Wednesday, 23 November 2005

Wednesday, 23 November 2005

Wednesday, 23 November 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Schools—Innovation

1. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How is the Government supporting innovation in New Zealand schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Today I am announcing that the Government will invest a further $600,000 to trial a further three innovative, new programmes in schools. One project on the Coromandel involves videoconferencing, to share teachers and lessons amongst 10 remote schools, another in Nelson looks at disparities in achievement between boys and girls, and a third in Christchurch will work to reduce underachievement and truancy rates. Through its investment in innovation in schools, the Government is providing support to those schools that have new ideas that may help them to respond to specific needs in specific areas.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What is the Government doing to support innovation in schools through the use of information and communications technology?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government has invested more than $300 million in the last 5 years to transform schools into places where information and communications technology is at the heart of the learning. This year alone, schools will receive $50 million specifically for information and communications technology, over and above the $22 million provided as part of their operational grants. Every school in the country now has access to broadband, 33,000 teachers have new laptops, more than 600 schools are involved in information and communications technology clusters, and all schools now have access to free software, anti-virus material, and free web-based resources.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What innovative programme does the Government support to reduce underachievement?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government funds two high-profile communications campaigns involving TV, radio, and print media. Those are Team-Up and Te Mana. The Team-Up campaign is fronted by none other than All Black Captain Tana Umaga, and is about motivating parents to take on new ideas and ways that they can support children’s learning. Along with the advertising campaign, a website, an 0800 number, and classroom activity resources have been developed. The response to that programme and to Te Mana has been nothing short of fantastic.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is the Minister aware of the level of concern amongst schools at the additional compliance costs being generated by the raft of contestable funds, such as the innovation funding, introduced by this Government; if so, will that matter be addressed in the forthcoming review of schools’ operational funding?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes.

Student Loans—Voluntary Repayments

2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What is the total value of all voluntary repayments made by student loan borrowers in the last 12 months?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): The Inland Revenue Department’s latest estimate of voluntary repayments is based on the 2004 income year. For that year, $167.4 million of voluntary repayments were received.

Dr Don Brash: Is the Minister aware that section 56 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992 permits student loan borrowers who have made voluntary repayments to request a refund of those repayments, up to 6 months after the Inland Revenue Department issues receipts for them; if so, does he think the Government’s interest-free student loan policy will encourage more students to use this redundant refund mechanism?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not think there will be any significant impact in that respect.

Dr Don Brash: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that last week one Thomas Banfield sought to exercise just this provision when he requested that the Inland Revenue Department refund the $15,000 he had voluntarily repaid just a few months earlier so that he could place that $15,000 on interest-bearing deposit; if so, why is he surprised?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no information about the case. By the sound of it, he might be a National Party supporter.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Minister think that Thomas Banfield will be the only student who has made a voluntary repayment on his or her student loan in the last few months who will now request a refund in order to invest his or her money elsewhere; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I doubt that he will be the only one, but I will be discussing this matter with the Inland Revenue Department—[Interruption]—and I will take up the suggestion from Mr Gerry Brownlee.

Dr Don Brash: Why does the Minister continue to insult the intelligence of tertiary-educated people by suggesting that they are too stupid to take advantage of the interest-free money that the Government is offering them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not insulting the intelligence of tertiary-educated people. I spent a considerable part of my life helping to train them.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm that in 2004, 50 percent of borrowers used the student loan scheme for living costs, and does that not tell the Minister that living allowances are too restrictive and that eligibility for allowances must be widened?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly, loans costs are for living costs. The member draws the point, obviously, that a large number of students are eligible for student allowances. It is Labour policy to extend the availability of student allowances, but I note that within the last week, two agencies—both Treasury and the Reserve Bank—have warned against significant further fiscal easing.

Dr Don Brash: If the Minister does make changes to the student loan scheme to prevent refunding repayments on student loans, will the changes be made retrospective?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I doubt they would be made retrospective in the sense I think the member means. It is not uncommon, of course, in matters relating to the Inland Revenue Department, for them to be prospective from the date of announcement.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware of the increase in the number of allowance recipients who use the student loan scheme to supplement their allowance to pay for living costs, from 34 percent in 2003 to 49 percent in 2004, and is that not due to the stingy and miserly amount individuals on student allowances get; if not, how does he explain the jump of 15 percent in 1 year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It partly reflects broader eligibility, but, of course, in part it substantially reflects the rise in household incomes, which has taken more households out of the net of eligibility for student allowances above forecast.

Benefits—Eligibility

3. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will he consider introducing work testing for sole parents and basing eligibility for sickness and invalids benefits on a system more akin to that used by ACC, as proposed by the Ministry of Social Development in its briefing to the incoming Minister?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Let me be clear that the Government has made no decisions about such proposals. We know that being in work, though, offers the best opportunity for people to achieve higher living standards for themselves and their families. The question the briefing papers properly raise is how best we can offer people such an opportunity.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister agree with Steve Maharey’s 2002 comment: “the vast majority of people currently receiving the widows benefit or domestic purposes benefit are highly motivated to move into work and do not need to be shoehorned into any job going, and that the new rules recognise that raising healthy, successful children is important and assist beneficiaries to move into paid work, but recognise that being a good parent must come first”; if so, has the Minister reiterated that Government policy to the Ministry of Social Development—or is it just window dressing while a work-testing model is being developed?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have the greatest respect for the views of my colleague, and I am delighted to assure the questioner that I would not support any regime that I regarded as punitive.

Georgina Beyer: What is the trend in social assistance going to sole parents?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Under the previous National Government, domestic purposes benefit numbers grew nearly 20 percent, to an all-time high in 1998 of 113,000. Domestic purposes benefit numbers have fallen under this Government, due to the hard work of my predecessor. The number of domestic purposes benefit clients has fallen by 4 percent, and if one considers only those sole parents in receipt of the domestic purposes benefit, it has fallen by 6 percent.

Anne Tolley: Does the Minister, by ignoring advice to work test from his own ministry, think that many widows and sole parents are incapable, by virtue of being sole parents, of returning to the workforce?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, I thought it was quite clear from my earlier statement that no advice will be ignored.

Sue Bradford: Is the Minister aware that stringent work testing of beneficiaries has been subject to intense criticism for forcing claimants into minimum-wage or low-paid jobs, and when he told the House just now that he would not be taking a punitive approach, did he consider that moving from an entitlement model to the accident compensation type of work test would actually lead to very punitive outcomes for many people?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I envisage a system that acknowledges and focuses on what clients can do rather than what they cannot, and it will be in that direction that I will be moving.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne that New Zealand’s economic security will come from our firms being part of a high-skill, high-productivity, and high-wage economy; if so, does he have any concerns that forcing sickness and invalids beneficiaries and sole parents into low-wage, low-skill work may actually be undermining the Prime Minister’s vision?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, and there is no proposal to do the latter.

Sue Bradford: Does he have any concerns that the department appears to be shifting from a view that people with illnesses and disabilities who are entitled to income support should be moving to the ACC model, which is focused on limiting the financial exposure of ACC, or is he simply taking his orders from Treasury in letting the poor and sick and the very young carry the burden of so-called fiscal responsibility, and can he assure us that he will not be taking up those suggestions from the Ministry of Social Development?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am pleased to inform the member that, as part of the work being undertaken on the core benefit, consideration will be given to providing a disability payment regardless of a person’s employment status. The rationale is that many sick and disabled people have costs that remain constant, whether or not they are working. The suggestion is that we create a payment that recognises the core costs associated with ill health and disability, and that the payment follow the disabled person whether or not he or she is in work. I assure the member that any policies that are developed will be in line with the Disability Strategy of this Government.

Economy—Consumer Behaviour

4. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any advice on the impact of lower nominal interest rates, bank advertising, and the banking price war on consumers’ desire to borrow and spend; if so, does this behaviour concern him?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Essentially, in broad terms, yes and yes.

John Key: If lower mortgage interest rates are encouraging New Zealanders to borrow more for housing and consumption—something the Minister claims he is very worried about—why does he not think that zero percent interest rates on student loans will encourage students to borrow more?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I certainly never said there would be no increased borrowing. I simply said that the original Treasury estimates were wrong, and Treasury now agrees with that.

John Key: Has the Minister reflected on the fact that in the same breath as lamenting that the average household debt to income ratio has now reached a whopping 143 percent, he seems mysteriously comfortable about encouraging an even greater reliance on household debt by handing out money to students with no interest charged?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: One of the key differences is that what students can borrow for is severely limited. It covers course costs and fees, and it relates to the remainder of living costs up to a maximum—which is scarcely generous, I think—$150 a week, whereas the borrowing being encouraged by the banks is for things like having holidays, buying boats, and doing things scarcely consistent with what I am sure the previous Governor of the Reserve Bank would have deemed desirable policy in this situation.

John Key: Why is the Minister considering intervention in the housing market after the election to stop people borrowing so much, when his student loan policy before the election was to drop interest rates to zero and, in effect, to tell students to pin their ears back and go for it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not considering anything at the moment. I have simply asked Treasury and the Reserve Bank to prepare a report. I have already received a lot of comment from those in the financial sector deploring the adolescent response from the member opposite.

John Key: If interest-free loans are not an inducement for people to borrow more, why did Thomas Banfield borrow money interest-free when he was studying, repay it when it became interest-bearing, and then re-borrow it when it became interest-free under Labour’s new zero percent interest-free programme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I just remind Mr Banfield that it is not interest-free yet.

John Key: When the Minister said to Dr Brash a few moments ago, in relation to Dr Brash’s question, that he would consult the Inland Revenue Department, and that he felt a Supplementary Order Paper coming, has it dawned on him that the Supplementary Order Paper will not actually help him with future loan borrowers, who will in effect just save the hassle of getting a refund, cut out the middleman, and put the money straight on deposit in the first place?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There may well be some people who will do that. There will, however, continue to be large numbers of parents who will continue to support their young people at university and polytechnics. I realise that no National Party parents would do that, because they loved relying on the nanny State when they were the ones sucking on the teat.

Venture Capital Market—Development

5. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps is the Government taking to promote the development of the venture capital market in New Zealand?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): The New Zealand Venture Investment Fund has been established to accelerate the development of the venture capital market. By doing so, we hope to speed up the commercialisation of new research and innovation, and turn that into successful business opportunities. The Government has also established the Seed Co-investment Fund, which will directly invest up to $40 million over the next 5 years into early-stage firms to help them get off the ground.

Maryan Street: What reports has the Minister seen on the success of the Venture Investment Fund?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The reports that I have seen indicate that after a relatively slow start it is now going very well. I am advised that for every dollar we have put into the Venture Investment Fund, other sources have matched it two to one. The recommendations of an independent law and economics consulting group report support Government policy to stimulate the supply of venture capital, in order to increase productivity and innovation in New Zealand.

China—Trade Deficit

6. TIM GROSER (National) to the Minister of Trade: Can he confirm the $2 billion trade deficit between New Zealand and China referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at APEC last week, and what steps are being taken to address any trade deficit?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade): All countries run trade surpluses with some, and deficits with other, trading partners, as the member, of course, knows well. New Zealand has a deficit in merchandise trade with China, but a surplus in services trade. Trade with China through Hong Kong also runs at a surplus. The negotiation of a free-trade agreement with China and the recent opening of the New Zealand Focus centre in Hong Kong are two examples of the steps being taken to increase New Zealand exports to China.

Tim Groser: Given the statement made by the Prime Minister: “The Foreign Minister, by necessity, is often a point of contact with other Governments,” did the Minister of Trade expect the Minister of Foreign Affairs to outline the Government’s position on a free-trade agreement with China when he met China’s Foreign Minister at the APEC meeting last week, notwithstanding New Zealand First’s well-known opposition to such agreements?

Hon PHIL GOFF: If I recall rightly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out to the Chinese Foreign Minister that he was dealing with foreign affairs, and that my colleague Jim Sutton and I were dealing with trade.

Dianne Yates: What impact would a free-trade agreement with China have on merchandise trade, and why? [Interruption]

Hon PHIL GOFF: The deputy leader should listen to this; he might learn something.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister answer the question.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am just waiting until the interjections stop. Modelling indicates that New Zealand exports to China would lift by something between $260 million and $400 million per year, while imports from China would increase by between $60 million and $100 million per year. As China’s tariffs are much higher than New Zealand’s, tariff removals on both sides would, clearly, benefit New Zealand exporters more.

Tim Groser: Can the Minister tell the House, in the light of the somewhat more cautious statements made by the Prime Minister last week regarding progress towards a free-trade agreement with China, what he regards as a reasonable time frame for such an agreement to be reached?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not think I would characterise the Prime Minister’s statements as being more cautious; in fact, they are entirely consistent with what she has said since she first reached agreement with President Hu from China to enter into these agreements. My advice from officials is that the negotiations, which are entering their fifth round at the end of this month, are on track. They are about where we would expect them to be. The Prime Minister has indicated that she is always reluctant to put a time frame on these things. We are, as the member knows, the first OECD country to enter into free-trade negotiation with China, and, therefore, anything we decide will be a precedent for the future. That means that both sides will be relatively cautious in negotiating this arrangement.

Dianne Yates: What is the largest component of New Zealand’s imports from China, and why have imports from China been growing?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Interestingly, the largest single component of imports from China, and the one that has grown most rapidly, is computers. Imports from China have grown overall because it has produced merchandised goods that are attractive to New Zealand consumers, and at cheaper prices than New Zealand can import those same goods from other countries.

Hon Murray McCully: Has the Minister seen a column in the New Zealand Herald this week, written by Audrey Young and referring to events at APEC, which stated: “Under a private agreement between Peters and Labour, the only person who can supersede Peters is Clark. But Goff came close this week, in substance if not form,”; and can he please give the House details of this agreement, which sets the rules for dealings between the Government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have not seen that column, but, from what the member has quoted, it is wrong on all counts.

Hon Murray McCully: Has the Minister seen the statement attributed to his ministerial colleague Mr Peters, who told a New Zealand Herald reporter at APEC: “Mr Goff has just called me to say that what you wrote in [today’s] Herald was a load of ‘inventive bullshit’.”, and can he please tell the House what he said to Mr Peters that would have caused such an outburst?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I of course would not repeat such language in the House, but I think that was a generally accurate account of what I had told Mr Peters.

Hon Murray McCully: Has the Minister seen an assessment of the APEC meeting by the President of the New Zealand First Party, Mr Dail Jones, who said: “If the situation has destabilised with New Zealand First, then people like Phil Goff would hope to be the winners.”, and can he tell the House whether this, in any way, helps to explain his actions at the APEC meeting?

Hon PHIL GOFF: If I were not replying in the House, I would use the same terms that I used about the New Zealand Herald reporter.

Housing—Affordability

7. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Housing: Does he have any concerns regarding the availability and affordability of housing in New Zealand; if so, what are they?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes, I am concerned that some New Zealanders are finding it difficult to access affordable housing and to own their own homes, which has social consequences. I am also concerned about the growing difficulties in finding suitable, affordable properties for State housing, particularly in areas like Auckland, where there is an acute land shortage. The Government is working on both issues.

Pita Paraone: Does the Minister agree that banks are playing a large role in fostering the overheated housing market by offering incentives, such as the 100 percent finance on homes; if he does, has he considered, on his own or in consultation with other Ministers, any options regarding that practice, and if not, what does he believe are the main drivers of the current state of New Zealand’s housing market?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The current drivers of the housing market are the issues that I raised in my initial answer, which are the increased cost of housing, particularly in our large urban areas, and the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government, which sold 13,000 State houses.

Steve Chadwick: What steps is the Government taking to address the concerns around access to affordable housing, and to increase the supply of State housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Government is addressing concerns in three ways. We have a series of initiatives to increase home ownership, the most high-profile of which is the mortgage insurance scheme Welcome Home Loans; we are reviewing the accommodation supplement to improve access to the private rental market for people needing housing assistance; and we are constructing 1,000 more State houses a year to meet the demands of the needy, because the National Party sold 13,000 of them, mostly to speculators.

Phil Heatley: What is the Minister’s analysis of both the OECD advice and the Reserve Bank advice that rampant increases in Government spending are putting huge upward pressures on mortgage interest rates, which is making the first home out of reach for most first home buyers?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: As I said both in my initial, and one of my supplementary, answers, this Government recognises that there is a housing crisis for some people in this country. We are taking very proactive steps to address that, mainly because we inherited such a mess from the previous Government.

Pita Paraone: How does the current level of demand for State housing compare with the demand for housing in general, and what does the Minister plan to do if the demand for State housing grows faster than the demand for housing overall?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am proud to be part of a Government that has built 1,000 State houses a year since we came into power. Indeed, there are 6,157 properties now in the hands of tenants, who were suffering from the consequences of having 13,000 of them sold to speculators by the previous Government.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The deputy leader of the National Party was heard to interject something that I think you heard and that I think ought to be withdrawn and apologised for.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. I did not hear it in the barrage.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He knows it.

Madam SPEAKER: Did the member utter an unparliamentary term?

Gerry Brownlee: You can perhaps help me, Madam Speaker. I suggested that what the Minister had said, when he suggested that those State houses had all been sold to speculators, was a lie. The problem we have is that it was in fact a mistruth on his part. So I will withdraw and apologise for any offence the House has taken at my using the term “liar”, but I would suggest that in future Mr Carter should not be so reckless with the truth.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the original point of order or is it a new point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am speaking to the original point of order to point out to you that both the withdrawal and apology, and the comment that followed it, were out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for withdrawing and apologising, but he knows that in those circumstances, one withdraws and apologises without making other comment.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like your guidance. Mr Brownlee, in his point of order—which he was entitled to make—quoted me. But he actually misquoted me, because I actually said that most State houses had been sold to speculators. I did not say they all had.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that, but so that we can make some progress and remain consistent with the Standing Orders, maybe Mr Brownlee would like to withdraw and apologise without making further comment.

Gerry Brownlee: Certainly. I do want to see order in the House. I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Having been through this myself in the past, one can only withdraw and apologise. No other comment is in order.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The first breach of the Standing Orders actually occurred with the Minister. The Standing Orders are quite clear that Ministers are to answer for their responsibilities, and the difficulty with this Minister is that every time he gets into a corner, he starts reciting matters from yonks and yonks ago. I would suggest to you that if you enforce the Standing Orders that are required—for Ministers to be responsible for their governance—we would not get into this difficulty.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. However, if the member was taking a point of order, he should have taken it at the time, not later. The House has now moved on.

Avian Influenza—Preparation

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: To what extent will he have adequate plans and legislation to deal with a potential influenza pandemic in place by the end of the year?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The view of most experts, including that of Professor Webster on Morning Report this morning, is that New Zealand is as well prepared as any nation—better prepared than most—but that planning needs to be ongoing. The Government’s view is certainly that planning and raising public awareness is an ongoing matter. Plans to address legislative gaps or potential gaps were publicly discussed last week.

Hon Tony Ryall: Given that a pandemic is likely to see hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders isolated at home, who will treat those sick people and who has responsibility for doing that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: One answer is all of us, when the numbers get as high as that. I think it is probably important to reflect on the fact that social disruption would follow if all of us did not have some role to play. However, the Ministry of Health and the Government have a role, certainly in the distribution of any Tamiflu and the distribution of any advice on how to reduce the effects of the flu or, indeed, to reduce its contagious abilities. District health boards have a role, folk who work in the health sector have a role—because they have special abilities—and, of course, those of us with families have a role.

Barbara Stewart: Has the Ministry of Health advised district health boards that they will not have access to the national stockpile of antiviral drugs in the event of a pandemic; if so, what is the likelihood of their being able to purchase sufficient quantities at this stage?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, it has not. The situation with regard to district health boards and Tamiflu is as follows: for the past year or more district health boards have been free to go and get some Tamiflu. They have been invited by the Ministry of Health to consider whether they should; some have, and some have not. There is a stockpile of a little over 800,000 doses, which will be made available throughout the country in the event of a pandemic arriving here. Included in that distribution will, of course, be district health boards, because they will need some.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to be helpful to the Minister. He may have misheard the question, which asked whether the Ministry of Health has advised district health boards to prepare for additional supplies of Tamiflu—which they would have to do— and the Minister replied “No …”. He may, in fact, want to seek the Speaker’s indulgence to re-answer the question, because the Minister would not want to give the wrong information if he is aware of it.

