. I say to Mr Key to look at the blue line. That represents the money the National Party put into health. The red part of the graph shows what Labour has put into health over the last 3 years. One dollar in every $5 now goes into health care in New Zealand. It has never been higher. In 1998-99, health as a percentage of Government expenditure was 18.3 percent. Today it is 21 percent. There has been no commitment by any Opposition party to put that amount of money into health.

As I said, we now have 21 percent of our total expenditure going to health. It was $6.5 billion in 1998-99, it is $8.8 billion this year, and going up to $9.3 billion next year. That is a real commitment to health. Over this next 3 years we will see real improvements in primary health-care—the access to it, the affordability of it for those who will be able and want to get primary health-care. We will see real action continuing on waiting lists in New Zealand. We will see real money being spent on mental health services. Since about 1996 the expenditure on mental health has almost doubled. We are in good shape in New Zealand by any international standards.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): Immediately after the last election the Wairarapa Times-Age advised its readers that the election result was a humiliating rout of historic proportions for National; that it was a massacre. The Dominion Post stated that it was a disaster and dismal. The New Zealand Herald reported that the National Party was woefully unprepared and gutless. Wayne Mapp said that it was a drubbing. The National Business Review, not particularly known as the vanguard of the revolution, stated: “The question is not why the vote splintered and people refused to vote National. No, the question is why 21 percent of the voters decided to vote National at all.”

But what did the members of the National Party say about the election? Annabel Young said: ``With an environment that looks like something out of Ally McBeal but without the good looks, no wonder they came up with a crappy strategy. The whole committee”—and she is referring to the National Party strategy committee—“needs to be chopped in the wake of Saturday, of course, but Murray McCully has now lost three elections in a row. Surely he needs to find more important things to be concentrating on.”

Belinda Vernon said, in much more measured tones: “The result is a hangover from National’s last term in Parliament with New Zealand First as a coalition partner. Other factors include the time it’s taken to settle into Opposition, a recent period of change with new leader, Bill English, and new president, Michelle Boag, and the campaign spotlighting Mr English instead of including his experienced caucus.’’, which, by the way, implies an inexperienced leader. So on it went. Wayne Mapp said: “I believe that the principal reason our vote collapsed was that we failed to have a coherent set of policies for middle New Zealand.” Maurice Williamson said that National had suffered a cataclysmic defeat. He said: “It’s not just a drop or a big drop, it is a collapse, and the person who is at the top of an organisation”—and here he was referring to Michelle Boag—“has to accept that responsibility.” Richard Worth said: “I don’t see it as a burden representing Epsom, though it will definitely be a challenge to lift National’s popularity.’’ An unnamed senior National MP said: “We suffered from an acute relevance deficit.”

That was the election of last July. What we now have in Parliament is a National Party that simply cannot run itself. Immediately after the election Bill English asked out loud whether the party should receive votes when it had not demonstrated an ability to run itself. He said: “When we can show we can run ourselves, people are much more likely to believe we can run the country. At this last election they didn’t think we could run ourselves. I am the leader, so I am responsible.”

What has happened in the 6 months since that historic defeat? There has been no defeat like it in the history of the New Zealand political system involving a centre-right party. The party called the National Party still cannot run itself and the symptoms are both public and obvious, and subtle and less obvious. The public ones are the public divisions—the Brownlee articles, the Williamson utterances, the demoting of Georgina te Heuheu, and so on. The private ones are more interesting. The media statements have no coherence to them. There is clearly no checking mechanism before they go out. National Party members are riding freely over one another’s policies. Wayne Mapp has something to say about almost anything, and certainly Mr Brownlee has, but so have Don Brash and Maurice Williamson. They have more than one public position on any matter. They have many positions on most matters. Even on basic stuff, like how we manage the treaty partnership, we have the leader of the National Party doing a really serious flip-flop between—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Every day!

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, every day, but certainly if we take a look at it over the months we can see a leader who has moved from a position of basically saying: “I’ve studied the demography of our country. I’ve seen the future and it’s brown. We need to be there.” That is the position that the National Party leader has ordinarily taken. That is the position whereby he has stood up and been counted as someone who is looking forward.

Over the summer we then had the extraordinary intellectual dishonesty of remarkable bits of research being done—some of it by Mr English himself no doubt, but others by Simon Upton, and so on. There has been some quite interesting research and studying of the nature of New Zealand in 1840 and how it changed through 1860, and so on. But we then have, in the speeches coming out, the intellectual dishonesty of just drawing a bunch of one-liners and drawing a bunch of conclusions that have no intellectual rigour to them at all. That is really worrying. The leader of the National Party is an important figure in New Zealand politics and for that to happen, after all that research, leads me to the view that so long as he has done the research he can convince himself that he does not really worry what he says. In other words, the research has been done and the conclusions are known by the Leader of the Opposition to be junk, but he will parade them, anyway. That is really concerning.

Even today, the deputy leader of the National Party coming up with an amendment to the amendment to the amendment is an example, yet again, of a National Party that has nowhere to go.

David Benson-Pope: Well, most of them have gone somewhere.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Most of them have gone somewhere. The leader spends most weekends, one imagines, rifling through filing cabinets looking for a philosophy, because there is not one. National members have taken a remarkable position over the summer. They have said the way back to being a popular, large political party is to become an extreme right-wing party. That is a remarkable strategy. It is one that will not work, they know it will not work, but they have done it by mistake because they had to do something. They do not know how to run themselves. They have not worked out what their philosophy is. It is very serious for the National Party. It is very serious for Bill English. It is very serious back in his electorate.

I know the electorate quite well; we campaigned hard in it. We went to Gore, we went to the largest town, Balclutha, and we went to lots of little towns, like Winton, Clinton, Hinton, and so on. We went to Ohai and Nightcaps—and David Benson-Pope advises that he won the occasional pool game. But if members look at the results in the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate, they would have expected Labour to win Ohai and the Kaitangata booths, and to be cleaned up everywhere else. Not so. Labour won Milton, Riverton, and the largest town in the electorate, Balclutha. Labour won it on the electorate vote! Lesley Soper beat Bill English. That is not all. After the election, Bill English closed his electorate office in Balclutha. The Leader of the Opposition closed his electorate office in the main town of his electorate. I do not know why he did it, but it is remarkable. Then this year, in January, the Leader of the Opposition started running advertisements in his own newspaper, advertising for National Party members in that blue-ribbon seat.

Here is the problem the National Party has. Its next election is not about running the country. Its next election is about coming home first amongst the Opposition parties. National needs to beat ACT and New Zealand First—and it needs to beat them well—otherwise it is finished. National Party members know that, so they have the problem of pretending to speak to the country. Actually, they are interested in getting more than their fair share—about 50 seats. That is about the sum of it. That is a desperate position to be in. The problem is, they are not doing too well at it. In the latest poll, Bill English is no longer the second-highest scoring, preferred Prime Minister. Of course Helen Clark is first, by a country mile. But Bill English is not second—Winston Peters is. So the slide continues. It seems to me that it is not yet clear where it will stop, and it will not be resolved by a change of leadership. Simon Power is too young, Don Brash is too old, Roger Sowry is called Napoleon and nobody likes him, and Gerry Brownlee is a bit like a large cattle beast amongst the crockery, so there is not really any option for the National Party but to stick with Bill English, at least in the meantime. That is a remarkable position to be in, and I am glad I am not a member of that party.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): We expect, in the debate following the Prime Minister’s statement, that Ministers, particularly senior Ministers, will talk about a programme and a strategy. That is the purpose of the Prime Minister’s statement at the commencement of each year. What did we hear from the Minister of Energy, who has just left the Chamber? Not a whisper, not a murmur. He did not talk about the energy crisis that is looming in this country. We know that the Maui field is to be exhausted earlier than we previously thought. How many members realise what happened to the spot electricity price just a few weeks back? It went from the normal 6c per kilowatt hour to $93 per kilowatt hour. Whole industries in New Zealand, like Kinleith and Kawerau, the basis of our economy, were forced to close down.

I predict here and now that by mid-winter this year New Zealand will be deep in an energy crisis. That Minister, who had the opportunity at the start of this Parliament to talk about energy, which he is responsible for, did not mention one word about the looming crisis. Why? Because he is doing absolutely nothing. He is sitting on his hands, dragging his feet, and refusing to address the key issues confronting the energy sector.

It is well known that the ACT party had serious misgivings about National’s electricity reforms. We believe that Max Bradford and the National Party got it wrong. We strongly believe in the market, but the model and the path that they went down was not the optimal one. But this Government has compounded those problems. This Government has nationalised the industry, and we now have monopolies with State-owned enterprises on a regional basis. And those State-owned “gentailers”—because they control the generation and the retail, they are called “gentailers”—are price gouging. They are playing the market and taking opportunities on the crisis that we have, to extort our major key industries.

Minister Pete Hodgkin is doing nothing about that. He is happy to see State monopolies, because that is his philosophy. Labour members love State monopolies, and all those profits are now pouring into their coffers so they can throw them away on all sorts of spurious Government spending. They should be addressing the basic infrastructure of energy that is the key to the success of this country, and they are failing to do so.

I turn to the issue of Iraq because, again, ACT is the only party that is clearly saying we should be standing beside our traditional allies, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Increasingly, the nations of Europe are coming in behind that coalition of the willing—Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Italy. There are seven others in total, apart from the UK. The only key exceptions are France and Germany.

Let us look at the German situation. Germany, under Gerhard Schroeder is in chaos. It is heading for economic ruin in a very unstable coalition Government with the Greens. Gerhard Schroeder campaigned in the last election late last year that even if the UN passed another resolution, Germany would not support armed intervention in Iraq. Why? He was competing with the Greens. He was trying to outdo the Greens. Who is the Foreign Minister of Germany? It is Fischer, who is a Green. So it is pretty clear where they are coming from.

While on the one hand the Greens of the world say that they champion the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to stop the horizontal and vertical spread of nuclear weapons, together with all weapons of mass destruction, when it comes to doing something about it and taking action against rogue States, those Greens are not prepared to do a thing—other than to go off and be human shields. We have the co-leader of the Greens, Rod Donald, wearing his badge here in Parliament, but he is not prepared to stand up and enforce the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. They love the treaty, but when it is flouted by rogue States like North Korea and Iraq, they will do nothing about it.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): I thank Ken Shirley for the free advertisement, and I have some more good news for the House, as well. Let us face it; it is time we had some on a day when petrol prices continue to climb because of bully-boy Bush’s threatening behaviour, dairy farmers are losing another 10c a kilo on top of the $1.60 drop from last year’s high, with all the consequences that will have for the economy, and manufacturers are starting to shed jobs—50 alone at G L Bowron and Co. Ltd in Christchurch today—because of our overvalued dollar. The good news is that the quickest way to restore New Zealand’s dollar to a comfortable level, would be for the Government to adopt the Green Party’s economic policies. Members do not have to believe me; that is what Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen said yesterday at the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting. He was not serious, but I took his comment as a compliment. That is because the Green Party’s economic strategy is focused on sustainability, self-reliance, and social justice. We are not interested in pursuing the policies of the current or previous Governments that have caused growing income inequality, the squandering of natural resources, and subservience to corporate globalisation.

Dr Cullen in his speech yesterday dismissed the Greens as a “loony tunes” party, but whose policies are really the loony ones? What sane, sensible person would throw more than a billion dollars at the overseas sharemarket at a time of major volatility? We warned the Government, but it went ahead anyway, losing over $200 million of public servants’ retirement savings in the process, and severely reducing the income of the Government Superannuation Fund. Apparently, the Government still wants to do the same thing with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. If Dr Cullen had put his first $600 million on the Dow-Jones index, and the FTSE 100 index in July 2001, it would now be worth $326 million. No one can convince me that that is a smart way to save for retirement.

What about the Singapore trade agreement? That is something else the Government trumpeted. New Zealand’s trade deficit with Singapore jumped from $24 million before the deal was signed, to $220 million in the first year. Last year it was a further $207 million. If members think that is bad, they should try China. Thanks to successive Governments reducing tariffs on clothing, footwear, and textiles, not only have thousands of jobs been destroyed in New Zealand, but our trade deficit with China has ballooned to over $1.16 billion. If we put it all together, we have a sorry saga of trade deficits for 7 out of the last 8 years. The $2.3 billion downturn in the last 2 years will be small beer compared with the impact of the high Kiwi dollar when it really kicks in. The only saving grace is that the sell-off of New Zealand’s land and businesses to foreigners may slow down, but a slice of heaven in Aotearoa is still cheap—still very cheap. What is more, the Government’s determination to flog us off overseas, highlighted by this week’s so-called investment regatta, is all designed to encourage even more wealthy foreigners to turn our productive farms, our unique coastlines, and our offshore islands into safe, South Pacific hideaways. Well, we have an answer to that problem. We should ban outright the sale of New Zealand land to foreign-based individuals and corporations.

I will be putting a bill in the members’ ballot to do exactly that, but I fear that I may be too late. One of the demands the Government has received under the current GATT round at the World Trade Organization is for the Overseas Investment Commission to be scrapped. In other words, the few protections that we have are under threat.

That is not all that is under threat. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is all about letting corporate capitalists get their hands on public services. The Government claims that it is not about to trade away the protections currently in place, but how can we believe it when it has asked other countries to do exactly what it says it will not do itself? And how will we know what the Government is planning to offer at the World Trade Organization when it will not make it public, let alone give Parliament the opportunity to debate it?

Yesterday the Minster of Finance was asked to tackle the problem of child poverty. Despite 30 percent of New Zealand’s children living below the poverty line, despite the Government running substantial surpluses, and despite Dr Cullen planning to put aside $2 billion a year for our retirement, he refused to respond positively to the calls from organisations such as the National Council of Women of New Zealand, Presbyterian Support Services, the Downtown Community Ministry (Wellington), Barnardos New Zealand, Child Poverty Action Group, and the United Nations Children’s Fund to invest in our young people. When I asked those groups whether they thought an operating surplus was real when there is still child poverty in New Zealand, they all said “No”.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): In the debate over the last couple of days in the House I have heard my colleagues such as Pete Hodgson refer to the fact that in Bill English’s electorate, Lesley Soper, his Labour opponent, won every booth but one in the last election, and that Bill English straight after the election closed off his electorate office in Balclutha. That is extraordinary—talk about a bad loser. He packed up his electorate office, and then started advertising for some help. It was help needed desperately by Bill English in his own electorate, for people to join the National Party. I have heard my colleagues Lianne Dalziel and Annette King refer to their “day of fun” in Tuatapere—if that is not an oxymoron. They had a fantastic day at the annual gala in Tuatapere, and they had the pleasure of introducing the current Leader of the National Party, Bill English, to his constituents, none of whom recognised him. That is a pretty sad indictment on somebody who has represented that proud town of Tuatapere for many years.

Despite all those instances, and despite the fact that in his very first opportunity to make a mark in Parliament for this coming year, Bill English, as described in his own paper, the Southland Times, was “battling not Helen Clark, but semantics”. It stated: “Semantics were no match for Mr English. Just to be on the safe side, he shot himself in the foot, and then put the foot in his mouth.” That summed it up extraordinarily well. That is Bill English’s local newspaper. That is what they said about their local MP. “Just to be on the safe side, he shot himself in the foot, and then put the foot in his mouth.”

Despite all those very clear signs of a man in tragic trouble, I agree with Trevor Mallard. I think that the likelihood of Gerry Brownlee becoming the leader in the next little while has considerably diminished, and I will tell members why. The plan was very clearly exposed in the Press, our local newspaper in Christchurch, on Monday, under the headline: “Williamson backs Brownlee”. If that is not the kiss of death for Gerry Brownlee in his future leadership aspirations, I do not know what is. But I do not think that Maurice Williamson has ever done anything without thinking about it and giving it a lot of consideration. It is my view that he has now gone back on Bill English’s side, because he knows that Gerry Brownlee cannot do it and he knows that the path is now opening up for him.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes, I think it’s him.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I think it will be him, because the others are clearly not up to it. But the time will come when hopefully Maurice Williamson will be rewarded for the contribution he has made to the great once-proud National Party, particularly over recent times. He was the only member of Parliament prepared to stand up for what National Party members throughout the country, both of them, were saying about the party president, and for that he was treated in a totally unacceptable manner. He was put way down the back of the Chamber. We cannot even see Mr Williamson from where we sit over here. He is so far down the back of the Chamber. All the contribution he made in the past to the National Party, including being a Cabinet Minister of very high regard, was just ignored. No wonder Bill English is in trouble.

I would like to say a couple of things about my own portfolios, in the minutes I have left. I begin by thanking Helen Clark for giving me the honour of taking over the role of the senior citizens portfolio from the previous Minister, Lianne Dalziel. Not only is it an honour to have the advocacy Minister portfolio on behalf of all senior citizens in New Zealand, but also it is a great privilege and a challenge to follow in the footsteps of Lianne Dalziel. I want to give her well-deserved praise for her fantastic advocacy on behalf of all senior citizens in New Zealand. I hope that Lianne Dalziel is in a position to be able to hear this praise.