Hon PETE HODGSON: If that were the question and I did not hear it correctly, then the ministry said to district health boards some time ago that they should feel free to get some Tamiflu—to consider it as an option—and some have done so. The issue about whether district health boards will get access to the national stockpile of Tamiflu is, as I said, that it will be made available to those who need it depending on the stage of the pandemic—whether we are trying to stamp it out or whether we are trying to manage it—and some district health boards, depending on where the pandemic flu is or has reached, will, of course, have access to some of the stockpile because they will need it.

Hon Tony Ryall: When is the Government planning a coordinated whole-of-Government rehearsal for dealing with a pandemic?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think probably closer to the time. There is one scheduled under general emergency—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I just tell members that it is sometimes difficult to hear, and I am sure all members would like to hear the response.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Quinquennial planning has been going on. It first occurred in 2002, so it would not happen again until 2007. But if, indeed, there is indication of human-to-human transfer before then—and there may well be—then I am sure there will be a need for the planning that the member has in mind. I can say, in addition to that, that emergency planners from district health boards are meeting on a regular basis. The next meeting is, I think, on 15 December.

Sue Moroney: What steps have been taken by the Government to inform and engage with the public on influenza pandemic planning?

Hon PETE HODGSON: New Zealand has been planning around epidemics, including but not limited to influenza, for several years. We began in February 2002. The avian influenza planning has been going on for about 11 or 12 months. My predecessor, the Hon Annette King, ordered Tamiflu in, I think, November or December of last year. She was responsible for one of the first orders of its size in the world, and needs to be congratulated on that. Last week I released version 14 of our plan; the first version I saw was version 13. During the past 6 months the Ministry of Health has undertaken a wide range of public awareness - raising campaigns. More are under way.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the Minister had gone to the Health Committee meeting this morning, he would have learnt that the ministry is planning a coordinated whole-of-Government rehearsal for late 2007; and what sort of preparation is that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is precisely what I told the member. There is epidemic planning, not influenza planning, quinquennially. It was begun by my predecessor, the Hon Annette King. If it turns out that there is human-to-human contact—not for any old epidemic but for avian influenza—before then, then that planning will need to be advanced.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as a Minister outside Cabinet, fail to qualify for the special reserve of the antiviral drug Tamiflu because, by the Ministry of Health’s criteria, he would be regarded as neither a key decision maker nor an essential service?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There is always a price to pay for making politics out of emergency planning. However, given the member has asked the question, let me give him an answer. The reason for having a list of people who might—

Hon Tony Ryall: You said there was no list.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I did. I did say there was no list. I said I was unaware of any list, and I became aware of it at 3.30 yesterday afternoon. The reason that list has been drawn up is as follows: officials needed to get an idea of what proportion of our 800,000 doses ought to be held back, so they listed the number of police, nurses, defence staff, etc., threw in 50 decision makers, and came up with a figure of about 10 percent in version 1 of that paper. I just say to the member that the early response to version 1 of the paper is that the 10 percent figure may be a little low.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We gave the Minister the courtesy of silence so we might hear the answer, and we actually did not get one. The question was whether poor Mr Winston Peters will get some of the vaccine. We have not actually heard an answer on that.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but he knows that is not a point of order.

Peter Brown: Did the Minister hear the expert on Morning Report this morning—the one, I think, to whom he referred—actually say that this flu has, in a very minor way, gone from person-to-person contact, and does that make any difference to his answers this afternoon?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No and no.

Hon Tony Ryall: What else are his officials working on that he does not know about?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My response to that is to say that this Government began planning for this epidemic more than a year ago. It has taken the Opposition a year to get hold of the fact that this flu is a serious, serious potential threat to our economy and society. We are further advanced on this planning than almost any other nation, although, of course, it must continue.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would be happy to offer the Minister a briefing if he would like to contact me at the end of question time.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as the member knows.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the question to the Coordinating Minister, Race Relations. As she is in the House, I ask why the question has been transferred.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister who is responsible for answering the question is entirely a matter for the Government. The Government transferred that question to the Prime Minister.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just so Dr Sharples knows what is possible, it might be worth your while advising him that he could seek leave for the question to be held over until such time as the Prime Minister is able to answer it.

Madam SPEAKER: The member certainly can seek such leave, if he so wishes.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is rather pointless. This question was transferred to the Prime Minister. It is not a question of somebody answering on behalf of the Coordinating Minister, Race Relations; it was transferred. It was transferred as a request out of my office as Acting Prime Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: Does the member want to speak to the point of order or ask the question?

Dr Pita Sharples: I will ask the question.

Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur

9. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Prime Minister: Kei te whakaae ia ki ngā kōrero a te kairipoata mō te Rōpū Whakakotahi tangata o te Ao, arā, a Rodolfo Stavenhagen, ka raru te nohotahitanga o ngā iwi mēnā ka tapaina te kaupapa “kotahi anake te ture mō te katoa” i Niu Tīreni?

[Does she agree with the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, that the “one law for all” philosophy is a recipe for making race relations in New Zealand worse?]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): The Government is committed to an inclusive society. This means there is only one standard of citizenship, but there are instances where it is important to recognise the needs of particular groups in law or policy.

Dr Pita Sharples: Does the Prime Minister believe that the statement she made that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination sat “on the outer edges of the United Nations system” is helpful to the promotion of good race relations in New Zealand when so many New Zealanders acted in good faith in taking a claim on the Foreshore and Seabed Act to that committee?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A relatively small number of New Zealanders took that particular claim to that particular committee, but, yes, I believe the Prime Minister’s statement is a statement of fact in relation to the structure of the United Nations.

Hone Harawira: Given the United Nations’ rapporteur’s advice against the “one law for all” philosophy, that: “If States do not take that into account when they formulate their policies I think things may actually tend to become worse rather than better”, how will the Prime Minister accommodate the varying cultural and ethnic needs within our multicultural society, or will they all be treated the same?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We already do a great deal to accommodate multicultural and multi-ethnic needs within New Zealand society. But, of course, there are also some fundamental issues of citizenship and, indeed, a great matter of law where we are all exactly the same and treated as such.

Dr Pita Sharples: Kei te whakaae te Minita ki te Minita Māori, kei mua a Niu Tīreni i ngā whenua katoa o te ao ki te whakatinana i ngā kaupapa tautoko i te mana tangata; nā, he aha ngā rawa i hoatungia e tēnei kāwana itinga, arā, te Kāwana Reipa, kia taea e te rahi me te iti o ngā tāngata o Aotearoa te kōrero, te tūtaki ki te kairipoata mō te Rōpū Whakakotahi Tāngata o te Ao?

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

[Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Māori Affairs that New Zealand is at the forefront of international efforts to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone; and given this, how much support did this minority Labour Government provide in terms of time and financial resource to enable ordinary New Zealanders to meet and speak with the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples?]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Professor Stavenhagen is in New Zealand at the invitation of the New Zealand Government. It is a broad-standing invitation to the rapporteurs of this particular committee, but from there on, of course, it is a matter for the UN committee to be concerned with how they engage in interactions. My understanding is that approximately 65 percent to 70 percent of the time is being spent with Māori and a small amount of time is being spent with the Acting Prime Minister tomorrow.

Police—Resources

10. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with the level of resourcing available to the New Zealand Police to carry out their duties; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): I am satisfied with the progress we are making after the destructive years of 1998-99, following the Martin review, which saw cuts in the police budget and the proposal to remove 380 police staff. However, there is more to do, and we are committed to do so over the next 3 years.

Simon Power: How many of the 1,000 extra police staff agreed to be resourced as per the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First will be sworn, front-line police?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That has yet to be decided.

Martin Gallagher: Does the police budget remain on track, even through periods of high demand—knowing that the police are answering more 111 calls and general calls for service?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. The police are working within their budget and prioritising the work, even though on an average daily basis police staff are answering something like 1,400 emergency calls and over 2,500 general calls for their services, around the clock. I commend them for their dedication. I know they are delighted about the promised extra resources, and we will be working with New Zealand First in terms of the allocation of those resources.

Simon Power: Which is correct about police number resourcing: the Speech from the Throne, which indicated the Government would provide an extra 1,000 police staff; or Mr Mark’s supplementary question of 16 November, where he claimed New Zealand First had successfully negotiated for the introduction of an extra 1,000 front-line police—which is it, 1,000 staff or 1,000 sworn, front-line police?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Party is for 1,000 police staff. That is available for anybody who can read to read, and I am surprised that Mr Power has not read it. However, the allocation between front-line, or sworn, and non-sworn staff is an issue that we are working through with New Zealand First and the police. I can assure the House that the priority for staffing is front-line police. I thought members would be cheering at that, but they are silent. The priority is the front line. The actual allocations will be worked through in an appropriate manner.

Heather Roy: How is she intending to recruit the 1,000 extra police promised to New Zealand First over three Budgets, and will she not actually have to recruit an extra 1,100 police to take account of the current attrition rate?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The police recruit for attrition already, and the way we will recruit is by carrying out a very vigorous recruitment campaign. I have no doubt that, over 3 years, we will achieve our aim. A lot of work is being done right now on a campaign, and resources have already been allocated. I am sure the member will be delighted to hear that.

Chester Borrows: What resources will she be seeking from Cabinet, in light of the worsening 111 response times since the communications centre review was completed in May this year?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am pleased to say that extra resources were secured by my predecessor, George Hawkins, following the review. Those resources will see 73 more call takers at the communications centres by Christmas. Of course, we have had to recruit and train, but the money has gone in. I am sure Mr Borrows, as a former police officer, will be delighted to hear that.

Simon Power: Which is correct, the Speech from the Throne or Winston Peters’ claim to his party’s annual general meeting on 20 November that Greg O’Connor had written to him, thanking New Zealand First for its commitment to providing 1,000 sworn police officers?

Hon ANNETTE KING: What a conspiracy! If the members would like to read the agreement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First, they will see it states “1000 police staff”. I suspect, however, that most of them will be sworn staff.

Simon Power: I seek leave to table the interview in Investigate magazine with John Tamihere in which he said that Dr Cullen’s use of clever words was a useful asset for the Labour Party.

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

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Party regarding police staffing numbers.

Document not tabled.

Hon Maurice Williamson: In light of the fact that a number of the exchanges during that question involved a party in this House, New Zealand First, and the fact that it may have already used its total entitlement for questions, I think it only fair to seek leave for New Zealand First to be given a supplementary question on this issue.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that he cannot—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, we can seek that.

Madam SPEAKER: He cannot do so on behalf of another member.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, we can seek that another party be given a supplementary question.

Madam SPEAKER: The New Zealand First members can seek that leave themselves, if they so wish it.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to take up the gracious offer from the National Party, especially given that it vetoed me off the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee yesterday, which was a very ungracious act by that group of people, who still do not understand MMP.

Madam SPEAKER: What exactly is the leave that is sought?

Ron Mark: The request so graciously put by the Hon Maurice Williamson that New Zealand First be given—without penalty, I assume—an extra supplementary question today to allow me to ask a question.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister share the same confidence that I have that any policy decisions and perceived misunderstandings between New Zealand First and Labour will be easily resolved, unlike some of the disagreements between New Zealand First and National that led to the break-up of the coalition agreement back in 1998?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Far be it from me to say pat him on the head and call him a poodle, but it would be useful for us to know what disagreement Mr Mark is talking of.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can assure the House that Ron Mark is no poodle. I can also tell the House that I am very confident that the relationship between New Zealand First and Labour on this matter will be very good indeed, because Ron Mark and I met within a matter of a couple of weeks, and we have already been discussing these issues. That will be ongoing.

Tenancy Services—Face-to-face Centres

11. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Building Issues: How many additional centres will receive face-to-face tenancy services as a result of the enhancements announced last week?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues): Face-to-face tenancy services will be available at 67 locations nationwide. This is 22 more than today. These 22 new locations include, to name but a few: Kaitāia, Kaikohe, Helensville, Te Puke, Tākaka, Balclutha, and Cromwell. Clients will continue to receive face-to-face advice and mediation at all existing Tenancy Services locations.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister outline to the House what these enhanced services are? [Interruption]

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Hold on, help is on the way. Tenants and landlords will have the option to resolve straightforward disputes within 24 hours through a new telephone mediation service. Mobile mediators will be able to travel to locations to provide face-to-face mediation, rather than have people travel to their nearest office. In addition, expanded Internet services will allow people the option to make online applications 24 hours a day, and to pay online by credit card. As I have said, this is a huge increase in access for New Zealand.

Anne Tolley: Can the Minister confirm the advice of his department that these changes mean that the Gisborne office of Tenancy Services will close and there will be no staff in our region; and how can he have the audacity to claim that this is an enhancement of services for landlords and tenants in Gisborne?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am advised that no existing offices will close, including Gisborne’s.

H V Ross Robertson: Has the Minister seen any response from the sector groups following his announcement?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes. The Real Estate Institute, the Tenants Protection Association, and the Property Investors Federation—these are the stakeholders that actually use the service—have welcomed these changes. The Real Estate Institute publicly stated that it appreciated the opportunity to be involved in the design of the new service delivery changes, and that it believed these changes will ensure a more consistent service throughout the country. The Tenants Protection Association indicated that the different service delivery approaches, including Internet and phone services, will be beneficial. Finally, the Property Investors Federation indicated that the new-look Tenancy Services will alleviate many difficulties faced by landlords.

Craig Foss: How can the Minister claim that these changes are an enhancement of services, when they involve cuts of a third in Hawke’s Bay Tenancy Services staff; and is it little wonder that Labour’s support plummeted in places like Gisborne, Timaru, Hawke’s Bay, Rotorua, and Whangarei when it has got Ministers who believe that disputes between landlords and tenants can be resolved via centralised 0800 phone and Internet services from Christchurch, Auckland, and Wellington?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Currently, Tenancy Services employs 75 people in 22 locations. Staff numbers will go up, overall, to 77. I say again to that member, because he has misunderstood, that the issue is that the SWIFTT 24-hour phone service is an option and the Internet service is an option. We have extended into 67 locations, and face-to-face, mobile Tenancy Services will be made available, with an appointment, in those locations. Going up to 67 locations—22 additional—I would call an enhancement. The stakeholders who actually use the service—both tenants and landlords—agree.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has not the Minister’s spin doctoring got a little out of control, when these changes mean that there will be cuts in staff in Whangarei, Rotorua, Tauranga, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Nelson, Dunedin, and Timaru, and a centralised service in the main centres; and does he think these changes reflect the statement made by the Prime Minister after Labour took a pasting in the provincial seats that there was an important message that Labour Ministers needed to take on board?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I repeat that currently Tenancy Services employs 75 people in 22 locations. All of these offices will remain open. The decisions will have an impact on staff, with the location and nature of some roles changing. A small number of administrative staff and mediators will be affected. A number of new positions are being created, and affected staff will be encouraged to apply for them. Staff numbers, overall, will go up to 77. There may be a small number of staff who are surplus. Some staff will choose to take redeployment; others will not. The total overall number goes up by two. I will say finally to Dr Smith that instead of hawking a draft document that he got under the Official Information Act—a draft staff consultation document that had no final decisions in it—and trying to do his own spin, he should have taken advantage of the briefing that the member for Kaikoura was offered a month ago and he would have been better briefed. He chose not to; he chose to play politics.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Peter McGowan of the department confirmed to me on the phone this morning that the Gisborne office of Tenancy Services would be closing. That contradicts the view that has been expressed by the Minister, and I wonder whether he would like to clarify that for the House. It seems strange to me that a member of the staff would say one thing to me, and the Minister would say something different in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is debatable material.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the Department of Building and Housing report on Tenancy Services changes, which was obtained by the very competent new member for Kaikoura.

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

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just said that the situation outlined by Dr Smith, where a departmental officer tells us on the phone, as part of our process of verifying questions, that something is going to happen, then the Minister turns up in the House and says it is not, is not a point of order. It is almost like the Chris Carter situation before, whereby there is a selective use of facts, perhaps, or even a complete misrepresentation of what is fact. How are we supposed to get right to the nub of things if Ministers simply want to make up an answer to get them off the spot at the time they are in the House?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member is aware, the Speaker is not responsible for the quality of the answers given. Ministers take responsibility for that.

Immigration—International Student Policy

12. PANSY WONG (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Will he be making any changes to the international student policy, which came into effect on 4 July 2005; if so, what changes will be made?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I have no such intention at this time.

Pansy Wong: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the way to attract Chinese students is to send them home when they have finished studying, in light of comments made by the previous Minister of Immigration that granting graduate international students a 6-month open work visa would enable them to become excellent candidates for the skilled migrant category?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The July policy announcements were designed to make it easier for international students, appropriately qualified, to study, work, and live in New Zealand. That is one reason that over 20 percent of qualified international students proceed to residence in this country.

Jill Pettis: What were the changes that came into effect on 4 July 2005?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In summary, the main changes to student policy were a new guiding statement for student immigration policy to align it better with our international education strategy; limited work opportunities whilst studying, under controlled conditions, including the explicit approval of both schools and parents; and facilitation of the pathway from study to work, which, as I say, has contributed to over 20 percent of highly qualified students proceeding to residence in this country. That assists our goal of attracting the world’s best talent.

Pansy Wong: Will the Minister then be meeting with his colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs to convince him that to send Chinese students directly home when they have finished studying—thereby effectively barring those graduates from applying for a 6-month open work permit—is in direct contradiction to the Labour Government’s policy?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I meet regularly with that Minister, but the member may care to read again the terms of the enhanced confidence and supply agreement, which would indicate that that Minister is perfectly free to express views on matters outside his specific portfolio.

Pansy Wong: Is the Minister’s department now expecting a sudden influx of applications from Chinese students coming here, in light of the new-found support from Mr Peters and despite him previously supporting the view that Chinese students were responsible for “theft, fraud, fighting, assaults, intimidation, vehicle crashes, disorder, domestic stabbings, and a sideline of extortion and weapon carrying”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: This Government welcomes qualified students from China as it welcomes those from other countries. We believe that international education has an important role to play in boosting not only New Zealand’s economy but our international connections and productivity.

Pansy Wong: Does the Minister believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the right person to help reverse the 11 percent reduction in the number of student visas issued, given that Mr Peters has said: “The Government should stop this idiocy and educate our own people, and stop trying to make out that this level of imported student is some sort of salvation for New Zealand’s economy.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It may come as a surprise to that member that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not responsible for issuing student visas—or any other kind of visa.

Pansy Wong: Is the Minister aware from the briefing paper to the incoming Minister of Immigration that there is close linkage between policy development and cooperation between the New Zealand Immigration Service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and hence the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, and I am glad that the member has bothered to read the briefing paper for incoming Ministers. She will support the Government’s view that student immigration policy is there to support the national interest, and not the interests of individual consultants.

Pansy Wong: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is a New Zealand Herald article dated 15 November 2005.

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

Pansy Wong: The second document, which was tabled by Paul Swain. details changes to international students policy, where the Government policy is to create more opportunity for international students to stay behind after they have completed their study.

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

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the questioning by Pansy Wong, I found that that lot of people over there gave an absolutely disgusting display of behaviour because of Pansy Wong’s—[Interruption] Absolutely! I want to suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that you do something about that, because I think it was an absolutely shocking display of what some could call racist behaviour—

Hon Member: Mocking.

Hon Tau Henare:—mocking behaviour. I take huge offence at that. Some of those people, who are supposedly descendants of English people, cannot even pronounce English properly. I think that this House should take note that members need to show a modicum of decorum in this place.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I am sure the member makes a fair point, but he needs to know that a number of his colleagues in front of him were also smiling at one or two comments. Many of us know that Ms Wong sometimes has trouble with some words, but the response was not meant in any kind of derogatory form, at all.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members, and I think it is a useful reminder from both members who spoke on the point of order that this House should conduct itself according to the Standing Orders, which includes having decorum and respect for each other.

Pansy Wong: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order? I have already ruled on the other.

Pansy Wong: The point of order you ruled on concerns me personally. I am not aware of which part of my question the Minister of Immigration could not understand. So I would be delighted if members on the other side of the House would give me the courtesy of raising those difficulties in person and pointing out what their problem is. I am not too sure what gestures they were making that caused offence to my colleague.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for her comment but I think the matter has been dealt with. I hope that members have taken note of all those comments.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 22 November.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): The 2005 election result has allowed New Zealand First to leverage significant gains for all New Zealanders. Given that that is our reason for being here, I defy anyone here to take issue with our post-election position. Are we not all here to make New Zealand a better place? If not, I suggest that those who have that contrary view move aside for a party that wants to be here for the right reasons. We have no doubts at all about what we are here to do, so I tell others to watch and learn.