What I hear from Grey Power members throughout the country is that until the day Lianne Dalziel was elected and appointed as Minister for Senior Citizens, they did not know they had one. For the previous 9 years they had had nothing at all from the National Government. They did not even know who the previous Minister was. I happened to know, but they did not even know who he was. Lianne Dalziel has set very high standards in the last 3 years. She has set high standards in an area that clearly this Government sees as an advocacy ministry. It is based on respect for older people. It is based on valuing older people. It is based on ensuring that the issues of special concern to all our senior citizens are raised directly around the Cabinet table, and listened to.

I will be very pleased to carry on the excellent work that Lianne Dalziel has done on their behalf. I certainly hope I enjoy it as much as she has over the last 3 years. I know that she was not enthusiastic about moving away from that portfolio; one does get attached to advocacy work in that way. I pay justified tribute to the work she has done, and I hope that in 3 years’ time—or 6 years’ time, because Bill English certainly has indicated that we will have another term—I will be able to hand the portfolio on to another Minister who will be as enthusiastic about it.

I turn to one of my other portfolio areas, accident compensation. On 1 February we enshrined the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights in our legislation, with its release. That was a very satisfying day for me. The Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights is as important in the spirit of its delivery as it is in the legislation itself. It is about accident compensation being fair, and, clearly, that is anathema to people like the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He used National’s opportunity in Government to move accident compensation in exactly the opposite direction, without restoring the right to sue, which by the time we came into Government was a clear call. We have said no to the right to sue, but we have said that the fairness that was enshrined in the original legislation, now had to be reintroduced into accident compensation—fairness in the administration, fairness in the application of the legislation, and fairness in the method of dealing with accident compensation claimants. That includes a proactive response in raising issues that the Accident Compensation Corporation should be supportive of. I am delighted to see that code now enacted from 1 February.

I have another new portfolio, Minister of Women’s Affairs, which I took over from the middle of August last year. This week in Greymouth I attended the first consultation meeting on an action plan for New Zealand women. It took some considerable time to get to the area, unfortunately, because Hokitika airport was fogged in as my plane was trying to land. I do not hold Damien O’Connor responsible for that, but I do hold him responsible for the enthusiasm I saw all around the West Coast There was enthusiasm for the disability issues that I talk to people about, and certainly at the meeting to which I just referred, there was enthusiasm from women from Greymouth and surrounding rural areas for the activity that this Government is undertaking on their behalf. There was also very strong support for the local member of Parliament, Damien O’Connor, and I am not surprised about that, at all.

We now have over 50 meetings planned for throughout the country where women of all ages and from all regions can have a say in the development of an action plan for New Zealand women. It is over a decade and a half since this sort of work was done, because women were ignored by the previous National Government, as were most New Zealanders, to the shame, I must say, of some women members of Parliament at the time. Georgina te Heuheu rightly hangs her head. She struggled as Minister of Women’s Affairs to raise issues of concern. She got no support from her colleagues. I know that and I want to pay tribute to her for at least attempting to get some issues raised on behalf of women. Well done, I say to Mrs te Heuheu. I acknowledge her attempt, unsuccessful though it clearly was.

I look forward to those meetings, and, obviously, as Minister for Disability Issues, I was very pleased to have tabled in Parliament the most recent report on the implementation of the disability strategy. That is an area that is going to receive continued focus over the next 3 years, because there are disability issues in New Zealand that have been ignored for decades and will not be ignored in the future by our Government. We set out a clear 3-year programme over the last term. We have done the same for this term for disability issues. Our priorities are employment, education, and improving the attitudes of New Zealand citizens towards people with disabilities. We want to make a world of difference by our action. We want to have an inclusive society. I look forward to being part of a Government that continues its steady progress towards that end.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): What was absent from that Minister’s speech was any vision of the future of New Zealand, and any accountability or explanation to the old people who were defrauded when they were told that legislation to remove asset testing would be introduced last year. That Minister was silent on the sorts of issues that ordinary New Zealanders are asking about.

I want to support the leader of the National Party, who has rightly put on the political agenda for the year 2003 the issue of the sickly political correctness of this Government on what the treaty means for ordinary New Zealanders. Government members opposite are so confused about what they are doing in that area that they do not want to debate it. Yet the way in which the treaty is being applied is changing the fabric of the country.

I want to raise with this House my concern about what is occurring in education. On Monday I visited the new early learning centre at Christchurch Polytechnic. It is a shocker. Members have to see it to believe it. In the name of the treaty and biculturalism, the taxpayer has funded New Zealand’s first apartheid pre-school. [Interruption] I invite the members who are howling to visit it and see what is going on. It is a monument to political correctness gone wrong. The new centre—[Interruption] I ask Mr Donnelly, because he has been to see it.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I have heard a lot about it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me tell the member about it. The new centre has been built in two mirror halves, with a central core that includes the entrance, the administration area, meeting room, and staff room. That is all shared. It seems it is OK for Māori and non-Māori staff to share space in the staffroom, but not OK for children to share space. Children are drafted at the entrance, with Tamariki going to the left; other children to the right. It is not just the learning spaces that are separate; the children are fenced off from each other in the playing areas. The sleeping areas are separate. The toilets and changing rooms are also separate. During a normal day, Māori and non-Māori children will see each other only on arrival and departure. I know that apartheid is an emotional term, but it is the only term to describe such madness. This centre is licensed to care for and educate up to 85 children, from newborn babies to 5-year-olds. I cringe at the message that we are giving young minds for the most influential 5 years of their lives, and for their first encounter with the State education system.

The Māori wing of the centre—Te Waka Huruhurumanu ki Otautahi—provides a bilingual programme. The non-Māori childcare centre also has a strong Māori component. The irony is that the 30 percent Asian and 70 percent Pākehā children get to sing Māori songs, learn Māori greetings, but are fenced off from being able to play with Māori children only a few metres away. I asked the centre why it was that way. I asked why Asian children were integrated with those of European descent, whereas the Māori children were segregated. I was told that it was because of the treaty and the polytechnic’s commitment to biculturalism. What does the treaty say that means that children are to be segregated from birth? The centre seems to represent the exact opposite of those immortal words spoken on 6 February, 1840: “ He iwi tahi tātou”. The reason that National is pressuring the Government about the treaty is that this is the exact sort of nonsense that will go on when Ministers parrot words like “biculturalism”, “partnership”, and “tino rangatiratanga” without the blindest idea of what the words mean. I stand on this side of the House and say that I do not want apartheid pre-schools. I do not want children to be divided by race.

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has used inappropriate language. The member used the word “apartheid” when, obviously, he does not understand it in its appropriate context.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was not a point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The most emotional experience I had last year was visiting the apartheid museum in South Africa.

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The behaviour of the speaker is highly offensive, and it should not be allowed in the House. If we are not allowed to use the word “racist”, he should not be allowed to use the word “apartheid”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, what is it when they separate the kids?

Hon Tariana Turia: It is not apartheid.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Point of order—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am just ruling on a point of order. The honourable member referred to an apartheid museum. Is that correct?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Correct.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not using the word in an offensive way.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When I visited that apartheid museum in Johannesburg last year, never in my worst dreams did I think I would see the same thing going on in this country—and in Christchurch. It makes me feel sick that that is the sort of society that Labour wants for New Zealand. I make no apologies for standing on this side of the House and saying that that is not the sort of New Zealand I want. I have young children going to pre-school centres today, and I want them to live in a society where they go alongside Māori students, where they learn Māori welcomes, where they learn Māori songs, and where they are proud to have friendships with Māori children. The policies of this Government are preventing that sort of approach. What members opposite do not seem to understand is that good race relations start in pre-school, start in our classrooms, and move out onto the playing fields. They want to segregate those areas. It is ironic that members opposite—those left-wingers who stood on the barricades protesting at apartheid only two decades ago—now want to fund apartheid pre-schools in our own dear country.

Helen Duncan: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to protest against the use of the word “apartheid” on the grounds that the member talked about Government policy and then about apartheid. The commonly held meaning of apartheid is a regime of government that enshrines racial segregation in law. That is not the case in this country, and I object to the word being used in that way. It is contrary to order in this House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term cannot be used to describe the Government.

Rod Donald: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just spoken to Ali Hughes, the associate registrar at Christchurch Polytechnic, and she has assured me that children of any ethnicity can enrol at either childcare centre. One is an immersion centre, and the other is the old polytechnic crèche.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is actually a point of debate, Mr Donald. We can take time to clarify that question in the debate.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had a succession of pointless interjections by various Labour Party members that you ruled not to be points of order. None of those members were under the control of the senior Government whip, who sat there and blindly let it happen. That was followed up by another point of order, which you ruled as not a point of order. All of that time, including this time now—which I seek a redress for—is coming off this debate time. It affects other speakers from other parties further down the line. I seek the leave of this House that all of the time that has been lost be added on to the debate, so that the speeches of no other members are disadvantaged. That includes Labour members who have yet to come forward.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: But the member has sought leave for that. Is there any objection? There is.