I can sympathise with the National Party for being the bridesmaid for a third consecutive term. I can even understand why National members have this fixation about New Zealand First’s leader, given that he has essentially been the real Leader of the Opposition for the past two parliamentary terms. Even in his absence, National members seek him. Their fixation is merely a sign of a party that is, I believe, bereft of leadership and, dare I say it, policy. Having said that, the reality is that within the National caucus are a number of members who believe that they should be the leader. Already the numbers game has begun. To the National members’ credit, however, they watched and learnt from New Zealand First members during the last term, and they have been rewarded with a whole new group of back-benchers. National members are doomed to the Opposition benches for another 3 years, and are resorting to name-calling out of sheer frustration at seeing a party with 5.8 percent of the vote and seven MPs that will achieve a lot more for New Zealand than they will, with their so-called 39 percent of the vote and 48 seats. I can well understand their frustrations. As the Opposition benches seem to be engraved with the National Party logo for the foreseeable future, I repeat my invitation to those members to learn from New Zealand First. Part of the lesson certainly will not include being allocated responsibilities because of the heritage of one’s spouse.

I will touch on those things that New Zealand First has been able to gain for all New Zealanders: we have gained in policies relating to senior citizens, the Treaty of Waitangi, immigration, and more police. Our economic policies will advance the economic situation of New Zealand. Even in the area of health, we think that we have done well and good by our supporters. There are legislative proposals that we will certainly seek a review of, particularly in terms of support for the reintroduction of the Electoral Integrity (Amendment) Bill. We will seek support for the bill relating to treaty principles going to a select committee for consideration, and for a bill proposing to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years of age. I conclude by saying wow, what baubles!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): Madam Assistant Speaker, I begin by congratulating yourself and your fellow Assistant Speaker, Madam Speaker Margaret Wilson, and Clem Simich, Deputy Speaker of the House. The House will be well served, I am sure, by these officers.

I congratulate all those who gave their maiden speeches. I am not quite so convinced about this sort of Latinate habit of everyone kissing each other after every maiden speech these days—it is a relatively recent convention within this House. There was a degree of an “h” word in there that one is not allowed to use within this Parliament. For many people it is a terrifying thing, on occasion, to give their maiden speeches. Many of us—I know; I remember well—were strung up with tension at the point of giving our maiden speeches.

I was particularly pleased to see a number of the new National MPs subtly distancing themselves from their party’s pre-election policy on matters Māori, in a way that I think would have been quite difficult for their leader. I just want to say a couple of things to a couple of the maiden speakers from National. Firstly, I know that Mr Groser has been overseas for a long time, but I tell him that benefit numbers have gone down under this Government, not up. It was under a National Government that benefit numbers went up. If he had been in the country since 1999, he would know that the numbers have been going down under this Government. I say to Mr Finlayson: “Get over it, Chris!”. I know that I did not make you a QC, but you should not have written that abusive letter to the Solicitor-General, because he had nothing to do with the decision and deserved better than that display of bad judgment and bad manners on your part.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has been here for some time, and he knows that it is out of order to address any MP as “you”. When a member uses the word “you”, he or she can refer only to the Speaker.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I apologise for using the member’s Christian name. I say: “Get over it, Mr Finlayson!”.

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Cullen has deliberately misled the House by saying that I wrote an abusive letter to the Solicitor-General, and I think he should be called on to withdraw and apologise for that remark.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will just rule on the point of order. A member cannot accuse another member of deliberately misleading the House. That is not a point of order.

Christopher Finlayson: Dr Cullen tried to mislead the House. As to the form in which I raised that point, it is for you, Madam Assistant Speaker, to determine, but I take offence at what the Minister has said. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I need to rule on the point of order. It is a debating point.

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order 116.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I remind the member that he needs to make it clear that he has taken offence. That is different.

Christopher Finlayson: That is what I said.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): All right. I ask the member to withdraw.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I apologise. I say to Mr Finlayson that he should not have written a letter to the Solicitor-General. It was not becoming to Mr Finlayson or to his profession, and it was certainly not becoming to Mr Terence Arnold, who deserves a great deal better in that respect. I was solely responsible for that decision, not Mr Arnold.

Finally, I say to Dr Sharples that in some ways I found his speech quite disturbing and quite worrying from a New Zealand perspective. What he said was in large part right—that, in part, we have largely ignored our Māori heritage and Māori history within this country, and that we need to place that much more securely in the front of our knowledge about ourselves and our past. But he himself in saying that seemed to deny his European heritage. I think it is important for us to say that if we come from a mixed heritage, we honour all of our heritage, not just part of it, otherwise it starts to exclude many of us in this House from being New Zealanders and being part of the heritage of this country. That kind of language is quite indicative of an attitude that I believe that the Māori Party has to look at very carefully in terms of moving forward race relations within this country.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I resent Dr Michael Cullen implying that the Māori Party intends to create division in race relations in this country.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will rule on the point of order. That is a debating point.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Now we come to the National Party. It is facing, for the first time since it became Government in 1949, the prospect of at least 9 long years in Opposition, and it cannot cope with it. The remnants of the brat pack will move from being young hopefuls to bitter, elderly middle-aged men by the time they have another chance to get into Government. Are they not already showing that, day after day, with their behaviour in the House? They are bitter men moving forward, knowing that young and not-so-young hopefuls are coming behind them and looking to push them out by the time we reach the next general election.

It was, of course, a close-run election. But in the end, in my view, the outcome can be regarded as an ethical victory for Labour, because what we defeated was the Opposition’s appeal to all the basest instincts in human character. No base instinct was left unturned by National in its attempt to win that particular election.

National’s election campaign was backed by huge money—not just huge money from the business sector but also huge money from a small religious sect that says it does not even participate in politics. Dr Brash’s definition of the mainstream somehow includes a small, enclosed Protestant sect that does not vote, and that excludes over half the population, by definition. That, I think, is utterly disgraceful. In relation to a man who has a proud heritage to call upon, and who is descended from one of the great, liberal, tolerant, ecumenicist leaders of Christianity within this country, it was a particularly sick sight to see the way in which the National Party was bought and paid for by a small religious sect.

It was a matter of organisation, as well. In our region, push-polling was organised out of an Exclusive Brethren school. When people insisted that they were going to vote Labour—when they repeatedly said: “No, I’m voting Labour.”—often a teenaged voice on the other end of the phone said: “Of course you know they’re going to legalise incest, don’t you?”, and remarks of the sort. That was the kind of dirty politics that National tried to pretend it knew nothing about, at all. They were “deep-donkey-do” in with that kind of approach to the election campaign, and Dr Brash himself had to admit that he knew about those pamphlets, and that he knew about the campaign that was going to be waged. Is it not funny that the day the pamphlets came out and everything hit the fan, activity started to cease in a building near the electorate office of Mr Brownlee—who knew nothing? That building had been the site for a lot of activity by the National Party.

So we had a campaign based around issues of homophobia, based around greed, and based around a word that we are not allowed to use in this House, but that is about denigrating people of different ethnic origins within this country and saying that they are not part of the mainstream. When Dr Brash was finally challenged to say what the mainstream was, he said: “Er, it is those people who support the National Party.” So nearly 60 percent of the population immediately were not mainstream New Zealanders. Only those who supported the National Party—which, presumably, in the 2002 election was 21 percent of the population—were mainstream New Zealanders. So over 60 percent of New Zealanders were not mainstream, but a few thousand members of the exclusive sect were mainstream. How can the National Party look itself in the face over those kinds of claims? How can it build linkages to other groups in society? And that has gone on since the election.

Goodness me, just yesterday afternoon National yet again decided to alienate every minor party in Parliament by refusing leave for people to sit on select committees as members without the right to vote. What was the purpose of that exercise except pique on Gerry Brownlee’s part, because he hated the fact that one has to allow minor parties to speak on first, second, and third reading debates? Mr Brownlee should get used to it. It is called MMP, and I am afraid the two big elephants do not get to fight by themselves any longer; we have to make some room for other people to come in and participate within the process. That was another extraordinary indication of what the National Party is about these days.

What happened after the election is that everything that was said before the election went by the board. National said: “Māori seats? You can have those again now. We’ll repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act to let you have private title to the foreshore and seabed—no price is too high to pay.” But, of course, what National has done since is to say: “How terrible of Mr Peters to do a deal.” Well, National should explain to me why, about 2 months before the election, Mr Key at a meeting in Wellington was boasting that National had already done a deal with Mr Winston Peters for him to become the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr Key was boasting about that at a function weeks before the election. I wonder how National members can explain that. Can they tell us the following: if National had had the chance to form the Government, would it have offered Mr Peters the job of Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Hon Members: No!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Really? But then this is the party that would never do anything except get rid of the Māori seats—until it thought there were four votes in the Māori Party that might help them get into Government. The National Party is as firm as a bit of jelly sitting on the Equator when it comes to political principles and getting into office. That is the reality.

Finally, since then, we have had the farce of the National Party spokespeople appointments. You see, they had so many candidates for foreign affairs, such as Mr Hayes—who now wishes to rid himself of foreign entanglements, so I understand, particularly Japanese ones—and Mr Groser, who has some claim to knowledge in these matters. And there was Locky Smith. With all those people, who could they compromise on? “Murray McCully—he knows nothing about foreign affairs. Let’s make him the spokesperson.” I have a lesson for Mr McCully: his first job is not to do the numbers on overthrowing foreign leaders. That is not the job of the Opposition spokesperson on foreign affairs.

Then they had to find a job for Mr Mapp, and he could not be liaised on with all sorts of different people, because he has various problems there. So his job is to stamp out political correctness. I ask what he can denounce so far, in all these weeks—what has he stamped out?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I seek leave to make a personal explanation pursuant to Standing Order 350 on a matter arising out of the Deputy Prime Minister’s vitriol. Earlier this year I received a phone call from the Solicitor-General inviting me to apply to take silk—that is, to become a QC. Therefore, I made an application along the lines of his suggestion. My name went forward, along with a number of others, to the Attorney-General as part of the appointments process and, because I was a National Party person, my application was turned down. The Deputy Prime Minister has suggested that I then wrote “an abusive letter to the Solicitor-General”. That is, in fact, incorrect. What I did was to return the Solicitor-General’s letter to him, which was the letter in which he declined my application formally.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a very important point here. Matters of personal explanation cannot include assertions that are untrue. I did not decline Mr Finlayson because he is a National Party member; I declined him because he was on a party list just before an election. I determined that nobody on any party list should be appointed, because if we had appointed a Labour Party person, National Party members would have been the first to object and call it cronyism. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I would just remind all members again that a point of order was being heard. I cannot deal with points of order unless I can hear them, and all the members on the Opposition benches were making a lot of noise.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A personal explanation must contain only matters of fact. Mr Finlayson asserted something about my motives—that my decision was to do with his being a member of the National Party. It was not that; it was the fact that he was on a party list. The fact that it was the National Party list was irrelevant. The same criterion would have applied to somebody who was on the Labour Party list.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The matter cannot be dealt with by a point of order. If the member thinks that there is a matter that needs to be dealt with, it can be dealt with by the Speaker as a matter of privilege.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I am encouraged that the last speaker will not prove to be a hard act to follow. Bring on the new, I say! I want to thank Dr Cullen for giving New Zealand a very good reason to vote National next time.

Around 18 months ago I was offered a challenge by the National Party: win Otago back for National—and I did. It was not easy. I acknowledge list MP David Parker for a tough but good-natured contest. Actually, as I think about it, the challenge to me was more like “win Otago, or else”, and I would like to thank the former whip Simon Power for that. It was very motivating.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I offer my congratulations to you on your appointment, and also to Margaret Wilson on her re-election to the role of Speaker, and I also offer my warm congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, Clem Simich, who has been a friend and who brings dignity to his role. I look forward to working with you all.

Greetings to my many friends in Otago, who are listening to this speech on the radio. I am sorry that they cannot be here, but I know that they are tuned in. My thanks go to the wonderful National Party volunteers in our campaign team who have become my friends, especially Derek Austin. Thanks also go to my family—to Bill, to Mick, to Steffy, and to Aiden, and to Ra and Jude. Thanks also go to Big Ted, Little Ted, Manu, Jemima, and Humpty. Like my opponent Mr Parker, who brought in veteran movie star Sam Neill to help with his campaign, I too had my celebrity mates. But there was one big difference: my mates know when to keep their mouths shut.

Let me tell members a little about where I come from, and what makes me the very proud National Party member that I am. I am the eldest of five girls, with only one older brother, who tried to push me around. We six kids are very close together in age, with my next sister being 10½ months younger than me—go figure!—which has always led me to believe that mum and dad kind of liked each other. We grew up in a three-bedroomed bungalow, with three kids bunking together in each of the two kids’ bedrooms. Mum, who had been a nurse, seemed to be endlessly pegging nappies on the line, and I always had a small sister on one hip. Our brother would chase us around the fruit trees on the back lawn with a dead pūkeko head on a stick, or we would make the most wonderful stink bombs out in the chook shed. I tell members, it was a great childhood.

We did not see much of our dad, though, because he spent many hours working. Dad was a general practitioner. When he was not in his surgery, he was visiting his patients in hospital, delivering babies, doing house calls, being on call, and being called out every day, including the weekends. I did not find out until much later, but what I thought were fun family outings in the car were actually dad visiting patients in hospital or in their homes. We would play in the car while mum had a rest at home.

Dad was a doctor, but he was certainly no businessman. His heart was much too soft. He carried a huge debtor’s ledger and would continue treating whole families, long after expecting any payment from them. That was the way it was in those days. He did not clock on, he did not clock off, and he had a real calling to help others. My dad worked very hard all his life. I tell members this because I have heard the term “worker” bandied about in this House as if it were the province of a particular political party. Well, I can tell members that I too come from a family of workers.

I had already decided at about the age of 3 that I would be an actor. So when I left school I embarked on a brilliant career on the stage. It was so brilliant that my acting work alternated with stints of waitressing, motel cleaning, bar work, and even a brief stint at the Inland Revenue Department. That was fun. I met my husband, Bill, when working in a bar. He was the barman in the bikie bar at the Commercial Hotel, and I was the barmaid in the lounge bar. When the odd, foolish lounge bar patron got a little too fresh with me, members of the Mongrel Mob would spill forth from the public bar and sort him out. It worked a treat. How could one not love a guy with mates like that?

So, armed with a variety of work experiences and an impressive skills set, I auditioned for, and landed, a role on television’s Play School. It was a great job. It had regular pay and—even better—regular work. Around that time I also began a long association as an actor with Dunedin’s Fortune Theatre with, amongst other roles, major roles in four of Roger Hall’s New Zealand premieres.

I retired after starring in Roger Hall’s solo show The Book Club, because 2 hours alone on stage nearly killed me, and I also figured that it was not going to get much better than that. It was while working at the Fortune Theatre that I joined the actors union, New Zealand Actors Equity. Twenty-five years later I still carry my rather tatty Equity card around in my wallet because I am incredibly proud of having been a professional in a difficult career that I absolutely loved. I will never forget rehearsing in an old hall, day after day, as a professional, where it was so cold that we had to wear hats and gloves all day long. Management would not heat the hall because of the cost, the water out of the tap was absolutely undrinkable, and although we were professionals we often had to provide our own costumes. Twenty-five years ago actors’ pay and conditions were pitiful and we worked hard to change working conditions and rates of pay.

To fast forward a bit, when my son was 6 weeks old I went back to full-time work from maternity leave and went on to part-time work only a couple of years later when my daughter was born. I have worked part-time and full-time ever since—some of it paid, much of it voluntary.

Around 7 years ago I was at a function in Oamaru. Watching the mayor in action, I thought: “I could do that.” Well, I never made it to mayor, but I served as Deputy Mayor for the Waitaki District. I have a very high regard for the functions of local government. Any decisions we made had a direct and tangible effect on people’s pockets and we were very accountable to them. I can tell members that fronting up to a country hall full of angry ratepayers and explaining one’s actions is character building. I remember once, during the Project Aqua debate, leaving an “energetic” meeting in Kurow after having got an absolute filleting at the hands of the locals. The mayor and I went out and got in his car. We looked at each other and said: “Oh, well, we’re still in one piece.”, and members can believe we meant it.

Local government in New Zealand, however, is burdened with excessive requirements to consult and to write reports for reports’ sake. Local government is now in the farcical position of having its 10-year plans audited. It is being audited for things that it may want to do in the future, and at huge expense. To me, that is carrying Government control way too far. Then, one day, the local MP strayed into my sights and I thought: “I could do that.”

Otago—Otago is Queenstown lakes, North Otago, and Central Otago—is, without doubt, the most beautiful part of New Zealand. A number of my new colleagues have already outlined the concerns and the vision that we all share for rural and provincial New Zealand, and like them, I too will be a warrior for my electorate.

The most concerning thing I heard in my campaign to win Otago was from the young guy who rang me to talk about his business. He and his wife run a rural agricultural contracting business based around Wānaka. The demand from farmers is there to expand the operation, but because of the Employment Relations Act, the Holidays Act, OSH regulations, accident compensation levies, the price of diesel, and I do not know what else I have missed out, they have decided that it is just too hard to take on any more workers, so it would remain operated just by him and his wife, and he regretted that. Imagine the benefits to a small community from every extra person, or two people, should they be taken on by this small business. With each person might come a wife, a partner, a kid, two kids, three kids—so the school has more pupils, the supermarket has more customers, and the garage sells more petrol. This seems like such a small thing, but it matters so much in rural Otago. For me, it sums up why I will work for the people of Otago. We must provide the framework for ordinary New Zealanders to take a punt on hiring an extra person, giving the owner the confidence to grow the business.

But, in my view, water—how we look after it, how we use it, and how we manage its use—is the single most important issue facing Otago, and, indeed, New Zealand. We are only now beginning to realise that water is such a precious resource, and we in Otago need it to drink, to water our stock, and to irrigate our crops. We need it to play in and we need it for hydro generation.

Recently, Bill and I went to Palmerston North to visit our son. We then drove through the Hawke’s Bay to see a game of rugby. It seemed like a good idea at the time—until we lost! On the way to Napier we drove through the Te Āpiti wind farm. Frankly, I would rather look at a lake. I would rather look at a hydro lake than the hills in the Manawatū, which now look like a scene from War of the Worlds, with these great white sails rotating through the sky and completely dominating the landscape.

New hydroelectricity initiatives on the Waitaki are, without doubt, necessary to provide for the present and future demands on electricity supply in New Zealand. We must supply industry with electricity and we must support productivity. Or is the current Government content, as it appears, to see our country continue to fall evermore behind the living standards of those enjoyed by our neighbours?

I am concerned that the previous member for Otago, now Minister of Energy, appears opposed to further hydroelectricity generation on the Waitaki. New hydro development on the Waitaki has the potential, carried out in a measured and sensible way, not only to make a major contribution to future energy needs but also, by negotiation and agreement with Meridian Energy, to provide ongoing benefit to the local community, and, most important, to enhance and improve the riverbed, which is currently populated by gorse, broom, and vermin. I would like to know, I believe that the country needs to know, where the Minister of Energy stands on this.

And to Pita Sharples, greetings. I thank him for his passionate challenge to Parliament to work with his party in an open and constructive way. I accept that challenge. I offer him a challenge. I invite him to look at a part of New Zealand that is very different from his own. I invite him and his party, to see what life is like for us in the deep south, where our population is mostly Pākehā and where our Chinese goldmining pioneers are also a significant part of our southern heritage. I look forward to working with Pita Sharples, and to looking at issues that affect all New Zealand, not just some. I am here for Otago and all New Zealand. Can they meet that challenge?

Madam Speaker, throughout this Address in Reply debate I have sat here and heard members of the Government crowing over their success at the polls. As one Labour MP commented: “You lost, and we won.” Well, fair enough, but I have a message for that MP and for the Government: “My heartfelt congratulations on winning Winston, and look out, we’re coming.”

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I am pleased to join this debate. I say to the member who has just completed her maiden speech that it is great to hear her express the passion and the belief she has in the region she represents, just as many other members have done in respect of their regions, both in this debate and in their maiden speeches in the past. Of course, although the member’s enthusiasm overshadowed the truth that I represent the most beautiful part of New Zealand, I will concede that some of the finest pinot noir in New Zealand comes from within the boundaries of her electorate. I say to her: “Well done!” for an enthusiastic speech.

I want to congratulate the many members who, as part of this Address in Reply debate, have, in the last little while, made their maiden speeches in this House. For all of us a maiden speech is a profoundly important speech. It is a time to set down the things we believe in, the things we will be judged by—and believe me, we are judged by them. Others refer to them from time to time, to remind us of the fine ideals that brought us here. It is not a bad thing for each of us quite regularly to go back—as I do myself—to remind ourselves of some of the things that brought us to this House.

I congratulate you, Madam Assistant Speaker, on your re-election to the position of a presiding officer. It is an important and a challenging role, and I think you fulfil it with great dignity. Similarly, I congratulate your co-associate, Ross Robertson. I also congratulate Clem Simich on his election to the office of Deputy Speaker, and the Hon Margaret Wilson on her re-election to the office of Speaker. I want to put on record my enormous confidence in all four of our presiding officers. I think that no other Parliament can be better served than this one in terms of the quality and integrity of its presiding officers, and I thank them for their willingness to serve us. Our appreciation is not always as obvious as perhaps it is in our expressions during this particular debate.

As I said, I think that for all members our maiden speeches are a time for making our purpose in being here clear—to ourselves, our constituents, and our families. It is a time to acknowledge those who have supported us in coming here and a time perhaps to set down some challenges for the way ahead. The Address in Reply debate is, of course, also a debate in which we look to the leaders of parties to make their mark for the parliamentary term—to set down their platform, if you will—and it should be a launching pad from which the members of each party can rally to their leader’s flag and be inspired for the term ahead. For the Labour Party that was certainly the case, with a fine, rousing speech from a Prime Minister who is returning for a historic third successive term, and leading a strong, a motivated, and an active Government with much more to do. Before that, it was Dr Don Brash’s turn.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What happened to this member’s majority?

Hon MARK BURTON: I tell Dr Smith that I am still here, and I am still the member for Taupo.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’ll get you next time.

Hon MARK BURTON: I tell Dr Smith that as a practitioner for many years of the martial art of aikido, my sensei—my teacher—frequently reminded all of her students: “Close doesn’t count.” I am still here, and I am still enormously privileged to be the servant of the people of the Taupo electorate. I say to Dr Smith that I will continue to serve them for as long as they give me that great honour. This is my fifth term.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How many?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have been returned for a fifth term as the representative of the people of that good electorate. For however long they choose to do that, I will serve them with great honour, and I regard it as a privilege.

I want to return briefly to that utterly forgettable speech made by Dr Brash. I watched the eyes rolling. Of course, many of the new members over there on the National benches had made inspiring speeches that were worth remembering. Then their leader got up, and they were embarrassed. Their eyes rolled back in their heads. But not everybody was dismayed; a couple of back-benchers were not. That is the only point of difference I actually have with my leader on that speech. She mentioned that John Key looked very pleased. Well, his benchmate on that day, who is in the House at this time, looked equally pleased with Dr Brash’s performance, because those members are doing the numbers.

Dr Nick Smith is in the business of making predictions today about how long the term will be and about how long I will be a member of Parliament. Well, I have been written off by Dr Smith on more than one occasion. I will make him, and this House, a prediction: long before the 2 years that Dr Smith is talking about in relation to anyone’s term as an MP is up, the term of the current tired and worn-out short-term leader of the National Party will be a matter of a small byline in the political history of New Zealand, and the real fight that is already under way will have taken the National Party into meltdown.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can do better than this.

Hon MARK BURTON: I say to Dr Smith that I have seen leadership change. I understand the dynamics of a party.

I have to say that I like the senior Opposition whip. I like the senior Government whip, too. Both members are very fine whips. I have a great respect for whips in this Parliament. I served as a senior whip for 3 years—and I see Eric Roy sitting back there; he has served in that capacity. Nobody who has served as a whip can have anything other than respect for those who carry out that role. I say to Lindsay Tisch that I think he has drawn the short straw, because, frankly, having as many new members of a caucus as National has is, by any measure, a challenge on a good day. It is herding kittens on a good day. Let us be honest. When three or four contenders are lining up with their little clusters of supporters behind them, and all of them are working day and night on the affections of the new MPs, then I have every sympathy for the senior Opposition whip. We should all cut him a bit of slack. He will need a lot of moral support from members of the House. I know he can rely on all the former whips, because we understand what the member is going through.

But it is time to move on from Dr Brash’s speech, because it was a particularly poor speech. It reflected the utterly depressing lack of any policy and any substance on the part of that once-great National Party. I was appalled during the election campaign, in my previous role as the Minister of Defence—and I left that portfolio with great sadness and regret—to be going through that campaign with, I think, my fourth National Party opposite number as spokesperson on defence. There have been four of them in 6 years. After we went into the campaign, we sat around the table with the defence spokespeople of the major parties for an intense interview with a very intelligent political editor from Radio New Zealand. I have to say that one or two of the other parties—and Ron Mark was there—had some policy. Ron Mark and I do not agree on everything in the area of defence, but he had some policy. The New Zealand First Party had some policy, and we debated it. When John Carter had his turn to contribute, I felt sorry for him. I would have thought that all those preceding members of the National Party who had been its spokesperson on defence would leave him something to say.

What was the policy of the National Party after 6 years in Opposition? What was it going to do if it became the Government on 17 September in that critical area of defence—the area it tells us is so important? Do members know what National was going to do? It was going to have a review. It was going to have a hui about defence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s Labour’s policy?

Hon MARK BURTON: What this Government has done in 6 years, I say to Dr Smith, is to put in place a historic 10-year funding track. This is the first time in the history of the New Zealand Defence Force that it has had a long-term development plan. It has a long-term development plan across three united services. It has a 10-year funding plan so that defence managers can predict and plan with confidence the future of the New Zealand Defence Force.

What was National’s answer to all that? What was National’s answer to the re-equipment of all three services? What was National’s answer to that multibillion dollar reinvestment in ships, in—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the man who destroyed it all.

Hon MARK BURTON: I will tell Dr Smith about the man who, as the Minister of Defence, signed the contracts on multiple acquisitions. National was going to have a hui!

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): As the member who has just resumed his seat said at the beginning of his speech—the only part of it that I agreed with—it has indeed been a treat to hear many of the maiden speeches of the new members over the past 2 parliamentary weeks. Many have been very impressive. I have to agree with Mr Burton about the passion he spoke of, and the enthusiasm is quite infectious.

Well, the Speech from the Throne—there it is, and I have to say that if that is the plan for the next 3 years, it is completely devoid of vision for New Zealand.

Hon Maurice Williamson: We’re in trouble.

HEATHER ROY: We are in trouble, all right. The Speech from the Throne is full of what are perceived successes, but it is actually full of biased accounts of what 6 years of Labour Government have brought to this country. In terms of self-reliance and less government involvement in the lives of Kiwis, this Labour Government has been an overwhelming failure. A further 3 years of that, assisted now by New Zealand First and United Future, will move New Zealand backwards. A good example is State dependency. It will increase, with more people being dependent for some of their income on the State. The example that springs to mind quickly is the expansion of the Working for Families package, but it should be remembered by this Labour minority Government that 60 percent of New Zealanders voted for parties advocating tax cuts.

So let us look at the Speech from the Throne, and members are right—it is probably not worth looking at, but there are some things we should look at and debate critically. One of the statements on the first page is: “Ours is now a country more confident of its economic future …”. Well, it would seem that since that speech was written, and certainly since it was delivered, there has been quite a lot disagreement about that, not only here in Parliament but outside the parliamentary walls. Today there has been heavy reporting of the Reserve Bank report that shows we have the biggest drop in business confidence since the 1987 crash.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Really?

HEATHER ROY: Absolutely! Last week, of course, we had Treasury’s report challenging the Government’s policy. Dr Cullen did not like either of those reports—not surprisingly—but in fact both Treasury and the Reserve Bank have made very pertinent and relevant remarks that we should pay heed to. Those are things, also, I should point out, that members on this side of the House, and in particular ACT members, advocated at election time.

A bit further on in the Speech from the Throne is the statement: “… significant fiscal loosening—either by way of large expenditure increases above those already signalled or by way of significant tax cuts—cannot be considered.” Well, during the election campaign Dr Cullen said that tax cuts would be inflationary, and he went on about that at quite some length. But he told only half the story. In fact, tax cuts on their own can be inflationary but what he omitted to say, and what is every bit as relevant, is that increased Government spending is also inflationary—and what have we had in the past 6 years, and what will we be getting in the next 3 years? We will be getting increased Government spending that will cause inflation.

The Government should remember that 60 percent of New Zealanders—and New Zealanders are not stupid people—voted for parties advocating tax relief. But what is this minority Labour Government doing? It is ignoring that message completely. We should not forget that as well as the Reserve Bank report and Treasury’s report of last week, there is the McLeod Tax Review of 2001, which also advocated significant tax relief for New Zealanders. But Dr Cullen does not take advice well. He knows best—in his own mind. He reportedly threw the McLeod review across the room when he received it, saying: “I’ve just paid a million dollars for ACT’s tax policy.” Well, New Zealand would be in better shape today if he had heeded that advice in 2001.

There is a further quote from the Speech from the Throne: “Over the last six years my government has transformed our system of social assistance so that it is focused on assisting people to find sustainable employment.” How can we take that statement seriously?

Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha! They should stop telling porkies.

HEATHER ROY: It is a joke—Mr Williamson is quite correct. We have heard a lot of talk about unemployment figures dropping, and that is undeniable, but let us look at the other part of the story. That is the problem with Labour—it only ever tells half the story. The number of people on the sickness benefit has increased by 35 percent since 2000, and the number on the invalids benefit has increased by 41 percent since 2000. So the unemployment rate might have dropped, but suddenly we have become an extraordinarily sick nation—that, and a nation that loves learning, because everybody else has gone off to the local tertiary institutes, and is learning. That is of benefit, of course, to the Government, because those people do not feature in the unemployment statistics.

My last quote from the Speech from the Throne—because we have probably had enough—is: “My government’s priorities in health are to focus on primary health care through the continued roll out of accessible and affordable primary services;”. The fact that most people are still paying the same or more for their primary health care seems to have escaped notice. I go on: “… the implementation of preventative health care services; and increasing elective surgery numbers through initiatives such as the orthopaedics and cataracts projects.” Well, let me tell members that the number of people on waiting lists now—180,000—is the same number as when Labour came to power. The Government thinks it is addressing the problem of elective surgery by picking favourites—by picking orthopaedics and cataracts—and by ignoring everybody else on waiting lists. The area of health is a disaster just waiting to happen.

Two words that new MPs can look forward to hearing a lot of from this Government, particularly from Labour Ministers, are “transparency” and “accountability”. This Government thinks it is transparent and accountable. The Minister who thinks like that most of all is the previous Minister of Health, Annette King. She thought that by hiding the number of deaths of people on waiting lists, by hiding the real numbers of people on waiting lists, she was being transparent and accountable. Well, she was wrong, but we have another 3 years of apparent transparency and accountability to look forward to.

Accountability is one thing we did not hear about in the Speech from the Throne, because the Prime Minister knows that it is not the case, at all. As an illustration of that point, I would like to briefly mention golden handshakes. In 1999 Helen Clark had this to say—members should remember that National was in Government at time. The woman who was about to become Prime Minister said: “I’ve had a gutsful. I don’t intend if I’m Prime Minister to have to sit there and suffer one humiliation after another because of a culture of extravagance which has been allowed to grow in the public sector. Whatever’s in there and hidden, we want out.” Yet a very quick search of media reports revealed the following golden handshakes between 2000 and 2005. There were actually 17 of them, but two of the biggest and most recent, of course, are the Television New Zealand golden handshake—Ian Fraser’s $420,000—and the Families Commission golden handshake of $50,000. One big difference between the previous Government and this Government is that at least the previous Government’s golden handshakes were for people who had been fired. This Labour Government has made a real thing about giving people golden handshakes for quitting. It is setting quite a new precedent.

I thought it was not unreasonable to investigate golden handshakes better, so I asked a parliamentary question of departments a couple of weeks ago about golden handshakes or other payments, including termination payments for former employees. Somebody, probably somebody on the ninth floor I expect, got hold of all the questions and said: “You must answer them in a very particular way. You must say ‘I refer the member to the answer to one particular question.’ ” Regarding the question to the State Services Commission, the answer says: “The scope of the question, which potentially includes a wide range of payments, such as redundancy and superannuation payments, is too broad to answer meaningfully.” But the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) answered the question in the right way, and then sent through to me the chart of the work it had done. ACC did not find it too hard. Members might be interested to know that in 2002-03 ACC paid out $919,000 in settlements. Those settlements decreased in the next 2 years but, interestingly, somebody at ACC forgot to delete the table from the answer to the question. Just imagine what we might have known. I took the Prime Minister at her word: “Whatever’s in there … we want out.”, she said. I took her at her word but, no, she does not really want it out, at all.

That brings me to a common theme in the maiden speeches of many of the new MPs—that is, that less government involvement in the lives of New Zealanders is a very good thing. I was very pleased to hear that from this side of the House, particularly. It made me remember a quote I had read a while back from Lord Salisbury, who said that anything a Government does is likely to go awry, so it is best to do as little as possible. That is the message I would like to leave with the Government today. I am looking forward to the lighter sitting hours this Government has presented us with, because it is lazy, but also because it will have much less scope to go awry, and perhaps that will lead to moving New Zealand forward.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): Madam Assistant Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to your role. I also congratulate Margaret Wilson on her re-election to the role of Speaker, my colleague Clem Simich on his election as Deputy Speaker, and Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Rob Talbot, former member for South Canterbury and Ashburton, who is in the House today. I am honoured.

I add my congratulations to Dr Brash, the leader of the National Party, and Judy Kirk, our party president. As a member of the National Party caucus I salute your leadership because the National Party caucus is stunningly different from that of the last Parliament. The last caucus worked tirelessly to give me a platform of policies to sell to the people of Aoraki, and that caucus was just over half the size of today’s, so I thank you. The feeling within the caucus today is, thanks to those people, one of energy, numbers, impatience, and eagerness. I feel that sense of purpose and I know that we will not let this Labour - New Zealand First Government forget the squandered opportunities of the last 6 years. I will take every opportunity to show that these same policies, continued into the future, will increase dependency on the State, destroy economic stability, and send a raft of confusing messages to the electorate.

My speech has three parts: I will introduce myself; I will introduce my electorate; I will share my hopes for a better New Zealand. So who is Jo Goodhew, and why has she come to Parliament? I am a wife, a mother, a daughter, and a sister. I am a registered nurse, a former teacher, a crime prevention worker, and a volunteer in many organisations. I am the daughter of farmers. I was born Joanne McCully, the eldest of three children born to Bruce and Winnie. I am proud that they are here with me today, as they have so often been, supporting me through the momentous occasions of my life. My husband Mark and our daughters Emily, Harriet, and Abigail are also here today. I have said it before and I will repeat it today. I owe them a debt of gratitude and love for the many ways in which they have supported my journey into politics, and shared me with the people of Aoraki. My family know the passion I have for this challenge.

My ancestors were known as De Caillot, Huguenots who fled France to Scotland. Caillot became Cully and the “Mc” prefix was added. Two of a number of brothers migrated to Ireland. In 1872, Samuel and Mary McCully sailed to Canterbury aboard the Crusader. They settled in South Canterbury, where their son Henry worked for a settler who could not afford to pay him. Instead, the settler gave Henry some land, which he subsequently named Clandeboye after his home in Ireland. Today, Clandeboye is marked by two clusters of buildings. The first is the recently closed primary school where I was educated. The other is New Zealand’s second-largest Fonterra manufacturing site. There we have rural provincial growth alongside rural provincial pain.

Throughout the campaign, and now into my career as a member of Parliament, Theodore Roosevelt’s words ring in my ears: “It is not the critic that counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred with sweat, dust and blood.” My electorate is Aoraki. To some Mount Cook, to many Aoraki, the magnificence of the mountain draws many visitors to Aoraki - Mount Cook National Park. The park is also part of Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area, in recognition of its outstanding natural values. For me, the spellbinding natural beauty, peace, and tranquillity of the Mackenzie Country explain why my family and I have spent many holidays there. Every year New Zealanders and tourists flock to this special place to recharge their batteries.

I am here as a result of the people of Aoraki voting overwhelmingly for change. That we did not get a National administration is unfortunate, so my continuing role is to strive towards returning a strong National Government to meet the needs of this rural province. I thank the former member for Aoraki, the Hon Jim Sutton, for a cleanly fought battle and for his stewardship since 1993. This is just the fourth maiden speech to be given in the New Zealand Parliament by a new member representing a seat that encompasses Timaru, in 77 years. This is why I have taken the time to introduce my electorate. In my quest to represent Aoraki, a strong team backed me. I salute today the campaign chair, John Rushton, for his guidance and calm, and the electorate chair, Allan Booth, for toughing it out with National through some difficult years. I also salute the host of people both inside the campaign team and outside it, who guided and assisted my progress to this day.

In Aoraki there are five territorial local authorities: Timaru, Mackenzie, and Waimate districts; a small part of the Waitaki district; and the Canterbury Regional Council. The people of the region have a lot of government going on. It takes me 3½ hours to drive from the northernmost point to the southernmost point, as long as I do not break any speed limits. The mighty Rangitata River and Waitaki River are natural boundaries, and controversy over the use of the lifeblood of those rivers has dogged our recent history. Our biggest territorial local authority, Timaru District Council, has, for the most part, no access to the waters of either river at any part of their journey to the sea. That fact will be a decided barrier to further development in parts of the region.

Aoraki relies heavily on an economic base of agriculture and agricultural processing, as, we know, does the rest of New Zealand. The average income of the people of Aoraki is just under $29,000, somewhat below the New Zealand average. The people of the electorate are mainly of European descent, with all other ethnicities represented in lower numbers than the New Zealand average. Over-65-year-olds make up more than 17 percent of the constituents. Unemployment is low. There are approximately 500 unemployed but nearly 3,000 people on other benefits in the Timaru Work and Income area. I believe that these people represent significant numbers and should not be forgotten. Despite that low unemployment, I still have people coming into my office and asking me to help them get a job.

The people of Aoraki are great examples of strong communities. There are towns such as Omarama, Otematata, Kurow, and Twizel that are reinventing themselves as holidaying destinations after the doomsayers predicted that they would gradually die after the Waitaki hydro schemes were completed. There are rural service centres such as Fairlie, Waimate, Temuka, Geraldine, and Pleasant Point that are challenged by the centralisation of primary production service centres, by the closure of schools, and by the lowering of rural workforce numbers. So too these small towns reel from business closures brought about by the need for business to be lean and mean, pay high taxes, and exist in a high compliance cost environment.

Now, my hopes for a better New Zealand: I want New Zealand to be a place where families are strong and communities are caring; a country whose people are encouraged to work hard and smarter by the reward this should bring; and a country where there is an expectation that if people can do something to help themselves, they will. I want our country to be a place where our taxes are spent on delivering health and education, not on paying more bureaucrats to shuffle more forms. Our children deserve to be represented by politicians who are not here solely for the technology of power and manipulation, which was Vaclav Havel’s description of undesirable politics. These children deserve to be represented by New Zealanders who have had to juggle work and family, who scorn political correctness, who value self-reliance, and who believe that working hard should bring personal benefits, not increased taxation.

My background has taught me that when someone comes to another for help, the cruellest thing one can do is simply hand over the help, for in doing so we set them up to rely on other people. When I was door-knocking thousands of doors before the election I met many beneficiaries, and many of them thought I would try to make their lives difficult if elected. But I convinced them otherwise. On hearing that under National an employer could take a risk and employ a long-term beneficiary for 90 days without fear of personal grievance, their eyes lit up. They said to me: “You know, that means I can show what I am able to do.” For them this represented hope. I defy anyone to find a beneficiary who is also a parent who wants his or her children to share that same fate. Of course they do not. We need to raise expectations in this country for those who experience hopelessness. We need to raise our expectations that those who are able to do some work will work.

I also want to say something about the volunteers of Aoraki. They have a strong sense of community and a willingness to help out their neighbours and the rest of New Zealand. I am not suggesting that the people of Aoraki are unusual in that respect, but I do believe that that sense of community is stronger in rural provincial New Zealand than in urbanised areas. Why? Because it is either do or die. This community spirit is worth millions to the economy of New Zealand. In its simplest form it is the people who deliver Meals on Wheels to the elderly and help them stay in their homes. In a more complex example, it is the many hundreds who banded together in the Relay For Life to raise $147,000 over a weekend for cancer care and research. This community will continue to rise to the occasion as long as we parliamentarians allow it. Why would we stop New Zealanders giving away the scant dollars they have left after taxation? Put quite simply, bossy, interfering, patronising Governments threaten the goodwill of those strong communities and have forgotten that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Or maybe these same interfering lawmakers have not forgotten, they simply want to fix everyone because a small percentage needed fixing.