Ron Mark: You prat!

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is out of order, Mr Mark.

Ron Mark: What is?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Commenting after the leave was refused. It was properly asked for and properly refused.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have faced six points of order in the course of this speech, all of which you have ruled out. On a number of occasions speakers have said that where there has been a deliberate breaking up of a member’s speech, we should properly allow for that member to express his or her point of view in this Parliament. I ask you to take the precedents that have been set by Speakers in the past to ensure that my speech is not further interrupted by inappropriate points of order, and that I am given the time that is being taken up by those interjections and breaks in my speech, which you have ruled out of order.

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has been misleading the House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot say that. The member needs to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Tariana Turia: I withdraw and apologise.

Ron Mark: I note from the speaking list that the very person who will be affected by a reduction in speech time as a result of the points of order that you have ruled out of order, and which will bite into the 14 hours allocated, is a Labour speaker. I seek the leave of the House that that Labour speaker will be permitted to have a full 10-minute speech.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Standing Orders clearly state 14 hours. That is what we are continuing with.

Ron Mark: I have sought the leave of the House, and you are obligated to seek the leave that I have asked for.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have sought the leave of the House, and it has been refused.

Ron Mark: Just now? I did not hear you put it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, I will put it again. Leave is sought by Ron Mark to extend the time. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge those members to go and visit the centre. At the door they point “children” one way and “tamariki” the other. The children do not have any contact time at any point during the course of the day. I again challenge those left-wing members opposite—who were proud to stand on the barricades opposing apartheid 20 years ago, who were part of the civil rights movement that in the 1960s tried to bus children so that they could be integrated together—to say why in God’s name we are building pre-schools that today separate Māori from other children. I say that is wrong. I say that it is not appropriate, and that there needs to be a different approach. [Interruption]

At least Tariana Turia is honest. I give her credit for the fact that she is prepared to be honest and say that she favours segregation. At least I can have an honest debate with Tariana Turia about that sort of separatist approach. I have to say from this side of the House that that is not the future I want for New Zealand.

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like the member to withdraw and apologise. I have never advocated separatism in this country.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence. There should not be any more personal reflections like that. Would the member please withdraw the comment he made about advocating separatism.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am unclear. I said that I respected the opinions honestly expressed by Tariana Turia in respect of that matter. Therefore, I am unclear as to what I have said that requires me to withdraw and apologise. I have said nothing that is outside of the Standing Orders.

John Carter: The Hon Dr Nick Smith has made a statement that referred to the Hon Tariana Turia. If she believes that it is inaccurate, her redress is to make a personal explanation to the House at an appropriate time. It is a debating point, and Dr Smith is entitled to make a statement, even if it might not be factually correct. If necessary, a personal explanation can then be made. This is starting to bite into my speaking time.

David Benson-Pope: My colleague Tariana Turia clearly stated that she had taken offence at the comments that were made. You made a ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and directed the member to withdraw. He has yet to do so, and that is clearly in breach of the Standing Orders. I ask you to ask him to obey the directive from the Chair.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to make my position plain, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I sought was an explanation from yourself as to what comment it was that you required me to withdraw. I make the point that this afternoon Labour Minister Trevor Mallard spent 5 minutes bagging my name and saying all sorts of things that were incorrect. I made a personal explanation, and that is the proper course of action. I suggest to Tariana Turia that in relation to the comments that I have made, there are provisions under the Standing Orders that enable her to make a personal explanation at the conclusion of my speech—just as I did earlier.

Mark Peck: The matter, in my view, is very simple indeed. You have made a ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the member opposite is challenging that ruling, which has become a habit of Opposition members during this term of Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, your ruling must be upheld. The member must apologise. If he still has a point, he can take a fresh point of order after that. He most certainly has no right to challenge your ruling in the way that he has done.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the Hon Nick Smith to withdraw. You will now withdraw.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am happy to withdraw, but you need to tell me what it is you wish me to withdraw.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have already indicated that offence was taken by another member at the language the member used. Offence was taken, I ruled in that way, and I now ask the member to withdraw.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am befuddled, but I withdraw.

David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a clear breach of the Standing Orders of this House. You know, and the member knows, that when a member is asked to withdraw, he or she does so without any additional comment of any kind.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member does know that. Would the member like to withdraw.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw. Is it not interesting that members opposite are so determined to stop a debate on just what they are doing to New Zealand with their political correctness over the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a disgrace. I ask the next Government speaker to justify why $880,000 of public money has gone to build an apartheid pre-school in Christchurch where Māori children are separated from non-Māori children. I want to make it plain that this side of the House does not support that sort of approach to education in New Zealand. I ask members opposite what sort of signal we are sending children as they walk in the door and, from the ages of 0 to 5 years, are separated out. What sort of message are we sending those children about their first experience with the State education system in the first 5 years of their education? That is not the sort of approach I want for New Zealand. It is a disgrace, and I want it changed.

I have two challenges this afternoon. First, I challenge Christchurch Polytechnic to reintegrate that early learning centre. One might be able to justify a separate area for the learning of the Māori language, but why do we need to separate Māori children from other children when they sleep? Why do they need to have separate sleeping areas?

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a record of comments by a Mr Kevin Richards, of Drummond, in the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate. After attending Waitangi Day celebrations, he said he hoped that others with racist feelings or anger might see his story and start to question their own hatred.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

MARK PECK: I seek leave to table a leaked letter to Mr Kevin Richards, in which I invited him to join my party on the marae after he contacted my office to tell me that he was going to protest.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

MARK PECK: Thirdly, I seek leave to table a media release, in which I congratulated Mr Kevin Richards for confronting his anger and dealing with it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that letter to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I seek leave to table a set of background notes on the Christchurch Polytechnic early learning centre, including a plan of its layout.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): The Government certainly finds itself in an extraordinary position at the beginning of another year, and only three months into its second term. Over the last 3 years we have had extraordinarily strong leadership, which has been welcomed by the community, and the stable Government that New Zealanders want. That is why we have such a firm platform on which to build. In the last 6 months the new Government has made significant progress in delivering the commitments we made at election time.

We have improved access to primary health-care, and that has been for us a top priority, because we know it is better to prevent illness and tackle health problems early, rather than concentrate on secondary and tertiary services in the first instance. Already the primary health organisations are providing a range of primary health-care services to over 500,000 New Zealanders. The majority are therefore guaranteed lower costs and assured of access to comprehensive and coordinated primary health-care. A further 25 primary health organisations will start by 1 April, and by then it is estimated that 1.4 million New Zealanders will be enrolled in those organisations. What a great achievement! I congratulate my colleague Annette King on such progress.

We have a growing economy. There has been an increase in activity of 3.9 percent in the year ended September—so more people are in real jobs. There are almost 15,500 fewer people on the main unemployment benefit than there were a year ago—

Ron Mark: What amount is casual labour?

DAVID BENSON-POPE: I tell Mr Mark there are almost 120,000 more jobs than there were in December 1999. In addition, yesterday those extraordinary unemployment figures from the household labour force survey were released. They are the best figures in more than 15 years. Unemployment is continuing to trend down across all sectors, and is now at an extraordinarily pleasing 4.9 percent. That is great news for all New Zealanders.

This Government has assured victims a fairer deal. The Victims’ Rights Act, passed in October 2002, gives victims the mandatory rights they have long deserved. We have cut the cost of tertiary education, committing $420 million over 4 years in that area. If we had not halted the fee increases of the 1990s, students would be paying, on average, $1,000 more a year and facing further increases this year. We have made major progress on Māori television. That is a key element for the enrichment of the cultural fabric of this country, and we should all welcome its arrival. In the compulsory education sector, we are funding more than 700 teaching positions over and above what would have been required for roll growth alone, and we will continue to invest in increased teacher numbers. We are strengthening and expanding opportunities for people to learn in the workplace. By the end of the year, we will have 6,000 young people in Modern Apprenticeships—an increase of 100 percent since the middle of last year. On the environmental front, we have ratified, at long last, the Kyoto Protocol, to start making some positive improvements in the long-term health of this planet.

This Government will continue to provide stability and strong leadership. We know that there is no reason for complacency or self-satisfaction. We have set ourselves tough goals, and we are going to achieve them over the next 3 years and into the long-term future. Our aim—an aim that is supported by the New Zealand community—is to build and sustain solid levels of economic growth, and to fund good public services for all New Zealanders. We have well and truly rejected the discredited directions of the 1990s—the direction that the sad people on the opposing benches seem to want to reintroduce.

Ron Mark: What happened in 1984? Were you asleep?