The lawmakers are running the risk that they, just as surely as high fuel prices, threaten the goodwill of New Zealand’s volunteers. I will make it my crusade to ask these questions: “Will this new law change more good practices than bad or poor practices? Will it make the boat go faster?” Will the volunteers who are told that their organisation will be more professional if they comply with this or that rule or regulation say to the Government that relies on their goodwill: “Take a hike!”. This is not the volunteers’ profession; it is their voluntary passion. Examples include volunteer drivers, charity collectors, and organisers of public events. Some of the volunteers will say to me: “It’s OK, if we jump through the hoops we can access the money.” I say to the volunteers that petty rules and bureaucracy hold them to ransom, and that their time is immensely valuable and should not be undermined.

In conclusion I say that I stood on the doorsteps and I promised to work hard for the people of Aoraki. They have, like many other rural provincial electorates, sent a clear message to the Government that all is not well. Twenty-three new National Party MPs are the faces of that message. The people have asked me to represent their views on many issues that are about access: access to education and health-care options; access to water; restricting access to private property; access to improved funding for aged-care services; access to timely determinations under the Resource Management Act; access to a fair deal under tenure review; access to a business-friendly approach to legislation; and access to improvements in roading and energy infrastructure.

The people of Aoraki want access to their MP, and I will represent their views. We as parliamentarians must enable and empower those who are not self-reliant. We must always have a welfare system that is there for those who need it, but a temporary measure for most, not a trapdoor to poverty. We must cherish and support our volunteers who enrich our communities, not bog them down with paper wars and petty rules. I finish with Vaclav Havel’s description of desirable politics: “that is, politics not as the technology of power and manipulation … or as the art of the useful, … but politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans.”

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): It is always an honour to rise at the start of a parliamentary session and make a speech. It is always an honour to be here. I would like firstly to acknowledge you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and fellow Speakers, and congratulate you on your re-election. I would like to acknowledge all the new members in the House. Every one of us comes here to start our career and has great ambitions and great hopes and, for the most part, makes a very positive contribution to Parliament. I would also like to acknowledge Rod Donald’s death. I suppose it was a very sad reminder for each and every one of us of the effect that Parliament has on one’s family life. I think that we were reminded through the different ceremonies that occurred up and down this country that the effect on Rod Donald’s family was the most significant, given the fact that he had been away from them for so long during his parliamentary career.

It is an honour indeed to be re-elected as the West Coast - Tasman MP. It is an area of proud history. It is a very special area—perhaps the most spectacular in the country—and one that borders on eight national parks. I do not think there would be a constituency in the world that could lay claim to that. I would also like to note that at the very furthest, most north-eastern tip of my electorate is a farm owned by our family, and it is where my ancestors came to in 1846. While my electorate is very big and the boundaries change, it is quite an honour to have that back under, I suppose, my representation. The electorate goes all the way to Jackson Bay, right at the bottom of the West Coast, and again it is an area founded by pioneers—tough people—and by Māori. An unfortunate debate is going on at the moment over the ownership and control of pounamu, and I just hope that that is resolved fairly and amicably between Ngai Tahu, who are now the rightful owners, and those people who helped to discover and utilise that wonderful stone.

What makes me the most proud, though, is to be re-elected as part of a Labour Government. As a Labour Party, we have done much for this country over the years. Even in the last 6 years, we have done much to transform this country from one that, after 9 years of a selfish National Government, was inward-looking. We have turned the economy around to one that is positive and vibrant, and is looking ahead. It is indeed an honour to be part of that.

The most significant thing, of course, that we did at the election was to keep from power a party that would have dragged us back into the 1990s, and I would like to remind people what that meant.

Jill Pettis: 1890s!

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well, it might very well have been the 1890s as well, because the first thing National did when it came into power was to cut benefits. Some very good speeches have been made by incoming members about looking after people and giving opportunities to everyone. National Party members should realise that their party is about cutting benefits and selling assets—[Interruption]—yes it is, and it is about changing employment law to make it difficult, if not impossible, for many employees to get a fair deal. Well, I am proud to be part of a party that has formed a Government in partnership with other sensible parties, and has kept from power that bunch of Tories who would have sold assets and cut taxes, particularly for those who are wealthy, and who would have, once again, carried on in their ideological way.

The thing that saddened me about the campaign is that Don Brash, John Key, and Gerry Brownlee were trying to turn Kiwi into “Ki-me”. They do not realise that Kiwi—

Dr Don Brash: How long did it take you to come up with that?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Listen, Don. You might learn something!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use the full name of the member or his or her title.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I say to Dr Don Brash that Kiwi is about us collectively. “Ki-me”, what you were promoting—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member is now bringing me into debate.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: What Don Brash and his party were promoting was the selfish, self-interested politics of racial division, of selling assets to mates, of coming down on those workers who need decent wages and conditions, and of cutting back on beneficiaries. Well, Mr Brash might now give us an assurance. Was the National Party going to sell State assets to pay for tax cuts? He cannot answer that. Yes, it was. Mr Brash should not be confused about that. He was confused during the campaign, not only on the issue of State asset sales but also on whether to go to Iraq—whether he would have taken young New Zealanders to fight a war that was not ours. People have to be reminded about this, because that was the alternative, and that will be the alternative in 3 years’ time because nothing has changed.

The National Party represents self-interest, selling State assets to mates, and going to war for a regime that looks after its mates. It is a party that cannot make up its mind on whether it should cut down West Coast forests. The National Party could not make up its mind on that issue during the campaign. It could not work out whether the Brethren were supporting them. It did not know whether a National Government would sell State houses again—previously it sold 13,000 State houses. [Interruption] David Carter indicates that it would. I thank him for that. Would National have sold Landcorp?

Hon David Carter: We would have sold Landcorp.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, it would have sold Landcorp. Mr Brash says it was just a few farms. Well, I think they should get that sorted out.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave of the House to table documents showing that, as we sit here, the Labour Government has Landcorp farms for sale, and further documents showing that the Labour Government has sold State houses in recent times and, I believe, has some for sale now.

Documents not tabled.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is absolutely essential that this country knows quite clearly what it was voting for, because it was unclear during the election. There is no doubt about that. Don Brash could not make up his mind what policies the National Party supported. Every time he was asked, he was not quite sure, or he did a flip-flop on policy. What this party stands for is not just any old schools, as the previous speaker referred to; they have to be schools that deliver quality education, regardless of where students live. It is not acceptable just to have a local rural school that is not delivering quality education. That is what this Government is about. No matter where students live, they are entitled to quality education. No matter where people live, they are entitled to quality public health-care. The National Party was going to deliver to New Zealand a privatised health system that simply would never deliver to people in rural areas, because the economies of scale and the return on investment were simply never there. Those were the policies of the 1990s. Those were the policies that the National Party would have returned to. As Mr Carter quite rightly and honestly points out, National would have returned to the sale of State assets and the privatisation of health.

I am proud to be part of a party that has led this country forward through the previous century at different times and will lead this country forward into the next century. We will not privatise roads, and we will not privatise the health system. We will ensure there is infrastructure to allow this economy to grow, and, in the same way that we have seen economic growth in this country in the last 6 years, which was never seen before, we will guide that forward into the future. I am proud to be here as the West Coast - Tasman Labour MP, in a Labour Government.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Mr Speaker, as my new parliamentary colleagues have done before me, through you I wish to congratulate the new Speaker on her reappointment, and I look forward to serving under her direction in this House for the duration of the forty-eighth Parliament.

It is an honour indeed to be addressing this House as the new member of Parliament for Northcote. I thank the people of Northcote for the faith they have expressed in me, and I will do my utmost to serve them faithfully in return. Now as people look north from the Auckland Harbour Bridge over the beautiful Waitematā Harbour, they can be confident in the knowledge that the next Labour electorate is on the south coast of England. That is due in no small part to the magnificent team who supported me through a tough campaign, which saw us hurdle Labour in Northcote. Northcote is the only seat that we took off the Government in any of the four main centres, and that is an achievement that National Party people in Northcote can take great pride in.

I am thrilled that some of that team have made the trip down here from Northcote today. I tell Gavin Cook that he is definitely the National Party kaumātua of Birkenhead. This is the third time he has been involved in winning this seat off Labour in 30 years, and I am certainly hoping that we do not have to call on his services to do that again. To Mike Elliott, to Jamie Turner, to Stephen Elliot, and to Margaret, I say that their input was mighty, and I am thrilled that they have made the trip here today. To the others listening back up north—Callum Dixon, Colin Hartwell, Jason Shoebridge, Scott Martins, Martin Gummer, Jeremy Sole, Aaron Bethune, Alan Croot, and the helpers who gave me countless hours of support—I say that I owe them all a debt of gratitude, as well. I also acknowledge the president Judy Kirk, our leader Don Brash, Peter Kiely, and Wayne Mapp, who have all helped me to get here today. It is great to see John Banks, the champion of “truth radio”, here in the gallery today. John’s door-knocking feats in his early Birkenhead days really set the benchmark for my own campaign, and I thank him for his support.

I am especially proud that my fiancée, Sandra Keaney, is in the gallery here today. She certainly lived every part of the road to Parliament, and I am very much looking forward to our wedding on 6 January. I acknowledge my mother, Patricia, who brought up three rowdy teenage boys pretty much on her own—I thank you, Mum, for all you have done for me over the years; it is great to have you and Jack, Rom and John, and Kaye here today. I also thank those two other rowdy teenage boys, who flew 12,000 miles to stand with me on Ōnewa Road in the last week of the election campaign.

I pay tribute to my predecessors, who have represented the area with distinction: Norman King, the Hon Jim McLay, who is still a household name in Northcote, and Ian Revell. Jim and Ian were both generous in their support, and their counsel was much appreciated. More recently, Ann Hartley the Assistant Speaker, has represented the people of Northcote. Though Ann and I can be relied upon to disagree on just about everything politically, there is no doubt that she has the interests of the area at heart. It is certainly one of the ironies of MMP that I now find myself serving with her on the Health Committee. It would have been too much of an irony had she been in the Chair today.

My own family’s history is deeply entwined with that of the Northcote electorate. My great-great-great-grandfather came to Northcote in 1845, and he started a farm behind what is now the Poenamo Hotel. That farm continued to provide the Northcote town milk supply for over a century. Five generations straight lived in the area, and I am proud now to have come back to Northcote to represent the electorate in which so much of my family history took place. There is a street in the electorate named after my grandmother, Jessmae. My late father Ron, born and raised in Northcote, would have taken great pride in this day. I believe it to be a rare occurrence for a member to represent an urban seat where his or her forebears lived for so long, and I am privileged.

But just as the farm paddocks and the strawberry fields along Northcote Road have given way over time to suburban housing, so too the demographic make-up of the Northcote electorate has evolved to reflect the changing face of urban New Zealand. The electorate is as diverse in its settings as it is in its peoples. From the beautiful native bush reserves of the Waitematā coastline to the urban heart of the Northcote town centre, from the Victorian villas of Northcote Point to State housing further inland, from Koreans and Chinese-speaking peoples to Pacific Islanders, Maori, and Pākehā, the Northcote electorate is truly a microcosm of modern urban New Zealand.

But to build successful communities, there has to be something that binds the diverse peoples of our fortunate land other than lines on a map. There is. On the doorsteps of Beachhaven, in Glenfield Mall, and in the streets of Birkenhead, if we stop just long enough to listen to people, they will tell us what they have in common with people of every colour, of every race, and of every history who now claim New Zealand as their tūrangawaewae. To put it simply, like all New Zealanders the people of Northcote aspire. Although each person will express it in a different way, they aspire to an education that gives them and their children the best possible chance to compete in the world. They aspire to the outstanding health of body and mind that is the prerequisite for maximising all that life has to offer. They aspire to a level of prosperity that guarantees the enjoyment of the present and the safeguarding of the future. And to deliver on those aspirations our people demand the best schools, health systems that are the envy of other nations, and an economy that provides the opportunity to build businesses and futures right here in New Zealand.

I suggest to the House that that ambition is the common thread that has linked all the peoples of New Zealand, who have come to Aotearoa over the course of a millennium. From the first waka that landed on these shores to the new immigrants of the 21st century, people have come to New Zealand from places as far afield as Hawaiki, Europe, Asia, and Africa because we have all sought a better life than the one we have left behind. If there is a theme that I believe runs through the stories of all the peoples of Aotearoa, it is that aspirational, inquisitive, entrepreneurial, competitive instinct that brings every new arrival here.

In the Speech from the Throne, reference was made to a distinctive New Zealand way of responding to the challenges of the 21st century that the Government has developed over the past few years. I suggest that the real New Zealand way is defined by its people, not by its Government. I further suggest that the real New Zealand way, the mark that is stamped on our history, and the New Zealand way that will define our future, is a willingness to compete, to seek excellence, and to demand that potential does not remain unfulfilled. It was the way of Kupe, it was the way of Rutherford, and it is embodied in the All Black ethos. That New Zealand way that is so easily illustrated in outstanding deeds of exploration, academic excellence, and sporting prowess translates to the aspiration that I believe all New Zealanders hold for their family, their community, and their country.

I have been impressed throughout the course of this series of maiden speeches with the diversity of experience and life-knowledge to be found across this House. But the one thing that is apparent is that what binds National members of Parliament together is the belief that the culture at the very heart of National Party values is the key to New Zealand’s success in the 21st century. It is the National Party way; it is the true New Zealand way. The reason for the long-term success of the National Party is that those very values that our party is founded on are the values that resonate down the generations with every New Zealander as a guide for progress in life, both for the individual and the community. National is the party whose every policy can be explained in terms of an underlying philosophy, and it is that strength and integrity of values that makes me proud to be a member of the National Party.

Results must prevail over dogma if New Zealand is to be worthy of a place as a leading Pacific Rim nation. We must analyse what is not currently working, then set about finding the most practical and realistic solutions to serve our people’s needs. The Government should serve the people, not be their master.

Whatever one’s claims to the title of “Dr”, one wants to be one of those docs who make people well, in whatever sense. Universal access to health care is now a fundamental tenet of New Zealand life. Yet as advances in medicine mean there are evermore treatment options available, the ability of the State to meet the reasonable expectations of its citizens is lagging further and further behind. We have to avoid ideological blind spots that refuse to contemplate alternative ways of delivering on New Zealanders’ basic right to health care. We have to use all the intelligence, innovative capacity, and resources at our disposal to deliver on those aspirations for modern New Zealand. We have to be open to the opportunity to deploy alternative funding models in State-provided health-care, where we need to. We have to keep the focus on preventing illness and providing service, and we will have to summon all the capacity in the public and private systems in order to meet the aspirations of our peoples.

The country I want to live in is a nation where the peoples of this land lay down the divisions of race, of geography, of tribe, of urban and rural, and focus on moving ahead with a broad set of common values that emphasise choice, excellence, and compassion. We are too small a nation, and our interests are too insignificant on the international stage, not to seek the things that bring our peoples together.

I have long believed that economic vision is the key to progress. It is futile to debate the future of health care, education, policing, and social services without a sustainable economic plan that will provide the income to pay for them. We cannot help the most needy in our society without the economic strength to do so. It is aspiration that binds the strands of our history, and it is aspiration that melds our futures as New Zealanders together. If we are to allow 21st century New Zealand to deliver on its dreams. We must allow people to strive unhindered. We must reward endeavour. We must give free expression to the New Zealand way.

Thirteen medical doctors have taken seats in this House over the course of the history of the New Zealand Parliament, and I am proud to be one of three in the National Party caucus. I put myself forward because I have always been committed to public service, and I believe that this is the best place in which to help see one’s aspirations for one’s country realised. Although as a doctor there is no question that one can do many fine deeds to help individuals and communities, equally I have no doubt that it is through the political process that greater good for one’s country might be achieved.

I come here with no illusions about the realities of political life, but equally I remain confident that this is an arena in which humanity—if not always humility—might be expressed. For that is ultimately the purpose for which every member must surely enter this House: the betterment of one’s fellow New Zealander. The philosophies may be different, but the purpose must surely be the same.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, I congratulate you, along with the Hon Margaret Wilson, Clem Simich, and Ann Hartley, on your re-election as Speakers in this Parliament. I am sure that you, led by the Hon Margaret Wilson, are already putting your stamp on Parliament by showing leadership and precision in the rulings. I think that this collection of Speakers, led by the Hon Margaret Wilson, will go down on the record as being a very successful leadership of the affairs of the House.

I thank the 14,000-odd people of Napier who voted for me this time—in fact, that is about the same number of people as voted for me last time, when I was successful.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to interrupt the member, but it is customary to allow a minute or so whilst members congratulate a member, particularly one who has made a maiden speech, before another member starts. Mr Fairbrother started straight into his speech, and I think he would have done the House a courtesy if he had waited at least a brief moment of time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Dr Mapp. I accept responsibility for that.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I say to Dr Mapp that I in fact waited for the indication from the Speaker.

I thank my campaign team, who worked very hard and were led by Joan Coppell. I thank the two staff members, Raewyn Barry and Jason Smith, who ran a very busy electorate office. They worked very hard for the last 3 years—far and above the hours required by the Parliamentary Service. It was indeed a busy electorate office. One of the first realisations I had after the tragedy of the loss of the Napier seat for this next 3 years was that I would be free of constituency work. That ambition, however, failed in the first few weeks. The workload is increasing as people realise that the only way to get accurate and successful representation is with a Government member of Parliament, and particularly one with experience in advocacy.

That takes me to my friends the members of the Māori Party. I sought this speaking slot because, following the speech of Dr Pita Sharples—

Hon Bill English: How could you lose Napier?

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I know where Napier is; I did not lose any votes. I enjoyed the passion of Dr Sharples’ maiden speech. I share some of his identification as tangata whenua, although I do not claim that status—as a lawyer, I believe I cannot lay claim to that status. However, I take issue with the part of his speech that referred to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Although he made an assertion that he no doubt believes, and he gets support from some academic quarters—as shown particularly in the latest issue of the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, which has a 30-page article on the process before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—his speech contained, as did the article written by the learned authors in that law review, a fundamental misconception about why the Foreshore and Seabed Act was so necessary.

I take issue with Dr Sharples’ comments that the legislation produced the single greatest act of confiscation against all tribes since the formation of this Westminster Parliament. That assumes that Māori title, whatever it would have been, is the same as European freehold title. The long 30-page article in the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review that I referred to touches on and deals with the difference, but in about 25 words. The learned authors state: “In fact, Māori do have a strong legal relationship with land under Māori customary law, it is only that the term ‘ownership’ as understood in an English-sense is an inappropriate word to describe that relationship.”

Of course, that is the heart of the debate. The English construct of ownership and the Māori law - based construct of ownership are at the heart of the difference. That was recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal, which stated in paragraph 4.3.1(3) of its Report on the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy: “It appears that the undesirability of titles being created that may be sold is a matter on which Māori and the Government agree.” Then the tribunal wrote: “Would it not be possible to introduce by legislation a simple limitation on any title that might be issued to effect this common objective?”.

Once we prevent the ability to sell, then we no longer have freehold title. The true elements of the English construct of freehold title are the ability to alienate that title and the right of exclusivity. The irony of the tribunal’s statement is that if it wanted to tag a freehold title that would have resulted from claims on the foreshore and seabed made by successful Māori applicants so that it became inalienable, then that would be an act of discrimination, because European title does not have that tag, so would have had lesser status than the freehold title that would have been the outcome of any claim should Māori have gone to the tribunal.

Of course, the Court of Appeal in the Ngāti Apa case did not state that Māori owned the foreshore and seabed. It merely stated that the Ninety Mile Beach case, which was previously understood to be the law for 40-odd years, was no longer a barrier to claims being made for the foreshore and seabed. The Court of Appeal noted that the prospect of any such claim being successful was very remote. It was stating there was no common law in New Zealand to interpret indigenous rights, so that any applicant had to interpret the developing law from overseas.

The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was much assisted by the work of the Ngāi Tahu fellow at Cambridge University, Professor Paul McHugh. He interpreted the common law interpretation in New Zealand of indigenous rights as being one that is a bundle of rights, rather than a right to exclusive title and the right to alienate that title. He acknowledged, as is true, that the indigenous title is, in fact, a burden on the Crown, but that the Crown, in assuming sovereignty under the Treaty, could not sell or give better title than what it held. The title the Crown assumed in the face of a customary rights claim was less than exclusive title. Professor McHugh’s thesis, generally accepted by many, was that the Foreshore and Seabed Act offered a clearer route to a greater right of title than aboriginal law would deliver through jurisprudence.

So it is possible, under the redress provisions of the legislation, for an iwi to negotiate directly with the Government, with the good-faith provisions that surround that, for a form of title that is considerably more exclusive—and even, perhaps, alienable—and one that could not be granted under the application of indigenous rights. When it is argued in this House, as it is argued elsewhere—and it is being argued while the rapporteur is in the country at present—that the legislation produces the single greatest act of confiscation against all tribes since the formation of this Westminster Government, then that proposition just cannot stand the scrutiny of the law. Just as the 4,000 submitters to the committee expressed their anger that the Government had to move quickly on the issue, it may well be that there is a feeling that the right to take the time to consider the issue had been taken from them. But, of course, the exigencies of the Resource Management Act, which is presaged on the fact that the Crown has sovereignty over the foreshore and seabed, required an early decision. There seems to be very little factual, or even academic, debate about that aspect.

My argument for Dr Pita Sharples, whom I respect considerably—and he is one of eight members of Parliament who can call Hawke’s Bay home—is that there is much to argue for tangata whenua to claim a separate status and a right to a separate consideration in our law. But to argue that case, as I think it is important to do—from a legal sense, at least—one must not make exaggerated statements that are populist but legally incorrect and untrue. It is particularly important, since the United Nations representative is touring the country at present, that his attention be drawn to the distinct difference between aboriginal title—the title that could be given from that—and the English construct of freehold title. I note that the Ngāi Tahu submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—and one of the advocates there was one of the authors of the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review article—also appears to gloss over that difference, by noting correctly that under indigenous law there is no better class of title or inferior class of title. But that is different from saying that the concepts are the same.

In the submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, as I have read the Ngāi Tahu submission, that point again is glossed over, which no doubt is the explanation for the tentative response from the committee. One hopes that the rapporteur will look at the essential characteristics, will read carefully the tribunal decision, will look at the redress provisions, and will look at the ability for claimants to negotiate a better deal with the Government than may have been possible through the jurisprudence of our court system. But, of course, the other aspect that will give most encouragement to the rapporteur is that there is certainty now. Any claimant can approach this issue with the certainty of legal concepts, knowing the outcomes that they can negotiate for at no great expense.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I would love to address the issues raised by Russell Fairbrother, but time and circumstances prevent me from doing so—except to say that his view that the common law would have provided even less for Māori than the Foreshore and Seabed Act provides, is, quite frankly, completely wrong. I look forward to taking another opportunity to demonstrate how that is so.

On the West Coast of the South Island, which is one of our most beautiful areas in this country, and where tourism provides one of the biggest economic opportunities, there are two examples of threatened indigenous species that may be lost or irreparably damaged by the human pursuit of profit over the environment—the Hector’s dolphin and the giant New Zealand snail, whose name I cannot, and will not, even try to pronounce. [Interruption] Yes, the great New Zealand land snail!

First, I want to talk about the Hector’s dolphin, a quintessentially New Zealand icon. Recently, the West Coast Regional Council decided not to notify a resource consent application by Seafield Resources Ltd to prospect for gold and other minerals in the West Coast seabed—partly a result, I might say, of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Only a few thousand Hector’s dolphins are left on the coast. It is the smallest sea-living dolphin and is the rarest oceanic species. Hector’s dolphins are extremely vulnerable to human impacts and fishing technologies. They use eco-location to locate their prey and to communicate, and they live within the 8,500 square kilometres covered by the Seafield Resources prospecting application.

This application by a company that is owned in part by De Beers, an international mining company, will use a number of grab sampling techniques and seismic testing to hunt for gold right within the habitat of the endangered Hector’s dolphins. Those sampling techniques involve taking samples off the seabed, which may include extracting parts of the dolphins’ habitat and food sources, dumping the waste and debris of sea life killed in the sampling process, then smothering the area into which it is dumped. The seismic testing could cause serious disruption to the dolphins’ communications and hunting systems. Studies overseas link the use of seismic testing with whale strandings and disruption to fish breeding habits.

Gill-nets are, of course, the greatest threat to Hector’s dolphins, and we urge the Minister of Fisheries to ensure that the Threat Management Plan for Hector’s dolphins, which was promised before the election, contains stringent mandatory restrictions on the use of gill-nets. Only a few weeks ago four Hector’s dolphins were found dead on the coast. They had evidently been caught in gill-nets. We cannot continue to allow that fishing method, given its undeniably destructive impact on this fragile species.

We must also control and prohibit other human activities within the habitat of the endangered species that have the potential to kill or seriously threaten them. Hence, the Green Party calls on the Government to prohibit any seabed mining or prospecting, such as that sought by Seafield Resources, within any significant habitat of an endangered species.

On the West Coast there is also an application by Solid Energy New Zealand to engage in a purposeful process to render the largest New Zealand land snail entirely extinct. The “Augustus” snail—that is part of its name—an indigenous species absolutely protected by the Wildlife Act, lives only on a small section of the Stockton plateau, north-east of Westport. This is an area where Solid Energy has a coalmining licence. It wants to move the snail population by use of a digger. Clearly, it does not care that it is likely to cause the absolute extinction of the species by using that technique. Solid Energy’s cynical use of the law in order to get its way is an absolute disgrace.

Despite the efforts of Solid Energy and Seafield Resources, the West Coast Regional Council and communities on the coast are fighting against the drive for profits based on the destruction of New Zealand’s native species. Across the country there are protests and community actions to support the coasters and the ecology of that precious coast. When species are gone they are gone forever. We must not knowingly allow them to become extinct in this country in the 21st century. We have no right to steal them from our descendants.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I would like to offer my congratulations to the Hon Margaret Wilson on her election as Speaker, to Clem Simich on his election as Deputy Speaker, and to you on your election as Assistant Speaker. On 7 October 1999 I was in the public gallery, listening to the Hon John Banks give his valedictory speech. Little did I know that 6 years on, the roles would be reversed, and I would be giving my maiden speech in the House and John Banks would be in the public gallery, listening to me. Indeed, if anyone had suggested this was a possibility, I would have thought it totally bizarre. John Banks has been my cheerleader on the sideline, and I would like to thank him for that.

But there are current members of Parliament whom I would also like to thank for being here today. One of them is the Hon Annette King. That may surprise members, but I will explain. Although my deliberate path into politics started only a few years ago, looking back now I can see that it actually began 13 years ago. It began in 1992 when, working as a general practitioner, I was asked by Auckland breast surgeon John Harman to train as New Zealand’s first breast physician. Breast physicians are doctors specialising in the diagnosis and follow-up of women’s breast conditions and concerns. John was visionary and charismatic. I had no hesitation in leaving general practice. Together we set up the first truly multidisciplinary breast centre in New Zealand. Over time, this model has been reproduced in centres all around New Zealand. History needs to recognise John Harman. By pioneering the multidisciplinary breast centre in New Zealand, he has raised the standard of how women with breast problems and concerns are managed and treated in this country.

I worked hard in my new profession, campaigned tirelessly for breast cancer screening, and, over time, built up a solid reputation. But my work as a breast physician was new and it threatened traditional medical models. Very early on it became clear that breast physicians needed to be formally recognised, and this was achieved in 1999 with Medical Council recognition. However, try as I might—and I tried very, very hard—I could not get formal recognition with BreastScreen Aotearoa, the national breast-screening programme. I was extremely frustrated.

John Harman suggested I should attend a Wellington medical women’s conference in July 2001, specifically to lobby Annette King, the then Minister of Health, who was opening the conference. I even bought a new red jacket to wear, so I could be more appealing to Annette King. It did not work. I went to Wellington and, as fate would have it, also speaking at the conference was Wellington general practitioner Dr Mary English. At the conference dinner that night I spoke with Mary and she introduced me to her husband, Bill, who happened to be the deputy leader of the National Party. It was a pivotal meeting for me and, as a result of my friendship with Mary and Bill, I knew I wanted to help in some way. They encouraged me to join the National Party in Auckland. That is when my political life began, and it is why I must thank Annette King for giving me the opportunity to meet Bill and Mary English.

The irony is that breast physicians who have worked in the breast-screening programme since its inception in late 1998 are still not formally recognised. This is quite strange, really, when we have a critical lack of workforce that threatens the implementation of our programme, particularly to the younger woman. Clearly, my work is not finished yet. The year 2004 was busy for me. I was elected on to the Auckland District Health Board on the Citizens and Ratepayers Now ticket. Earlier that same year I had been voted on to the National Party northern region list ranking committee and, in fact, in November 2004 I had been involved in the selection of my colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman for the Northcote seat.

I had absolutely no intention of standing for Parliament; I was in the business of selecting the candidates. Fate, however, was to step in and, 1 week before Christmas, Dr Don Brash approached me at a National Party function and asked me whether I would consider standing. It was a simple question, but it floored me. I have the greatest amount of respect and admiration for our leader, Dr Don Brash, so I went away and thought long and hard over the Christmas break. Like a lot of people, I was extremely unhappy at the direction New Zealand was heading in. It was a make or break election for New Zealand and the National Party. I wanted to do what I could, whatever it took. I took the plunge and, in early 2005, I was selected to stand in Mt Roskill.

After the initial elation of being selected to stand in Mt Roskill, my emotional state alternated between excitement, despair, and terror—mostly the latter two. Being a novice, I anguished about how on earth I could pull a campaign team together and deliver a respectable result against a seasoned and well-respected political opponent, Labour MP Phil Goff, while not embarrassing or humiliating myself or the party on the way through. Again, fate intervened, by way of Nick Albrecht, who generously agreed to be my campaign manager, even though he had his hands full being Maurice Williamson’s campaign manager. My wonderful, talented team was quickly formed: Charles and Leigh Hay, Ram Rai, Ian Andrews, Aaron Bhatnagar, Gillian Moody, Sean Palmer, Simon O’Connor, David Cooke, Gareth Jenkins, Surendra Sharma, Josh Beddell, Malcolm Butler, Dale Burden, Stephen Sharp, and Margaret Voyce, who has also joined me in my Wellington office.

My extraordinary thanks must go to my family, who are here today. My husband, David Miller, is an exceptional man who has unconditionally supported me throughout my career with the wisdom of knowing when to steer a wide berth and when to haul me in when I get out of line. I would like to acknowledge my two beautiful daughters, Jessie and Paddy, my mother, Doris McHale, a strong woman and a loving mother who grew up in the Depression and who would have gone far if she had had the educational opportunities, and my father-in-law, Austin Miller, who—incredibly, at the age of 75—is still working full time. I would also like to honour my late father, Stuart Aitken Strang Blue, who served in World War II as an army major and dentist in the Middle East. They are all here today. I am so proud of them all. Also here today is my twin sister, Robyn Blue, my niece Ruth Egermayer, and her aunt Vera Egermayer, who is New Zealand’s honorary consul in the Czech Republic. I would like to thank other family and friends who have travelled to be here today, and those who are listening over the airwaves.

I have worked for over 20 years in the private health sector, with the past 13 years being spent in the breast cancer field. I would like to share some thoughts. Breast cancer is a major public issue. Its incidence is increasing in both developed and developing countries. Why is this? It is clear that total oestrogen exposure over a lifetime is implicated in breast cancer development. This links reproductive, dietary, lifestyle and environmental factors together. All of those factors either increase levels of oestrogen or affect the way it is metabolised in the body. There are some things we cannot change, such as age of menarche and menopause. There are other factors that will depend on individual choice and opportunity, such as when a woman decides to have a family or how many children she has. However, there are some things that we do have control over and can modify—that is, diet, lifestyle, and environmental factors. That is where we must focus our efforts if we are ever to hope to get control over this disease.

Using the scientific evidence available, a targeted programme to reduce breast cancer risk is needed urgently. It is really about getting New Zealanders healthy, exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, having a moderate intake of alcohol, eating a diet low in animal fat, and making healthy choices in food. That basic programme will also form a central strategy to tackle other public health enemies, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and other cancers. However, specific to breast cancer development is the effect of long-term hormone replacement therapy use, and there is a growing body of evidence supporting the influence of foreign oestrogens, which are found in some herbicides, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.

But in the here and now, we face an increase in the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer. Although a public health strategy will help in the medium to long term, it will not help women right now. What we need right now is an effective national breast cancer screening programme, which means solving our serious workforce issues and understanding the extent of our problem. It requires a comprehensive national database, and timely access to appropriate treatments. Those goals, along with the formation of a national consumer advocacy group, were the objectives of the Breast Cancer Advocacy Coalition, which was formed in November 2004 and represents 12 key breast cancer organisations.

Access to more effective breast cancer chemotherapy treatments and revolutionary drugs such as Herceptin, which has been shown to markedly reduce breast cancer recurrence, must be opened up. These lifesaving drugs are expensive and New Zealand is Third World when it comes to access to new, effective drugs. The economic growth that would have been kick-started by National’s tax policy has been lost. Only wealthy countries can afford to pay their health workforces well and invest in infrastructure, new drugs, and technologies. Tragically, New Zealanders will have to wait 3 more long years.

I mentioned earlier the need for a focused public health strategy to get New Zealanders healthy. Changing behaviour will not be easy but it can be done. It must be done—we do not have an option. Fight the Obesity Epidemic is one of the organisations leading the way. Its members have just launched a petition to be presented to Parliament later this year. I predict that public support and the will for change will be massive. The experts on that team are warning that social marketing and education alone will not change behaviour. There also needs to be a change in the regulatory framework. I have worked in the public health sector for over 20 years, and I would like to make a plug for it. It is a resource that is ready, willing, and able to help. The private health sector, by necessity, has had to be competitive, efficient, cost-conscious, consumer focused, and profitable. The public health sector, despite having billions of dollars poured into it, has become bloated, overly bureaucratic, and bogged down with ever-expanding waiting lists.

We are losing precious medical staff overseas. We cannot compete with international medical salaries—that is a fact of life. Boosting the private health sector would entice many of our health professionals back. Many specialists have a part-time private practice to support their public practice, and that would encourage doctors to settle back in New Zealand, particularly in the provinces where there is a desperate shortage. By encouraging utilisation of the private health sector, the burden on the struggling public sector will lessen. Encouragement could be by way of a tax incentive for those who elect to have private health insurance.

The National Party has given me the important shadow portfolio of liaison with women’s groups. I am absolutely committed to this task. In the 21st century it is not acceptable that violence towards women and children, an ever-increasing gender pay gap, and under-representation of women in many professions still exist.

In conclusion, I am enormously honoured and proud to be here, representing the people of New Zealand. I have no idea where this particular path is leading me, but I would like to assure Parliament and the people of New Zealand that I will serve them with integrity and to the very best of my ability.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I begin by adding my congratulations to the Hon Margaret Wilson, who was elected as Speaker, and to yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to the others who have been elected in supporting roles to the office of Speaker. I also congratulate the many new MPs on their election and on some very excellent maiden speeches, which I have enjoyed immensely and been inspired by. I reflect also on the recent election, which saw a changing of the guard in the East Coast electorate as our long-serving MP, Janet Mackey, retired and National’s Anne Tolley received the mandate to take up the baton. I congratulate her and offer my support as an extra hand to the plough, in my capacity as a list MP within that electorate. Janet Mackey’s valedictory speech made deliberate reference to the inadequate resourcing of MPs who serve large electorates, like the East Coast. Let me assure Anne Tolley that I will support any move to see that issue reconsidered in her favour.

The East Coast is a huge and diverse electorate, which has pockets of extreme deprivation but is loaded with industry and potential that is yet to be tapped. I do not believe that the current resourcing of out-of-Parliament allowances gives the people of the East Coast the access they need and deserve. With that in mind I take a moment to honour Janet Mackey, who supplied additional resources out of her own pocket so that East Coasters were not short-changed. I also thank the other candidates for the East Coast electorate for the way they played the campaign—in particular, Moana Mackey and Catherine Delahunty for helping to make this campaign at times even fun. I thank my electorate team, which continued to support my candidacy, and United Future.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Are any boys allowed to run a campaign up there?

JUDY TURNER: No, women only. My contribution to this debate will focus on those parts of the Speech from the Throne that relate to the intentions of the Government in this 48th Parliament with regard to education. As a primary trained teacher, who spent some of her most enjoyable teaching years in the new entrant classes, I think the Government’s move towards a 1:15 teacher-pupil ratio in new entrant classes is an extremely positive one. It will be welcomed by all those who work in that specialised area of teaching.

The myriad of essential skills that are important prerequisites to literacy and numeracy success are all covered intensely at that level. However, what is not clear about this announcement is how this extra funding will be applied to junior classes in rural schools that include new entrants along with year 1, 2, and 3 students. The additional challenges that rural schools face are well documented, and, in particular, I bring to the Minister’s attention the plight of teaching principals, who are the unsung heroes of the primary school sector. The burgeoning compliance demands are usually the very first complaint one hears about when visiting those schools. The amount of data requested by the ministry on a weekly basis is out of control. For teaching principals that is an outrageous requirement, and it takes up way too much of their precious non-contact time.

I am interested that this Government wants to have “all 15 to 19-year-olds engaged in some sort of work, training, or other income-generating activity”. That is a noble enough goal, but if the Government is serious about this, and I surely hope it is, I challenge it to review the current provisions around the use of the independent youth benefit. The process by which a young person individuates from his or her parents has traditionally been fraught with difficulty. So it is not surprising that some of today’s young people, like many before them, feel that the constraints of living at home are unbearable. However, unlike previous generations, today’s youth can make a case to a teacher, social worker, or counsellor and move in with a boyfriend—on a benefit. That benefit allows young people to live away from home for reasons that are often dealt with very subjectively. Young people, before they have even left school, are introduced to welfarism.

I well remember a letter I received in the last Parliament from a constituent whose daughter arrived home in a teacher’s car, announced she was moving out, packed her bags, and left. No one had consulted the parents about the claims she had made. No one seemed to have any ongoing concerns about the drug dealing that was part of the flatting environment she was assisted into, and no one questioned why, if her relationship with her parents was so terrible, she went home for dinner most nights, did her laundry at home, and spent most of every weekend at her parents’ home. Young people do need to be encouraged to develop independent life choices, but that does not have to include State-funded isolation from their families. There are situations where young people do need to be supported to leave home, but where the State feels the need to intervene so dramatically in the life of a family, then surely it should maintain responsibility for the out-working of that decision with regard to the safety and suitability of the accommodation that is chosen.

The additional Modern Apprenticeships and opportunities that currently exist for those with trade and technical skills means that there is no excuse for the Government to be party to behaviour that sends the wrong messages and is the starting place for unconstructive habits in our young people. In the matter of education, the Speech from the Throne included an acknowledgment of the growing concern among businesses that young people emerging from education and training were still insufficiently prepared for the labour market. United Future believes that there are two contributing factors. The first, as the Speech from the Throne alluded, is the need to line up tertiary education with the job market so that what is on offer is of high quality and is relevant. Second, we believe that employment competence is not just the result of acquiring sufficient information; we believe it is also about developing the relational skills and the work ethic that make one employable.

The Speech from the Throne railed against poorly designed courses and called for a change in emphasis from valuing participation in favour of quality qualifications. Although much fun is being poked at some of these questionable courses, can I please sound a voice of caution that we do not walk away from second-chance education. For those who have experienced only disappointment and failure in educational environments, participation can be an insurmountable hurdle if it is accompanied by seemingly unattainable standards. Participation is a very acceptable goal, as long as students, having begun to participate, are then encouraged to move on into more robust fields of study. I know that there has been lots of criticism about the wānanga and that it has been considered a key culprit in this. But I am also very aware, anecdotally, of some wonderful stories of people who would never have become involved in education through any other means and have since gone on to get very reputable qualifications, although they began that process in some courses that were geared specifically towards encouraging positive participation. I would be very concerned if we start to undermine that important aspect of second-chance education.

I am excited about the opportunity to make a difference that United Future has been offered. It is what we have always said we were about. We are a little bit—if I am honest—gobsmacked at the opportunity that came our way. It was not what we anticipated would be the result after the election, but we are more than happy to now be part of working with this Government to achieve some very noble goals. I welcome the Māori Party to this Parliament. It is exciting that it is here. I believe its people are long overdue for representation in this way, and I look forward to working with it. Kia ora katoa.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I want mainly to focus in my speech on the issues around economic development, which is the area I have recently been given responsibility for. My view is that we have to ensure that the rising tide of economic prosperity lifts all boats. For that to happen vision, leadership, and stable Government are required. I thank New Zealand First and United Future for the work they have done in order to ensure we have a stable Government in New Zealand, when at one stage it looked a little wobbly.