DAVID BENSON-POPE: We will continue to work to offer more opportunity and security, and a better quality of life for all New Zealanders—even Ron Mark.

Compare that with the performance of the lazy, leaderless lot opposite. The most telling indication for me is the almost total absence of National Party members from the Chamber over the last 3 days. We have seen sometimes three, often two, frequently only one person, or a whip, on the National Party benches. It appears that they have already given up to New Zealand First their claimed role as the prime party of Opposition. Many in the media and around Wellington are now referring to the National Party as “absent without leave”, perhaps even “missing in action”—as my colleague Trevor Mallard commented earlier. I know I cannot name them, but I welcome the presence of the three members of the National Party who have deigned to come into the debating chamber this afternoon. The best those people can do is compliment the Government by referring to us as a three-term Government, and confirm that most powerful criticism of all—that we have done what we said we would do. Thanks, Mr English. For us, it doesn’t get any better than that!

What else is there? Let us look at ACT, with its schemes and scams. We know about Owen Jennings and his pyramid schemes; Rodney Hide with his mysterious dealings in Fiji, and now it appears that there are rather more pressing concerns closer to home. Ken “Kangaroo Court” Shirley has been accused of defamation by the West Coast police.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Members are to be referred to by their names and not by all sorts of innuendo.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. The member will use the proper name.

DAVID BENSON-POPE: Ken Shirley was accused by the West Coast police of defamation. Not one of those members is without a dark cloud somewhere, and, unlike most dark clouds, there is no silver lining to be seen. The community is finally seeing ACT and its new supporters for the political cockroaches they are.

New Zealanders are delighted that Mr Prebble’s little house of cards is finally tumbling down. Let us focus for a moment on Mr Prebble. The presenter of Morning Report of Tuesday this week said: “The ACT leader, Richard Prebble, says that as far as he is concerned, Mrs Awatere Huata’s days as an ACT MP end today.” In his own speak, Richard Prebble said: “Well, using the British parliamentary example we are withdrawing the whip, and we are saying to Parliament that Donna Awatere Huata is not an ACT MP, and we are not prepared to vote her. In our system, that will mean that we will be voting eight instead of nine MPs.” Mr Prebble continued: “As far as I am concerned, the principle is that we are not prepared to vote her, because she has not met the standards required of ACT MPs.”

From the behaviour of the members of that party, they are not very high standards, but that quote came from the self-imposed master of the rules. He wrote to the Speaker at the same time as the suspension, knowing full well that the decisive suspension has no effect in terms of the Standing Orders. Mr Prebble cannot have it both ways. Either Mrs Huata is an ACT member, or she is not. Can we reconcile Mr Prebble’s words to Parliament stating that Donna Awatere Huata is not an ACT MP, and they are not prepared to vote for her? Can we reconcile those words with Mr Prebble’s cynical manipulation of the Standing Orders? No, we cannot. So which way does it run? Do we assume, like everything else from ACT, that it is really about keeping one’s hands on as much of the money as one can, and making sure those nameless backers of the ACT party out in the darkness get their way in this society?

What else is there at the bottom of the bucket? Well, there is poor benighted New Zealand First. The dog legislation, and its godfather! He is not in the House. We in this House have all noticed that in the absence of its leader, Winston Peters, that party has neither policy nor any knowledge about what to do. And poor benighted Dail Jones gets it oh so wrong. Without Mr Jones and Mr Prebble, that legislation would have already been with a select committee. Without those members, that select committee could already have been inviting public submissions. Without those members playing their stupid games, the community could already be having their say about the development of policy and law in this Government. They have not got it yet! Why do we enjoy such support in the polls? Why do 20 percent of committed National voters prefer Helen Clark over their own leader? Why is 60 percent of the population and 71 percent of business convinced that this country is proceeding in the right direction? Because we consult, listen to the community, and do what we tell the community we will do.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, voters in Clutha have not missed the significance of the closure of Mr English’s electorate office. I think they are telling Mr English that it is time for him to find a post office and line up in Dr Brash’s queue.

RON MARK (NZ First): Might I say, firstly, that it is good to be back. I congratulate all members on having a safe Christmas. I am looking forward to the rest of this year.

Having just heard that rather interesting contribution from the senior Government whip, a member who sits on a salary higher than most members in this House receive, I now do not understand one reason for taxpayers paying him anything. The first thing I want to say to him is that if he feels seriously, strongly, and passionately about an issue, then he should come down to the House and talk about it. Obviously someone else wrote his speech for him, because he had to read the whole thing out. If he had something serious to say, something he seriously believes in, then he would have stood in the House like some of the great orators who have gone before him in time, such as David Lange, to name one, and just spoken from the floor. But, oh, no, what did we see? The man stood up and read word for word off his speech. That tells me he knows nothing about the things of which he speaks.

So let us talk about this Government. Over the holiday period, we all witnessed the events in Iraq as they unfolded—[Interruption] Sometimes one really has to worry about the well-being of some people who sit in those seats. That lady should take a pill. Over the Christmas holiday much of our time was occupied in watching the events unfold in Iraq and the Gulf. All members in this House have had to exercise not only their minds but also their consciences as to where they sit on this issue. I have noted the Government’s comments. I have also noted the fact that we have service personnel deployed in the Gulf of Oman already, and that they are setting about doing their duties in terms of supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. I will be watching with interest to see how this Government handles any further deployments.

My greatest concern, and I will signal it now, as we head into what could become known in history as the Third World War—because there are very few nations that are not now engaged in some way—is that there be a debate in this House. I expect, and indeed the taxpayers, the citizens, and the voters of this country will demand, that that occur before this Government commits its service personnel to any further involvement in that region. So far we have not had debate. We have skived around the issue by saying that it is an extension of an operation that we were already engaged in in Afghanistan. Well, I can accept that to a point. But the point is here now, and any further involvement that this Government commits this country to in respect of actions in the Gulf I expect to be debated on the floor of this House.

Jill Pettis: As we always do!

RON MARK: No, I say to Jill Pettis, the junior whip, who is more highly paid than most other MPs in this House, the House did not debate the deployment to the Gulf of Oman. Do not sit here and lie to me—

Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

RON MARK: Oh, that got him on his feet!

Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you can anticipate my point of order. That is an outrageous breach of the Standing Orders, and I think that the member should withdraw and apologise.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member accused the other member of telling a lie. The member will stand up and withdraw.

RON MARK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, the member will stand up—

RON MARK: Are you going to bully me into this without listening to an explanation?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. I have clearly ruled on the matter. The member will stand up and withdraw the remark about—

RON MARK: I withdraw.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have told the member to withdraw the remark.

RON MARK: I withdraw the remark. That member over there said, in her own words, that this Government has debated every military deployment it has instigated. That did not happen with the deployment to the Gulf of Oman. How would members interpret her comment? I know how everybody in New Zealand who is listening would interpret it, and I know how I interpret it, but I am not permitted to say so in this House. That would seem to be somewhat bizarre, but we shall move on. The point, I say to Jill Pettis, is that I expect a debate in this House before the Government deploys any troops to any action in Iraq. We expect that, and so does New Zealand. The member should wake up.

Over the next few months there will be closer scrutiny on a number of areas of the Government’s portfolios, because the Government has shown that it is incapable of acting in certain areas. I point to the corrections portfolio, for a start. Before the House rose and we went into the Christmas break, the select committee was advised that the cost of the Ngawha prison would be $105 million. Today we read in the newspapers that Ngawha will top $132 million. In my book, either the Minister of Corrections should get the sack, or the head of the Department of Corrections should get the sack, because I know Helen Clark, and she always utters the truth. She said there would be new levels of accountability in this Government. Not only do we still have the ongoing issues of Ngawha that the people of Northland are protesting about, which is their democratic right, but also we have a very simple issue of accountability. And how big are we around this Chamber on chasing issues of accountability? Eighty-nine dollars worth of underpants kept the Labour Opposition Party going for years! Yet here we have a Budget blowout of $100 million, and no one is fired.

There are people in Northland who would say, and one would have to forgive them: “It’s probably because the Pākehās are running it, eh?”. One would have to take that on the chin. From where they sit, when their concerns are being ignored, and they see these sorts of numbers coming in, one could forgive them for saying that. But all we know is that it is simple incompetence. It is not racism; it is incompetence. It is incompetence by the Government because it has allowed the situation to get to that stage; it is incompetence by the Minister because he has done nothing about it, and still does nothing; and it is incompetence by the head of that department, who probably is paid more than the Prime Minister, because of creating such a disaster in the first place.

The corrections problems do not just sit there, do they, Tariana Turia? The honourable Minister over there knows of the issues inside of corrections that have yet to be addressed in terms of the way it runs itself. I am looking across this House for support.