Under Labour’s leadership, New Zealand is going well. We have had 6 years of delivering more jobs, and of having lower unemployment, sustained economic growth, and steadily increasing household incomes. The average household income in New Zealand has increased by over $200 a week compared with what it was in 1997-98—$10,500 a year extra has gone into households during that time. A $10-a-week tax cut rather pales into insignificance when one sees the sort of change that occurs when more and better jobs are available for people to get into. That has been the focus of this Government. It was clear from the election result that most Kiwis want to see New Zealand move forward.

It has been great over the last few days to see the sense of optimism that has occurred as a result of the Rugby World Cup decision. We want to keep on delivering those sorts of gains. I contrast that with the approach of members opposite, who want to give more of the cake to their rich mates, to hock off the State assets to them, and to leave average Kiwis with the crumbs, as they did in the 1990s. We want to grow the cake and make sure that all New Zealanders get their fair share.

That involves a vision of an inclusive, high-wage, high-value, high-growth economy. We need a strong economy. We need an economy that can adapt to change. I signal to members in the House that the next few years will not be as good for growth as the years until now have been, and that we will have to be adaptable. We will have to encourage and support innovation and increase productivity. We have just about reached the limits of finding more and more people to work for longer and longer. Over the next period of time we will have to switch over from working more to working smarter, to having more capital investment, and to lifting productivity per hour rather than just lifting the hours worked.

We will have to work together. We will have to foster innovation, and that just does not happen in isolation. It happens in collaboration between firms; it happens when firms and industries consult the workers who work in their area, taking some of the very best ideas and going forward. They have to work with universities, with Crown research institutes, and with other players. It is important to have good links between the private sector and the Government.

We have to be better at celebrating success. In New Zealand we do that pretty well for sport, and over the last few years we have actually begun to learn to do it for artistic things. But as far as business and economic success is concerned, far too many people, including members opposite, have a tall-poppy syndrome and attack people who do well and create jobs. Especially, they seem to want to attack the people who create the best jobs. A small country like ours just cannot afford to waste its potential. At a time when competitive pressure is growing globally, we need to make the best use of all available resources.

The small size of our domestic market means that in order to have the standard of living we aspire to, we need more firms to internationalise and to export. We are a small country, and we cannot get the sort of growth we need from within New Zealand. We must expand our markets. In a way, the strong labour market, the increases in household income, and a high Kiwi dollar have all led to an increase in the amount of money that has flowed overseas. We have had the cheap consumer goods, the high incomes, the televisions, the stereos, and the cheap overseas holidays.

Our export sector is not able to keep up in the way that many of us would like it to, and while more of the money flows out of New Zealand, the money flowing back has not kept up in the way that is needed. That is why growing the export sector and, to a limited extent, growing the import substitution sector, as well, is very, very important.

Gordon Copeland: What about the world cup?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What about the world cup?

Gordon Copeland: Think it will help?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sure the world cup will help. I think it will help with how we perceive ourselves as a country, as well as through the cash flows that will occur. I think it will bring New Zealanders recognition for being special people who can identify objectives, make plans, and go for them. In a way, that is likely to help our export of services even more than large numbers of people coming here for the event will.

We do lots of things well, and the Rugby World Cup will certainly be one of them. I say to the member that if he wants to keep reminding the Prime Minister about the importance of having a Minister in charge, I would appreciate his support.

Gordon Copeland: Want some help?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Does the member want the job for himself? He would have to come into the coalition for that to occur.

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will have to refocus more clearly on growing our export market than it has been doing. We will continue to advocate internationally for more liberalised trade and to foster closer relationships with developing economies. The challenges ahead are huge, but so, too, is our capacity to meet them. I am proud to be a member of a Government that is so passionate about and committed to New Zealand and the ideals we stand for.

In conclusion, I have a challenge for members opposite. It is clear to all members in this House who are honest with themselves that the National Party cannot go on until the next election with its current leader. I think it is particularly important for stability in New Zealand that the campaign to get rid of Don Brash is not an extended one and that it is over quickly. The traditional time for having coups ďétat in our political system is the period just before or just after Christmas. I am slightly agnostic on this, but I think Bill English would be a better leader than John Key.

John Hayes: Rubbish!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member says that is rubbish.

John Hayes: You’ll have to get Winston to replace Helen.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, that is the member who drives the Japanese out of the country. The member who is interjecting is the member who does not pay his bills.

John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like that statement to be repeated outside the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: For it to be repeated out of the House one need only to read the newspaper or have a beer over in the Wairarapa—one will hear it all the time.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”. The Minister knows that he cannot make an imputation of improper motives against another member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. Under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”, it is actually up to the member himself to raise the matter, if he so wishes.

John Hayes: Yes, I do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the issue must be raised at the time—immediately.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The advice to the member, if he wants to make a personal statement, is that he makes it at the end of my speech. I would welcome him doing that, and if he does so he will probably join his mate Chris Finlayson at the Privileges Committee soon.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): It is my privilege to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in this debate. I must begin in the same way as my colleagues by offering my congratulations to the Prime Minister, and to the Hon Margaret Wilson, the Hon Clem Simich, yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, and Ann Hartley on the achievement of high office. It is not an easy task; however, it is one that you all carry out well. I would also like to welcome all the new members to the House. Being an MP is indeed one of the most interesting and exciting roles that one will ever have the privilege of being involved in, and I wish them all well. My congratulations also go to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I know he will do a wonderful job of representing New Zealand overseas.

My condolences and sympathy go to the families of Rod Donald and Tahu Asher. We valued and respected the contributions that each made in this House.

To those people who supported New Zealand First at the recent election, I say thank you. We are very honoured and proud to represent them in this House. I say thank you, too, to our many volunteers who worked tirelessly throughout New Zealand. The New Zealand First team will definitely be working to ensure that the policy programme that is part of the confidence and supply agreement we have with the Government proceeds expeditiously. We are absolutely committed to those policies, and we are proud to be working on behalf of those New Zealanders.

There has been a lot of comment about New Zealand First sitting on this side of the House—a side of the House that actually understands and respects the way that MMP works, and that can achieve policy objectives that will benefit many New Zealanders. New Zealanders are better served by MMP. They will never accept a single-party majority again. We have heard regularly about New Zealand First receiving the baubles of power. Yes, we have, but the bottom line is that we are sharing our baubles with every New Zealander, and they were outlined in the Speech from the Throne. We want all New Zealanders to get a share in our baubles, and we are more than happy to share them.

In New Zealand First we are really looking forward to this term of Parliament. This term will see the implementation of many of the policies that are important to us. We want to make a positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders. For our senior citizens, we will see the introduction of a seniors card, and the holders will be eligible for all public sector entitlements. We are very pleased too that the rate of New Zealand superannuation will be set at 66 percent of the average, ordinary-time weekly earnings as from 1 April 2006. This is a start in the right direction for our seniors. New Zealand First will also investigate ways to improve options for senior citizens who may be eligible for foreign pensions as well as New Zealand superannuation. All MPs receive numerous letters on that very subject, and I do not think any New Zealander, including the members opposite, would be disappointed with it being investigated.

New Zealand First will be a part of the thorough review of immigration legislation, which the former Minister of Immigration, Mr Swain, famously described as “a dog’s breakfast”. This review is a long way overdue, and New Zealanders can feel safe in the knowledge that, with New Zealand First involved, the review will be a full and thorough one.

Some of our economic policies have also been adopted as part of the confidence and supply agreement with Labour. New Zealand First has long recognised that exports are the backbone of a prosperous future for our economy. We want to make sure that the emphasis of economic policy will again prioritise measures to grow our export sector.

Being a resident of the Waikato, I am delighted to be able to announce that we have secured a new and fairer taxation regime for the racing industry. We will ensure that the new regime will at least put racing on an equal footing with other parts of the gambling sector.

There are many policies that will enhance New Zealanders’ lives over the next 3 years, and they have all been outlined. The opposition we have heard from the other side of the House is very often proof that we are on the right track. We know that success has very little to do with what people accomplish for themselves; it is about what we do for others. The key thing for New Zealand First is that all New Zealanders get to share in our baubles, and we are more than happy to share each of them.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I want, firstly, to congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on your re-election, and Ann Hartley, as well. I would like to congratulate Margaret Wilson on her election as Speaker. I think she brings dignity and respect to this Chamber. I also congratulate Clem Simich, for whom I have had a great deal of respect over many years. I think he, also, will add to the dignity of the office. These positions are Parliament’s positions, and I am sure all four of you will do your utmost to preserve the standing of this House, and will be respectful of its traditions and the people who participate in the debates.

Secondly, I want to thank the people of Tukituki, my former electorate, for electing me to be their representative for a period of 12 years. It is a humbling experience to represent an electorate, and one that I have greatly enjoyed. It is interesting to note that my Labour Party predecessor, David Butcher, represented the area for 12 years before he was defeated, to be followed by 3 years of National representation. If we go back before that, it was 12 years for Duncan MacIntyre before he was unelected, as well. It is an interesting electorate. It does change from time to time.

Hon Maurice Williamson: You’ve got a long time to wait this time around.

Hon RICK BARKER: Well, I am just making the connection that it is 12 years, followed by 3 years, followed by 12 years. We will just see how the maths plays out in the future.

Thirdly, having thanked the electorate for its support for me over the last 12 years, I would like to thank my campaign team. Those people worked very hard and assiduously—well supported by my family, and well supported in the electorate, too, I might add. The issue of Tukituki was that the votes coalesced almost exclusively around the most conservative candidate in the field. A number of candidates were not there before, parties that were formerly represented were not represented, and the votes of parties that were represented in 2005 and also in 2002 fell away.

It is very interesting to look at the situation in Hawke’s Bay and around New Zealand to examine what happened in the electorate and to understand where this leaves us for the future. The first point that needs to be appreciated is that this Labour-led Government has been outstanding. We now have the lowest rate of unemployment in the Western World, which is something that no one would have believed possible 6 years ago, or 3 years ago. We have the lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. When people think about that they recall that New Zealand had always had the highest rate of unemployment, and it was almost accepted that New Zealand would always be at the top end of the unemployment rate.

We have the highest growth rate in the OECD. For ordinary New Zealanders it means that the kids are getting jobs—they are getting jobs, they have better jobs, and they are better paid. Nearly all the people in my electorate I know, whether they be carpenters or truckdrivers, are now paid two and three times what they were paid before, under the miserable National Government of the 1990s that chopped, slashed, and burned.

Company profits are up. Everything is going up. Everything that should be up is up, and everything that should be down is down. The other thing that is very good is that we have better education, better police numbers, better health services, better transport, and better Government systems.

The National Party had no way through that by fighting a positive campaign. The National Party knew that if it went out there to fight on its economic record it would not win the argument. We saw the approach the National Party was going to take in the speech at Ōrewa by Don Brash, which was essentially to be anti-Māori. It was to say that Māori had privilege, and National was going to remove Māori privilege. National tried to argue that there were two levels of citizenship in this country, and that some had more than others. But if we had a look at the issue of Māori privilege and calculated it by any measure, whether by the rate of incarceration in our jails, by longevity, by educational success, by quality of housing, or by average income, we would find that Māori were always at the bottom. Yet the National Party and Don Brash argued that Māori had privilege—that there were two systems, and that Māori had a so-called privilege.

The National Party knows, from other experiences overseas, that voters quite often coalesce around a candidate because of what they are against, rather than what they are for. The negative can be the most powerful campaigning tool we have. It is very often difficult to argue and campaign in the positive, because people like to be scared and like to be pushed into thinking that they should exercise their will by what they are against.

We now have the National Party coming to the House and trying to make out that it is somehow very pro-Māori—speaking in Māori, talking about going to marae, and so on. I find this really quite extraordinary, given the approach of the National Party to Māori during the election campaign. It was the National Party that said it would abolish the Māori seats. It was interesting, on the campaign trail, to listen to a question from the audience to the National Party candidate, which asked, firstly, whether the candidate could explain the history behind the Māori seats, secondly, whether the candidate could give an analysis or a rational argument as to why they should be abolished, and, thirdly, what the consequences would be of abolishing the Māori seats. The candidate said he did not know, he could not articulate what the consequences would be, and he had no idea about the future. That was a key plank for the National Party, and it was playing to resentment and envy.

Hon Maurice Williamson: What did the royal commission on MMP say?

Hon RICK BARKER: Well, that member might be a bit more informed than those people, but the point was that those were slogans. They were saying that people were advantaged and that they were different, somehow, from the rest. We get that theme again with the talk about mainstream New Zealand—so people could identify with who they were, and know that the other people were somehow different and against them.

We had the traditional “who we are against” in the National Party campaign. National was bashing beneficiaries and solo parents. But if we go to see a solo parent, which solo parent says: “I really want to be here. This is my life. I wanted to be abandoned by my husband, with three kids and a mortgage, and with all the rest of the chaos that goes with life.”? That is what National tries to claim solo parents want, but they do not. But a lot of New Zealanders are not solo parents, so when National members bash solo parents they can then say: “Well, that is whom we should be against, because they are bludging off you and your taxes, and we should deal to them.” So it is about attacking minority groups to drive voters to the cause.

That is what the National Party did. It was supported—and, I thought, in a very surprising way—by the Exclusive Brethren, whom I want to deal with just briefly. Two of the members of the Exclusive Brethren who appeared on the front page of the Dominion Post live in Hastings, and I know them. They said they spent $500,000 on the election campaign; they said that, after having been forced out of the shadows, and after consistent denials by the National Party. I want to say that $500,000 is a gross underestimate.

I do not have a problem with anybody getting involved in election campaigns, but I do have a problem with people who do it dishonestly. I think people should be upfront. I know that the National Party grumbles about the Council of Trade Unions and unions, but at least they put their name on their pamphlets, say who they are, and say upfront as to what they are. But the Exclusive Brethren hid under noms de plume. I know they went to other organisations and said: “We want you to publish an attack on the Government’s defence policy, we want you to publish papers that support the Americans in the war on Iraq, and we will pay for that as long as you put your name on it.” That is what the Exclusive Brethren are about. They were campaigning for the National Party, but they did not put their names on the pamphlets and front up. The Exclusive Brethren telephone canvassed extensively, they pushed polls, they pamphleted, and they ran election day systems.

The hypocrisy of all of this is that when it comes to their pro-war stance on Iraq and their attitude of being pro-development of the defence establishment, the truth is that the Exclusive Brethren also say they are a pacifist organisation and their kids should not have to ever go to war. So they are articulating a position that would see the kids of other parents going to war, being in the front line, and putting their lives at risk, when they want their kids to stay at home, be safe, and make money for them in their family businesses. That is what I find to be the most despicable and disgusting thing.

The election campaign has been a very interesting reflection on New Zealand. The fact is that despite what the National Party wants to think, the Labour Party won 41 percent of the votes. It is the biggest party in this Parliament. It has a mandate to govern. The National Party is trying to say that this Clark Government will not last 3 years. Well, I want to say that the predictions about this Government falling apart before 3 years are up are wrong. It will last 3 years. The only people who are hoping it will not last are the National Party members, and that will not come to fruition. This Government will last 3 years, and New Zealand will continue to have growth rates that are better than the average for the OECD, unemployment will continue to be at low levels, we will continue to invest in good-quality government services, and we will continue to make a better life for New Zealanders. Young New Zealanders can now get trades qualifications, which they could not get under the National Government because it had abolished the Apprenticeship Act. This Government will continue to invest in health services and education services to give every young New Zealander the opportunity for a better life here in New Zealand.

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

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): Tonight I want to run the House through a series of unfortunate events, and anyone who has followed Lemony Snicket will know what that is about. I want to go back to earlier in the year, when Dr Don Brash was on the campaign trail and made what I think was one of the best announcements of the campaign. It was that the National Party, if elected, would spend all the petrol tax on roading. It would not do it immediately, as $600 million could not be put across in one shot, but over a 6-year period it would move $100 million, then $200 million, then $300 million, then $400 million, and so on. For those members opposite who are not good at hard sums, over 10 years that adds up to $4.2 billion. That is $4.2 billion extra in addition to, and above, what is already in the National Land Transport Programme.

Hon David Carter: Solve a lot of problems!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It would solve a helluva lot of problems, as my colleague the Hon David Carter says.

I have a number of press releases that were issued by both the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Hon Pete Hodgson at the time, and I want to share with the House what they said about National’s policy. They said that Dr Brash’s plan was to cut back the amount of fuel duty used to offset the costs in the normal account, which would leave the taxpayer with a $4 billion gaping hole. They also said that Dr Brash had not created a single dollar of new money to cover roading costs, and that all he was doing was shifting money from one account to another. “How will he make up the shortfall?”, asked Pete Hodgson. I want the House to listen to this, because it is what the Minister said: “Will he cut expenditure on health and education? Or will he borrow like some born-again Muldoon”—I do not think that is something Dr Brash has been accused of very often in his life—“and cause interest rates to increase?”. Both Minister Hodgson and Minister Cullen said that National’s plan to move the petrol tax to the road account was fiscally irresponsible. I have three press releases here if they want to see them. They are actually on the Labour Party’s website. I do not know why it does not take them off it. That is what those Ministers said about our proposal, which was announced on 1 April, to move the petrol tax to the road account.

What happened? I can tell members what happened. Over the next few months it became very clear from our internal polling—and clearly from Labour’s polling, because they poll like fruitcakes over there; they were out there every night—that the policy of moving the petrol tax to the road account was very popular. The public said that it had had a gutsful of spending so much money at the bowser that was headed off to hip-hop tours, twilight golf, and so on—money that did not go to the roads, as they wanted it to.

It became clear to Labour that it was in a bit of a bind, so we started to see the slippage. At first it was gradual. Like any great landslide, it was just a bit of a slippage. The first one was the Budget. In May, Dr Michael Cullen said that Labour would put in another $100 million for the next 3 years—that is, three lots of $100 million, or $300 million. It certainly was not quite as much as National had pledged, but it was a start along the way. Then we started to see the one-off commitments. Members should remember that they were in addition to what National had already pledged, as well. Labour said that it was starting with the Auckland programme, and that it would commit an extra $900 million of money from the Crown account. It had two packages for Wellington, one of which was for $600 million. It then announced another one for $225 million. That comes to $825 million, if Labour members want to add up the two numbers.

Then the doozy of them all occurred in July. It fell from the sky. I know not from where it fell, but it fell—a $544 million windfall. The public fell around their latte glasses laughing at that, because Dr Cullen’s management of the economy was so good that $544 million, which is not a small amount of money, just popped out from nowhere. What was that money to be for? I can tell members how much amazing analysis went into where it should go. On the very same day he announced it would go to roading. It was really getting very good. The Bay of Plenty package was the next to come out. Obviously, that was to try to shore up some things in the Bay of Plenty party vote. Then we got the classic in August. If we add up National’s petrol-tax commitment, we find we had pledged to spend an extra $600 million in the first 3 years—$100 million, then $200 million, then $300 million. Let us work with just the first 3 years of budget. The Labour Minister’s press statement stated: “National halves transport spending to fund tax cuts.” When I saw that I went “What?”. We had just been accused of fiscal irresponsibility and asked how we could afford to spend $600 million. We were told that we had better front up and say where the money was coming from, yet 4 months later that press release came from the Hon Pete Hodgson. Then he put out a table to show the numbers. That was even better. It showed that Labour would spend $1,200 million extra on roading.

I want to ask every Labour member in this House, including the Ministers, about that. If $600 million extra on roading was fiscally irresponsible—if it was “Muldoon-esque”, if it meant we had to cut health and education—then what the hell was $1,200 million? Darren Hughes looks dumbstruck. He cannot even begin to answer what the hell $1,200 million would be if $600 million was fiscally irresponsible. We have won the rights to the Rugby World Cup in 2011. On a rugby field one can see a great thing called a goalpost, and it looks like the letter “H”. There is a word that starts with the letter “H” that I think that smacks of. I cannot use that word—you will not let me use it, Mr Deputy Speaker; I understand that—but everybody in this House knows what it is. When, for example, in April $600 million was fiscally irresponsible, it was dreadful, and Dr Brash was told he had better say where he was going to fund it from, yet 4 months later Labour said it would double that amount to $1,200 million.

There is still a long way to go, and in the second half of my speech I want to deal with my real concern for the Auckland situation when it comes to the Rugby World Cup. If we have the influx of visitor numbers into Auckland that is expected—and I hope we do—then I can tell members that the roading network will not cope. It cannot cope now. I can tell Darren Hughes that if he flew into Auckland on a Friday afternoon and arrived at Māngere airport at 5 o’clock and tried to make his way into the city, he would spend about an hour in a long, long queue of traffic trying to get across the Māngere Bridge, with nothing but a stream of red lights ahead of him. Then, suddenly, he would come to an intersection that should have a sign on it saying: “You are on your own from here, sucker. Find your way to town, because there ain’t a road to do it on.”, and he would then have to work himself out into a series of little urban tree-lined streets and cul-de-sacs and try to work his way into the city.