Darren Hughes: So conciliatory.

RON MARK: Young Daryl Hughes can scoff, but behind him sits a Minister with far more experience, knowledge, and information at her fingertips than that junior member will ever have, no matter how much he might aspire.

There are issues to deal with in corrections. We can look in the Christchurch-Canterbury prisons, can we not? We need to look at the goon squad. We need to look at all the decisions. We need to look at the death of an inmate that the coroner said was contributed to by the actions of corrections staff and management. What have we done? Absolutely nothing! A young man is dead, because he was given a day out to visit a woman who is known for dispensing drugs illegally. She has since been convicted of giving him the drugs that ended his life. What have we done? Nothing! This House is sick to death of hearing Labour members, and, I have to say, Progressive Coalition members, out on the hustings saying all the things they want to do to people. “Poor inmates”—yet when it came to the goon squad, when it came to Canterbury prisons, and when it came to that young man, nothing was done. He is dead. His parents grieve. His family grieve. The only reason he is dead is that he was allowed back into prison. He was not searched. He used the drugs he was given on a little day outing that was not properly supervised, and he overdosed. Oh, brilliant! Well done, corrections! And well done the Government, which has not acted to clean up what is going on inside corrections. I can name about five or six members on the Government benches who know precisely of what I speak.

We can do this the hard way, or we can do it the easy way. The Government can take control of it, sort it out, and work with its own members who know what is going on, or we will do it the hard way. The hard way is through the media—it is “kick down, get out, drag it out, do it bad and dirty”. And who wins? Really, nobody wins. I would much rather see the Government members who know what is going on inside corrections bring the issue to a head and then we deal with it as a Parliament and in a way that Helen Clark said she would with her new levels of accountability. Well, it ain’t happening! It has not happened for 3 years. We are out to 4 years, and my heart is telling me that if it is left to this Government it might not happen.

I am looking at a very eminent lawyer—I cannot think of his name—who is sitting in the ranks over there. He is well known for standing up for and protecting prisoners’ rights. I expect more from that man. We have heard a lot about how Māori are doing so well economically. Is it not a shame that the Kyoto agreement and the Climate Change Response Bill will now impact so heavily on Māori corporations that are trying to develop their economic well-being? What have I heard out of any one Māori MP on those benches? Zip, zero, nothing, zilch! And that is right at a time when we are going to see a downturn, as announced by Fonterra, in the payouts to those corporations. But, of course, we will hear the rantings around the House about how Māori should do more for himself. The Kyoto agreement and the Climate Change Response Bill will do nothing for their farms.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): Helen Clark’s statement to Parliament outlined the progress that had been made, and will be made, by the Labour-Progressive Government. I am not surprised that an unimaginative National Party put a motion of no confidence. I was surprised that the Green Party, since Green members vote as part of the 63 votes that give a majority to the left in this Parliament, would fall into line with National on that. Confidence has been rising in the Labour - Progressive Government because of the dramatic improvement in our economic development and social well-being.

The last speaker made reference to the area of corrections. That is one example of a dramatic growth in confidence in the way the Government looks after the well-being of our people. Today, a sentence under the new Sentencing Act was given for a particularly heinous crime. A serious offender who is in the category of needing to be separated from the public for, possibly, the rest of his life has been sentenced. That Act was passed to deal with the few dangerous offenders. It also pointed the way towards dealing with the sad many who fill up our prisons and mental institutions. This Government is acting on both sides. There is a lot that has been done and there is a lot to be done for public safety, but this Government is committed to doing it.

Many speakers on the Government side of the House have outlined the achievements of the Government, but it is worth repeating a number of them. First, there is a dramatic drop in unemployment, which means there has been a dramatic increase in jobs. The basis of that has been the planning and commitment to investing in New Zealand and to developing our regions. My leader, the leader of the Progressive party—which is a partner in the coalition Government—Jim Anderton, has played a very big role in that. That is not only because of his own ability—he undoubtedly has a lot of that—but is also because he has been part of a programme committed to using the resources of the Government and putting them back alongside the community. Now, we have 15,500 fewer people unemployed than a year ago, and 123,000 more jobs than in December 1999.

In community safety and care for the public, we have passed the Victims Rights Act, and we have made sure that there is a balance between what we are doing with offenders, what we are doing for victims, and what we are doing with early intervention. We have increased teaching positions, and dealt with the issues of assisting those students who are in tertiary education to have lower fees and certainty regarding the fee structure they will have. Six thousand Modern Apprenticeships will now come on stream this year. In environmental matters the Kyoto Protocol, despite the huffing and puffing of the Opposition, is in place and is putting us at the forefront of the world of dealing with those issues—as has the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, by putting in such a comprehensive set of guidelines. The Progressives are proud to be part of that set of achievements.

Of course, we want to go further than that. We entered the election with a set of cornerstone commitments. Those were to move towards full employment and to have free education and health care, support of families that leaves no one behind, strong, safe communities, and investment in New Zealand. Each of those will be discussed in the Budget round, and we will seek to move as quickly as possible on their implementation.

In particular, we are concerned with taking effective steps to eliminate poverty over all areas, and especially child poverty. Poverty takes many forms, and is often not recognised for what it is. Poverty exists in the family that struggles to make ends meet. In this Budget round, and in ministerial policy debates, we will discuss the following: setting a timetable to eliminate child poverty, prioritisation of spending on poverty issues, reviewing all Government spending for its impact on children, supporting more inter-departmental and inter-agency approaches, increasing Family Start and early intervention programmes, and complying with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yesterday, Michael Cullen advised the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as reported in the Dominion Post, that his priorities were “a big rise in family support payments and incentives to get beneficiaries into paid work … because many children in low-income families underperform at school because they move houses and thus schools frequently.” Such steps are what the Progressives are working for, to attack poverty at its roots.

The Prime Minister in her statement referred to the Labour - Progressive Coalition agreement to promote work and life balance policies. As part of that balance, the Progressives have introduced my Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. We want the substantial part of the lower-paid workforce that is deprived of the leave entitlement that management—and members of Parliament—give themselves to gain that increased quality time of rest and recreation with family and friends. We are hopeful that other parties will act on that issue of equity and will support the measure. With the trade union movement and community organisations, we will campaign for that balance between work and life.

International events also confront us. We face the most serious question of all for a nation: the threat of war. The Progressives stand unequivocally, as part of the Government, for the principles of international law. That means working in the United Nations for the rule of law, not the policy of might is right. As Helen Clark said in her statement, the New Zealand Government, like most governments, has sought to uphold the principles of multilateralism, the international rule of law, and the authority of the Security Council throughout the crisis. The people of Iraq deserve that protection and respect. It is possible to stop, by weight of world opinion, the United States launching that war, which is a war it wants in order to advance its political, economic, and strategic interests. The last time that the United States initiated a regime change in Iraq was in 1968, when it installed Saddam Hussein. It was not a good idea then, and it is not a good idea now. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do I not have a 1-minute bell?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The speech was over 5 minutes.

Hon MATT ROBSON: My apologies.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): In my view, three points arise in the context of the Prime Minister’s speech—not because she addressed them, but for the reverse reason: she did not address them. The first is that the economic and social advancement of Māori is critical to New Zealand’s future growth, prosperity, and well-being. The second point is that the Māori economy is poised for expansion and growth. The third is that all governments have a clear responsibility to create a framework that enables individuals and communities to flourish and grow and, in doing so, to build a nation together. Māori are most certainly included in that third point.

On the first point, the economic and social advancement of Māori, this Government uses words that suggest it understands that, but its actions show that it does not. No nation can afford to carry a significant chunk of its population that is underachieving, is welfare-bound, and has little prospect of improving its condition. Māori are a big part of that chunk, but that chunk of people also includes other New Zealanders. This Government, for all the effort it supposedly puts into the Māori community, has shown that it is not capable of understanding the importance of advancing Māori economic and social well-being. We still have near to 400,000 people on welfare. A fair number of those are Māori. There is an unacceptable rate of illiteracy. Fourteen percent of all those about to enter the workforce cannot read or write. A lot of those are Māori.

Some communities are facing epidemics of preventable diseases such as diabetes and obesity, and in some drug and alcohol abuse is rife. Parts of our communities have substandard housing. One in three children are living in poverty. The Government likes to boast that it has brought down the rate of unemployment. The rate of general unemployment is running at around 4 percent, but the rate of Māori unemployment still sits at 11.5 percent. That is not acceptable, and that does not match the words of this Government.

That is what I mean when I say that the Government is great on words, but short on action. None of those issues are being addressed. The Prime Minister can boast about the relationship building with Māori communities that has been going on for the last 3½ years, but political relationship building and hui, no matter who convenes them, are not addressing those basic problems, at all. That is not good for Māori or for New Zealand. New Zealand suffers when Māori economic and social well-being is not advanced. This Government has no answers on the issues I have raised.

My second point is that the Māori economy is poised for expansion and growth, and, while the Minister of Māori Affairs likes to boast about that as though he had a part to play in it, I say it has happened despite this Government. Much of the growth and expansion in the Māori economy occurred in the 1990s, and that was acknowledged in a report launched by the Minister of Māori Affairs last week. It will be a case of shame on this Government if that growth and expansion does not occur. Māori collectively own assets and businesses that produce $1.9 billion each year. That demonstrates the capacity of Māori, when they are given the right environment—and they were given the right environment in the 1990s—to grow, to develop their assets, and to create wealth for this country. It also gives lie to the myth that Māori are a drag on the economy. They are not—not in respect of the business enterprises they are running. The drag comes in when the Government keeps Māori tied into dependency and does little to address some of the basic issues facing our families.

I refer to a recent speech given by Rob McLeod, the senior Māori businessman who is now chair of the Business Roundtable. He refers to—in fact, he laments—this Government’s anti-business and anti-growth policies. That comes from a man who, for much of his career, has been involved in business and has participated in growing businesses. So he has some grounds on which to lament the anti-growth policies of this Government. His conclusion, after a survey that was done by the New Zealand Herald at the end of last year, is that New Zealand’s growth will not go anywhere unless this Government gets off its behind and starts to promote policies that actually support and enhance business development and enterprise. Māori business is included in that, and it will be a case of shame on this Government if the growth and expansion that is poised to occur in the Māori economy does not occur.

The third point I referred to is that the Government has a clear responsibility to create a framework that enables individuals and communities to flourish and grow, and, in doing so, to build a nation together. Part of building a nation together is that we take everybody with us and, if Māori communities and individuals require that extra resourcing and funding be put into those communities, then that is done with the support of the wider community because it benefits the wider community to support such policies. However, this Government wants to keep the Māori vote, and it is now looking at a party, New Zealand First, that is quite capable of capturing that vote—

David Benson-Pope: Aw!

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Actually, that is true. Why did John Tamihere get stuck into that Māori group in New Zealand First yesterday? It was because that group poses a threat to the Māori vote that is now currently held by a Government that treats that vote in a condescending, patronising manner. It is shameful that the Government does that.

This Government advances Māori interests in a way that turns the community off. In terms of capacity, in the 1990s National promoted treaty settlements and policies that advanced Māori health, education, and such. We brought the New Zealand public along with us and showed there was a clear balance to be struck. This Government has no idea of that balance. The reason is that this Government is for getting the Māori vote, and says to heck with anybody who gets in the way of that aim. Māori are most certainly included in the nation-building exercise. In respect of their own assets, they have shown that they are as capable of helping to create wealth for our country as the next person. This Government will have to answer to the Māori people if it gets in the way of nation building that brings Māori, Pākehā, and all other interests along.

I go back to my three points. The economic and social advancement of Māori is critical to this nation. The Māori economy is poised to grow and expand, and this Government ought to be creating a framework that enables the nation to grow. It is doing none of those things, and it does not understand any of them. The Prime Minister’s speech was short on any vision that addressed those matters. The Labour Party will suffer at the next election, when New Zealand First grabs more of the Māori vote.

MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ko tōku nei tū tuatahi, he mihi aroha atu ki a rātou rā e piupiu ai te rau o te kawakawa, mai i te wā e whaka kapi mai tēnei pouwhare o te motu nei, tae noa mai ki te whakatūwhera anō i tēnei wā i roto, i runga i ngā rā e rua.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Firstly, I stand to pay a tribute of sadness to all those who passed away in the period that this illustrious House has been in recess, up to the time it re-opened 2 days ago.]

I stand here today proud to be a member of a Government that demonstrates both stability and strong leadership. I ask that honourable member not to go away, as I want to comment on and analyse what she said. All that I can say is encapsulated in a phrase, which is that I thought it was a dance of verbal desperation. We understand that Georgina te Heuheu, the only Māori member on the National bench, is over there as part of that party. In a way, I say aroha atu mātou ki a koe. [we pity you] I am pleased to be part of a Labour - Progressive Coalition Government that is committed to the well-being of all New Zealanders, and that recognises little people and gives voice to the voiceless. It is a Government that is prepared to ensure that the democratic processes and procedures enable all its citizens to participate in and to contribute to their communities if they so wish, and is a Government that is prepared to look at the structural impediments to that and remove them if necessary, or, alternatively, to create more liberating and participatory institutions and systems.

Once again, we have been reminded by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, of the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi and of the importance of having a well-educated, informed, and knowledgable public that can participate in informed discourse and debate. I look forward to that. During the time I have been here in the House I have listened to uninformed and ill-informed debate from a member who was once the whip of the New Zealand First Party, and who made some disparaging remarks about our two whips, who will be here for the whole term. Treaty education is essential to the smooth running of our society. We cannot continue to be subjected to the emotive and ill-informed rantings of the current temporary captain of the National Party. He is a man who, in an act of counter-transference, appears to be holding the Treaty of Waitangi responsible for the division and the disunity within his own party. It is little wonder that our people are getting browned off.

I have just learnt that the temporary captain of the National team has talents that were previously unrecognised. I suppose in some societies they call it the third eye, but in our society we call it the gift of matakite, which means the ability to foresee. For example, Bill English has stated that this coalition Government is a three-term Government, although the election is at least 30 months away. On the other hand, which leader of a party concedes defeat before a contest takes place? Does that mean my interpretation should be that quitters never win and winners never quit, but that those who never win and never quit are idiots? Is that how I should interpret that? Sitting around and lying in wait are a number of heavyweight wannabe captains, who must be girding their loins in glee and anticipation. The Rt Hon Winston Peters’ smile has a gloss more brilliant than his normal glow of confidence. It has been demonstrated that the leader of the Opposition could have damaged himself as he attempted to gerrymander a caucus vote, to enable him to box his way out of a paper bag that has enveloped him—a big brown paper bag that is also known to pack a punch.

We have been subjected to the brain-damaged bleatings of the leader of the remnants of the National Party, who describes any attempt to redress inequity or injustice as apartheid. His use of that word is inappropriate. That does not bother him; he is more interested in appealing to the insecure and the ill-informed, and in strengthening his very tenuous hold on his captaincy. What a sad commentary it is on us as politicians that people have to appeal—and I suggest members over there on the Opposition benches listen to this—to base human instincts, in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

Bill English seems to have forgotten that it was a previous National Government that supported the establishment of kōhanga reo, when our people identified a solution to a need. Was that an act of apartheid? No, it was not. It was a recognition, underfunded though it was, by that Government of a need to support a solution to a problem identified by Māori. It was support of a “for Māori, by Māori” initiative—an initiative that we in this Labour - Progressive Coalition Government continue to support because of its positive outcomes and its demonstration that people are able to meet their own needs. The support for kōhanga reo continues to be the recognition of tangata whenua world views, policy systems, and practices.

The Māori world is tired of the myth of privilege that has been peddled around by members of this House every time that a Māori initiative is supported. Where is the privilege in having disproportionately high rates of unemployment, school failure, poor housing, poor health, and incarceration? If those are indicators of privilege, then I am sure our people will give up those privileges for the burden of full employment, academic success, adequate housing, good health, and freedom from incarceration. That myth of privilege is what indigenous people like the Australian Aboriginals, the Hawaiians, and the First Nation peoples of America and throughout the world have always had to endure—that is, all peoples who have been colonised.

I now turn to the contribution that Māori have made to our economy. A recently published report by Te Puni Kōkiri and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research identified the benefits of the Māori economy to the New Zealand economy. It stated that Māori production contributes $1.9 billion per year, and about $826 million in operating surpluses. But are we complacent about that? Absolutely, no way!

Finally, I refer to something that I saw on television from the very astute constitutional lawyer, Mai Chen. She stated that this Government has been upfront and totally transparent in putting its policy initiatives before Aotearoa, to be monitored and evaluated in terms of its progress. That takes heaps of courage, good teamwork, and good team support from the members of this Government. What do they have over there in the Opposition? Those things have all disappeared. The Opposition members have no fresh ideas, no leadership, and no future. Kia ora mai tātou.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): Twenty-seven years ago the then Labour Government led New Zealand into a dark tunnel. It asked New Zealanders to trust it to lead the way through the tunnel and out the other side, and New Zealanders gave it that trust. The tunnel I am referring to is the redressing of the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi over 150 years, and the development of a New Zealand society that gives appropriate contemporary recognition to the relationship that was formed between Māori and non-Māori in 1840. Most New Zealanders know and accept that immediately following the signing of the treaty the Crown reneged on its obligations. Not only that, but it suppressed tikanga Māori and te reo Māori, forcing Māori to conform to the inherited British culture. Acts of Parliament were passed stripping Māori of their lands, their identity, and their mana. Māori lost much of their self-esteem, and the social statistics over the last 150 years graphically evidence that repression.

An often overlooked consequence of those actions is that non-Māori New Zealanders became accustomed to living in a society developed entirely from British culture—dominated by non-Māori, where Māori, in general, had little material wealth and even less socio-economic status—which ignored the rights of Māori that the Crown, as signatory to the treaty, had promised to protect.

During the 1990s in particular, the National Government decided to its credit to continue to address the difficult issue of putting right the wrongs perpetrated against Māori and to move New Zealand ahead as a unified nation. It moved away from the colonialist attitude of its predecessor Governments. However, 27 years later we are still in the dark tunnel. The Labour Government is leading our nation, seemingly promising us that as we address the wrongs done against Māori a new society will emerge at some unknown time in the future, in which Māori will attend their rightful place, whatever that might be.

But just what is Labour’s vision for this new society? What do they think New Zealand will look like in 10, 20, or 50 years’ time? If they have any such vision, why will the Prime Minister not share it with the rest of New Zealand? The answer is that Labour does not know where it is going. It apparently cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel, and is wandering in the darkness asking New Zealanders to simply trust it, even though it is blind.

The Prime Minister in her speech referred to the Government “continuing its partnerships with Māoridom”. Labour’s manifesto refers to its “strengthening its relationship with Māori as treaty partner”. But what of this partnership? Is this a 50-50 partnership? Are Māori and non-Māori to have an equal say in the government of the country and everything below it? Is that what the Labour Party envisages? If so, it is time it told the country; if not, what sort of partnership proportions are we talking about?

The Government is giving mixed signals. On the one hand it is increasingly legislating for compulsory Māori consultation on a wide range of issues. That points towards some sort of 50-50 partnership. On the other, it seeks to marginalise Māori, passing a bill allowing for Māori seats in local government that will effectively mean that Māori have a mere 15 percent representation on local authorities, and that once their 15 percent voice has spoken, the other 85 percent of non-Māori elected representatives will use their vast majority to make the decision. That would suggest an 85-15 partnership, based on population size. Is that what the Labour Government means by partnership?

The National Party, having started off down the tunnel, has now decided that it no longer wants to follow Labour through the tunnel. It has decided to go back to the beginning of the tunnel, to go back to the colonial past, where the predominantly non-Māori government dominated Māori affairs, and Māori had to simply fit in with what the Government decided was best for the whole of New Zealand. Any concept of working together with Māori or embracing Māori culture has gone out of the window.

The fact that National has only made such a dramatic policy U-turn to differentiate itself from Labour makes its pragmatic policy experiment reprehensible. National promotes policies that would again repress Māori and count the treaty as simply a historical document with no significance in modern New Zealand. I predict that as a result of National’s new position we will this year see the rise of an extremely divisive and highly charged debate that will set New Zealanders against each other in a highly destructive way. The flame had already begun. National has just poured petrol on the fire.

New Zealanders are becoming tired of being led through the tunnel with no end in sight. If they could only be shown the light. If they could only be shown that the credible endeavours of this Government to bring Māori up to the same living standards as non-Māori, and to redress the grievances, was being done with all urgency and that there is a clear commitment that in 10-15 years time the grievances would be behind us, the Māori statistical indices would equate to the average New Zealand indices, and we could move forward as a unified nation again—Māori and non-Māori together. That is the vision that New Zealand asks for this year, but it is a vision that the Labour Government is unable to deliver.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I am very pleased to join this debate following the Prime Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister’s statement was an excellent statement to the country and the House. It set out this Government’s plans for the future, and our future is to build and sustain solid levels of economic growth, and to fund good public services and infrastructure sustainably. This is a debate where the Government expects to get bit of a towelling, but it did not happen. There is no firepower at all in the Opposition. The Opposition is fractured—

Rod Donald: My apologies to the honourable member. I seek to table something that I think she will find very interesting. It is a press release that has just been issued by the Christchurch Polytechnic headed: “Comments on apartheid pre-school are abhorrent and misinformed”. I seek leave to table that.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

JILL PETTIS: I am happy to have a press statement such as that tabled during my comments. I am sure I will endorse and support every word that is contained within it.

As I said, the Government expects to get a bit of a towelling during debates such as this, but it did not happen.

I want to devote a short time to talking about what is actually happening to the Opposition in this country. Good government needs good opposition. First of all, I want to talk about the ACT party. For years that party has turned around and portrayed itself as the party of business. Well, it has quite a lot of business experience, but that business experience does not necessarily mean that it equates with the type of business the rest of New Zealand respects. We have Mr Eckhoff who wanted to farm Kiwis. We have Owen Jennings who was an expert at pyramid selling. Perhaps he is headed for Egypt as I speak. We have Mrs Awatere Huata who is greatly into fashion show chaperoning—the type of chaperoning one wants when one does not really need it. We have Rodney Hide with his wonderful Fijian economic tours. We have Muriel Newman who recommends that the poor and downtrodden pick fruit, and eat as much from the grower as they can while they are in the process of doing so. If that does not work, they can become women of the streets. Now, who in their right mind would recommend that?

Deborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is not allowed to use words like that against members—

JILL PETTIS: It is in her book. The member should read her book. It is in Muriel Newman’s book.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

JILL PETTIS: The member should read the book, then see the movie.

Then we have National with a brat pack. It is out of date, out of time, and out of humour. The brat pack is led now, I assume, by Roger Sowry, who was weaned on a pickle. The National Party is just shaking dead rats. We have Don Brash who is portraying himself as the future business leader and finance spokesperson. He even fancies himself with that role for New Zealand. I have to say that Mr Brash and I share one thing, and one thing only, in common, and that is that we were both born in the same city. There the comparison stops.

Mr Brash talks about people being frog-marched to collect rubbish—those who are not currently employed. He does not talk about upskilling people; he has a patronising tone towards people, and is so out of date, time, and humour that he is referring to people signing up at 8 o’clock in the morning at the post office. Well, we all know what has happened to post offices in New Zealand, and when questioned on National Radio earlier this week about that not working, Dr Brash had to say that there was nothing wrong with it. I just have to say to him that he should come into the real world.

It gets worse—and I am sorry to hear this of Dr Brash because he is an intelligent man, and I say that with absolute sincerity; nobody doubts the man’s intelligence at all—because he is engaging in beneficiary bashing and stigmatisation, looking for a group to discriminate against, and pitting New Zealanders against other New Zealanders. He is turning those who are strong against those who feel weak, often, through no fault of their own. New Zealanders want to work together. For the first time in many, many years, New Zealanders have pulled together, worked together, and are looking forward now with a vision about ourselves. We are feeling confident, and strong about where we can go as New Zealanders. I think New Zealanders as a whole, from throughout the provinces, the metropolitan areas, and the small rural towns, are feeling a sense of well-being about themselves that they have not experienced for a very long time.

We know, as a Government, that there is an awfully long way to go. There is no room for complacency at all. The task in front of us as a Government, and as a country, is huge. We are a small, geographically isolated country, but we pull beyond our weight, and we are developing a new sense of confidence about the fact that we can do that. We do not want to go back to the days of beneficiary bashing.

I am reminded by this most graphic cartoon, which I am holding up for the House, of those days of Ruth Richardson. If she lived where she grew up she would be a constituent of mine, but she does not live in the electorate any more. The cartoon quotes Ruth Richardson as saying: “Good news! Good news! Under National, solo mothers will be able to work.” And there is a picture of a solo mother doing what most mothers do—standing up to their elbows in the sink and making sure their children are fed. The depiction of that patronising attitude that used to prevail is so out of date that this country does not want to go down that track again.

Some fantastic, fabulous things are happening in my electorate of Whanganui. We have the most encouraging employment growth that we have had for many, many years. There are fewer people unemployed now in Wanganui than there have been for nearly 15 years. We have wonderful growth in regional tourism, and we have a sense of positiveness in our electorate that I have not seen for a very long time. The people have a spring in their step because they are feeling confident and good about themselves.

In closing, I want to comment very briefly on this dreadful, awful debate that is ensuing about immigration. I want to encourage the leader of the New Zealand First Party and his colleagues to stop bashing our immigrants. It is despicable and uncalled for. My electorate needs immigrants to fill skilled positions. We are all immigrants in some way or other, and I am shocked at this terrible attack that is occurring against immigrants who are welcome in this country. I welcome immigrants into this country, and I am asking New Zealand First to stop this bigoted attack on people whom we need in New Zealand. Immigrants are welcome.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.