Several things were planned to fix that. The first one I want to deal with is the State Highway 20 Mount Roskill extension. If any members are interested, they should look at Transit’s website to see when that was going to be built. Right back in 2000 Transit said it would start later that year.

Chris Auchinvole: Which year?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That is what it said in 2000, so I presume it meant 2000. Then 2001 came, and Transit said: “Later this year.” The doozy of them all came on 31 October 2001, when it stated: “State Highway 20 Mount Roskill extension to start early next year and be completed by May 2005.”

Dr Don Brash: Was it finished?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Dr Brash asks a very good question. I can tell him that it was not finished by May 2005. It was not started by May 2005! I can tell members when it was started: 3 weeks before the election! Three weeks before the election we saw Helen Clark, Phil Goff, and Pete Hodgson all with their spades, looking as though they had done something in 6 years. That was because they knew how vulnerable they were in relation to that road, which had been desperately needed for years. All I can say is that if the other parts of that roading network experience anything like the delays that have been experienced under this Labour Government, then Auckland is in for nothing but sheer chaos in 2011. To get from Māngere airport into the city, State Highway 20 needs to be completed. People need to be able to connect to the north-western motorway and get down it. There is one nice little bit of that project that does not even have a scheduled start date, and that is the Avondale extension that goes through the Prime Minister’s electorate. I tell the House that it is on record that the Prime Minister has said: “That road will go through my electorate over my dead body.” I say to the House that that is a very small price to pay for a good road.

Darren Hughes: Dream on.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, there is no dreaming on. It is the Prime Minister who is the dreamer. She said she would allow the road as long as it was a tunnel. A tunnel would add over $1 billion to the cost of the project. It would make it totally uneconomic and nonsensical, and it will not happen. But the fear I have is that that road must be completed before the Rugby World Cup starts; otherwise, all of the showcasing of New Zealand to foreign countries will make us look like a parking lot with cars stuck, going nowhere. People will need to leave on a Friday to get to a Saturday rugby match, if Auckland experiences the sorts of things that will happen without that project being completed. And that is if everything is done according to the schedule. Nothing ever has been done according to the schedule, and this House should hold the Government to account for that.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State): Ā, ka tū mai ahau ki te mihi i tōku nei mihi tuatahi ki te tāhū kōrero o tēnei pouwhare tawhito nei. Mihi hoki ana au ki ngā mema hōu i tukuna atu ō rātou nei whaikōrero te tuatahi, me ō rātau nei hinengaro whakaaro hoki, nō reira tēnā tātau, tēnā tātau, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

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

[I rise to make my first address before the speaking-perch of this ancient pillar. I also acknowledge the maiden speeches by the new members and their aspirations, so, greetings, greetings, and thank you to all of us.]

It has been my great fate, or misfortune, to follow a speech more notable for its volume than for any sense. But I want to be fair, because I have taken a sampling of some wisdom from the Opposition. Bill English said: “The new voters will be young and brown. If we’re not getting their vote, we’re not going to get into Parliament.”

Now here is a statement from Doug Graham, the elder statesman whom we acknowledged previously in the National Party: “I make a plea to all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori alike. Let us see this settlement as a demonstration to the rest of the world that we in this country have pride in our cultural diversity; that with goodwill we can correct past errors; and that our vision of justice, fair play, and generosity of spirit, one to the other, still beckons us forward.” Let me quote again that elder statesman from the Opposition when he was talking about the Waikato-Tainui raupatu claim settlement bill at its third reading in October 1995: “What does the settlement mean to all New Zealanders? It means the ability of each one of us, and our children, and our grandchildren to enjoy harmonious race relations is enhanced. It means that cultural differences can and must be respected. It means that where generosity of spirit exists, no obstacle need be insurmountable.”

Then along came Dr Brash, and National’s journey backwards began. National has cut all ties with Māori, in a game of cheap political point-scoring based on a campaign dedicated to greed and race relationships. [Interruption] Gerry Brownleee will never be a Minister of State. He will never ever be a Minister of Māori Affairs. Gerry Brownlee should sit there as a loser and take his sorrow elsewhere. So what has National committed itself to do? It has committed itself not only to abolish the Māori electorate seats—[Interruption] What is the member laughing for? I know he went to Duntroon—not the best place to go. But National is also against the establishment of Māori wards. National, in fact, feels that the logic behind Māori seats is skimpy.

Let me quote Dr Brash again: “We will remove the anachronism of the Maori seats in Parliament.” There is only one anachronism here; he is just not in the House at this time. We know who that is. Dr Brash said that in National’s view we no longer need special Māori representation in Parliament, and that there can be no basis for separate Māori electorates. He also said: “There can be … no basis for government funding based on race, no basis for introducing Māori wards in local authority elections, and no obligation for local governments to consult Māori in preference to other New Zealanders.”—he reckons. How pitiful!

When asked a question about Māori Television in an interview, Don Brash said: “I think there is an obligation on the ground to support the Māori language. The question is, is Māori Television an effective way of doing that? I think that what we have seen so far is not encouraging about this being an effective or efficient way of encouraging Māori language. I suspect that it might have been very much more efficient to provide more Māori language school books, or books in general.” Hey, we have been there! “I think the way they have gone about it is very expensive and rather inefficient.”, he said. When asked whether that meant he was not sure, his response was: “I’m not sure.”

People who have engaged themselves in the renaissance of the Māori language—or of any language whatsoever—know that television is not only the strongest medium to encourage the revival of a language but also the fundamental building block for Māori language development. Let me give this old adage: “Ignorance is bliss; tikanga Māori is a virtue”. Kia ora tātou katoa.

We have had a kind of SIS presence: a PC eradicator, an annihilator of diverse and ethnic cultural needs and identifications. Why did the member Mr Mapp get that job? Dr Brash told TV3 that one of Dr Mapp’s qualifications—I ask members to listen to this—for this new post was the fact that he was “married to a Māori person”. It is not clear from that who that Māori person is. It may not be a female, according to that. Surely, Dr Brash is not suggesting that the ethnicity of an MP’s spouse has any bearing on the MP’s fitness to hold a position as a merit-based, shadow Minister? Now, I ask members to listen to this. I bring to the attention of the House an excerpt from Wayne Mapp’s maiden speech: “The liberating experience of education led me to develop equity admission programmes at the University of Auckland for Maori and Polynesian students undertaking commerce degrees”—[Interruption] Unlike that member, I do not have to eat it; I am a bit more discerning than that.

I ask members to imagine a person who has gone through three different political reincarnations, and who now sits in the National Party, a party that is committed to the abolition of the Māori seats. The member represented Te Tai Tokerau in the Māori seat, and in the second term he represented Te Tai Tokerau again, and was a Minister of Māori Affairs, to boot. There can be only one reason for that. The man has had a classic metamorphosis in shape, colour, and code. That is the kind of consistency that is sitting on the Opposition benches. The member’s name, of course, is the Hon Tau Henare.

Gerry Brownlee: Has this taken all day to put together?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: No, not at all. Not all of us are slow learners. Some of us have an intellectual capacity that even surpasses that member’s capacity.

This morning’s New Zealand Herald had a comment made by Chris Tremain. It is an excellent statement, and I was moved by it. He acknowledged Māori as the “first tangata whenua” and acknowledged the “beautiful language”, te reo, the customs, ngā tikanga, and the treasures—taonga. He said: “While by no means am I fluent in te reo, I am learning Māori because I believe that it is the founding language of this country and that it should never be lost.” However, unfortunately I am confused. If a member of the National caucus is saying that, in total opposition to what the leadership of the National Party is saying, then I have a problem. Yes, I have a problem, but at least that member has the mana and the strength to espouse something that is in total contradiction to what the leadership of the National Party is saying about our future in New Zealand, in terms of our race relations.

Nō reira, pai hoki te mihi ki a tātau. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ka mutu.

[It is good to acknowledge ourselves. Greetings to you collectively, and thank you. I end here.]

SUE BRADFORD (Green): First of all tonight I would like to acknowledge the kind words of all those members who have made mention of Rod Donald in their speeches in this debate. On behalf of my colleagues here in the House, the Green Party more generally, and Rod’s family I thank them again for remembering Rod for the larger-than-life person that he was, and for the tremendous contribution he made to this Parliament during his time here, and to our evolving parliamentary system. I would also like to thank members of Parliament more broadly, too, for the presence of so many at Rod’s funeral in Christchurch and at his memorial service here on Monday this week, and for their general kind understanding about how it has been for us over this period—and still is. We do appreciate their thoughtfulness and support at this time.

Turning now to the Speech from the Throne, I would like particularly to pick up on comments made about our country’s social welfare system. Although I welcome the assurance that the Government intends to “continue to provide a base of security for all New Zealanders alongside the provision of opportunities for work”, I have considerable apprehension about what lies behind those nice words. The Government states its intention to take further action to “encourage and support those on sickness and invalids benefits to participate in the workforce.” Although on the face of it that could be construed as an entirely laudable goal, when those words are allied with recommendations in the briefing paper from the Ministry of Social Development to the incoming Minister, my sense of foreboding increases exponentially.

The relevant briefing paper—part of what the Hon David Benson Pope called a “social encyclopaedia” when it was released last week—talks about eligibility for sickness and invalids benefits moving to a similar basis to the way that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) administers its support for claimants. If the Government takes that up, it would be the next step in a logical process, which started in the Government’s last term, of more stringent work-testing and the increasing use of accredited doctors, as the department moves to push people off those benefits and into either paid work of any sort or on to the unemployment benefit, which is tested much more punitively.

The Green Party has no problem whatsoever with this or any other Government pledging to do more to help sickness and invalids beneficiaries to seek careers advice, paid employment, or training. But we are concerned about the current apparent strengthening of the ideological drive that says that, ultimately, almost all sick, injured, and disabled people should be in the paid workforce at almost any cost and, behind that, about the use of the administration of the social welfare bureaucracy to help make that happen. There are many accident compensation claimants around the country who tell their stories of the hell their lives have been reduced to, through a system that focuses on getting people off income-related compensation as soon as possible, rather than on fully rehabilitating people and getting them into jobs they really want to do, leaving them, often enough, to languish on the dole, on the sickness or invalids benefit, or on nothing at all. In fact, it is clear that one of the reasons we have an increasing proportion of sickness and invalids beneficiaries is that a number of them are people who have been driven off accident compensation and have nowhere else to turn. It will be a miserable thing if this Labour Government chooses to side with the doctrines of the right, and intensifies its systemic harassment of the very people who are already suffering ill-health and impairment.

The Government also needs to realise that despite record low unemployment figures, and labour shortages in a number of geographical and industrial areas, there are still hundreds of thousands of able-bodied people who want work and cannot get it, or who cannot get enough of it to survive financially. Until and unless the problem of unemployment among the able-bodied and well population is solved, I do not see any reason why sickness and invalids beneficiaries should soon be the subject of things like the notorious ACC work capacity tests or a global accredited doctor scheme. The Government should also acknowledge that many people on those benefits would love to have paid jobs, but that the barriers to their gaining employment remain, in many cases, enormous. The Disability Strategy is great on paper, but the reality of life for many people with or recovering from severe mental illness, major physical sickness or injury, and/or intellectual impairment is that there are still massive barriers to acceptance by employers, and funding for support services remains far lower than the existing need—much less any future need driven up by those new policies that might come in.

The second area of concern for the Green Party is the recommendation in the briefing paper from the Ministry of Social Development that states: “Consideration should be given to a part-time work test for sole parents, strengthening the current planning approach.” Why is the much-vaunted personal development and employment planning process not good enough now? As I quoted in the House earlier today, the Hon Steve Maharey, in 2002, commented: “The vast majority of people currently receiving the widow’s benefit or the domestic purposes benefit are highly motivated to move into work and do not need to be shoehorned into any job going, and the new rules recognise that raising healthy, successful children is important. Being a good parent must come first.” Great stuff, Mr Maharey! I wonder whether Mr Maharey has changed his mind, or whether the new Minister has some new ideas that are actually based on the Jenny Shipley – Margaret Bazley thinking of the 1990s, which was all about getting solo parents—mainly mums—out to work at almost any cost.

The Labour Government of the last 6 years has had the decency to recognise that bringing up children on one’s own is, and can be, a worthy full-time job, and that when children are young, when there are many of them, or when they are sick or disabled that job becomes even more difficult—not just when the children are under 5 or under 7. The current personal development and employment plan regime is a finely tuned balance between helping sole parents to plan ahead for training, education, and paid work, which at the same time avoids forcing people into the paid workforce when the time is not right for either parent or children. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will not cave in to the advice from the Ministry of Social Development or to pressure from their partners on the right. However, I am worried by the fact that when I asked the Minister, the Hon David Benson Pope, at question time today whether he could assure the House and the public that he would not be taking up that ministry advice on sole parents and invalid and sickness beneficiaries, he gave no such assurance. Instead, he avoided that part of my question and wandered off into the realm of disability payments.

The Green Party will be watching the Government’s next moves on the benefit system very closely. We will not get a high-wage, high-skill, full-employment economy by following the advice of officials who seem, sadly, to be held in the thrall of 1990s Treasury economists. Nor will we get it by cutting the special benefit and plunging the next generation of beneficiaries into deeper despair, degradation, and debt after the middle of next year. It ill behoves the Labour Government to turn back to the days of beneficiary-bashing social welfare reform during a term of Parliament when it is likely, sadly, to see rising unemployment again and more, rather than fewer, people forced into reliance on the benefit system.

Alongside unemployed workers, of course, are their fellows who are fortunate enough to be on wages and in paid employment. Again, the Government is dragging the chain totally unnecessarily. The Green Party went into the recent election calling for an immediate rise in the minimum wage to $12 an hour. Some other political parties and the union movement also supported that call, yet, sadly, Labour seems determined to put that off for at least another 3 years. Even then, it is not making a definite commitment. Nor is Labour doing anything about getting rid of the iniquitous youth minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds, which sees them on a base rate of $7.60 an hour. I congratulate the Unite! trade union members, who today launched their “Supersize my pay!” campaign with a groundbreaking strike and picket at an Auckland Starbucks Coffee outlet.

Starbucks Coffee workers are typical of those who have been left to languish on wages that are far too low for anyone to live on, much less people who live in Auckland. The Working for Families package and accommodation supplement continue to provide massive subsidies to employers like Starbucks Coffee, and to others who have no scruples about paying their staff as little as they can get away with, at the expense of the taxpayer. Three years is far too long for workers like those to wait, and I wish Unite! all the best for its campaign, alongside similar moves from other unions that are happening at present.

Hopelessly low wages and a dysfunctional, inadequate benefit system underpin the ongoing high rates of child poverty in this country. The same Ministry of Social Development briefing that I referred to earlier states that in 2003-04, 94,000 children in sole parent families and 120,000 children in two-parent families were living in poverty or below what the social report likes to call the “low-income threshold”. I doubt that those numbers are much different today. That is a disgrace in a developed country like ours. A Labour Government in its third term should be doing everything it possibly can to end poverty. It should not compound it by continuing the structural discrimination against beneficiaries, by further harassment of beneficiaries, or by persisting with unbelievably low minimum wages.

Over the next 3 years, we in the Green Party will be doing everything we can to hold this Government to account. We would love to see a Labour Government that this time round sticks to principles of fairness and equity for all its citizens and does not get suckered into further attacks on low-wage workers, unemployed people, and beneficiaries and their children.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: New Zealand First has a split call of 5 minutes for each speaker.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend my congratulations to Madam Speaker, to yourself, and to the two Assistant Speakers on your election to your respective roles.

Back in 1998, on the break-up of the New Zealand First – National Government, I sat on the Opposition benches for a week while still a member of the executive. Sir Geoffrey Palmer called it a constitutional outrage and said that there was no precedent for such a situation. However, my doing so was consistent with my pledge to the then Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, to enable a secure transfer of power. Parliamentary precedence is made by what MPs do when faced with novel circumstances. So it is with the current arrangements that New Zealand First has made post-election. However, I must admit that yesterday I was faced with a huge procedural dilemma. I wanted a glass of water, and I could not quite work out which lobby I should go to in order to get it. In the end I got one from the centre Table, but seeing that I am not part of the Government, I probably should have gone to the Noes lobby.

Hon Tau Henare: New Zealand First is part of the Government.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: We might just mention Robert Reich if Mr Henare keeps on with that.

In the Speech from the Throne the following point was made: “The security of the New Zealand economy in the 21st century will come from the ability of our firms to be part of a high skill, high productivity, and high wage economy.” Such outcomes are premised on an education system that delivers people with the necessary skills.

That brings me to a point in the confidence and supply agreement negotiated by New Zealand First, which contains a pledge for further exploration of the creation of a non - university “university of technology” class of institution. At present our tertiary structure is missing a vital piece. We have, for example, a university of technology that in fact is not a university of technology, because there is no such entity in New Zealand. The chair of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee indicated to the Education and Science Committee that the institution is not a university, either, yet the Government classifies it as such. I ask members not to take it from my remarks that the institution is anything but a quality institution, but the situation highlights the mess we have got ourselves into.

The point of tension in the system began when polytechnics and institutions of technology were allowed to issue degrees. The issuing of degrees was inevitable as the nature of knowledge in the vocational areas traditionally taught by those institutions became more complex. For example, in 1990 the radiography course was taught by the Auckland Hospital Board and dealt with administering X-rays. Now the technology requires an understanding of magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, radiotherapy, and a whole range of elements that almost demand a degree in physics. So for us to continue to recognise the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and skills for what is now called “imaging” with a 2-year diploma is no longer adequate. A bachelors degree and, indeed, a masters degree are appropriate. We now have, for example, degree programmes in auto-mechanics.

The problem is that the institutions granting those degrees justifiably desire parity of esteem for their qualifications. But when a couple of institutions applied to be converted to university status—as far back, I might say, as 1996—there was nothing in the legislation but a relatively vague definition of what a university was. So some profile around the proportion of degree programmes, and the volume and nature of research, etc., had to be established. The Auckland University of Technology, of course, successfully negotiated that process, albeit the chair of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee was not convinced. Unitec was not able to get through the process by the time Labour became the Government. The difficulty is that for institutions to gain parity of esteem for their qualifications, they have to create a profile in order to become like traditional universities.

New Zealand First looks forward to being able to cut the Gordian knot of this intractable policy problem as a result of its confidence and supply agreement. It is just another bauble that we are happy to accept.

RON MARK (NZ First): Firstly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you. I can think of no person in this House more worthy of the position than the Hon Clem Simich. It is interesting that the National Party did not nominate you as Speaker, but I say well done, and congratulations—it is about time.

I also congratulate the new members in the House and, in particular, all the new list MPs. Is it not amazing the number of people who have sat in this House, in their pious and pompous manner, as supposedly “Group A” MPs—in being constituency MPs—criticising and slandering Green members and New Zealand First members because they were list MPs, but ignoring the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and deputy leader of the Labour Party is himself a list MP? Many of those people are now having to eat humble pie and accept their new status as list MPs also. I hope they do not struggle too hard on the reduced budget. I hope they do not struggle with the increased workload, as they meet the expectation of their being constituency MPs for the whole country. A man once told me that a constituency MP was the only real type of MP, and that man, Mr Tau Henare, now also sits here as a list MP. I congratulate him and welcome him to the club.

I congratulate Nathan Guy. It is good to have a farmer’s voice in the House. Unfortunately, we have had to put up with National MPs who have described farming, in their own words, as a sunset industry that has had its day. Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, and David Carter all saw farming as a sort of backwater industry that had seen its best years. I welcome Nathan Guy to this House. It is good to hear a strong farmer’s voice.

I say to Bob Clarkson: “Enjoy your stay, mate. See ya later; you’ll be gone.” I congratulate John Hayes on the article—

Bob Clarkson: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

RON MARK: The member should sit down; he does not have a point of order. He should learn the rules.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will deal with matters like that from the Chair.

RON MARK: I know, but he is so new.

Bob Clarkson: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member has his facts wrong.

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

RON MARK: Speaking to the point of order, I hope that I have not lost that time from my speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, absolutely not.

RON MARK: I emphasise again that members must learn the rules. There was a good article in the Sunday Star-Times about National’s John Hayes. He should just pay the lady her money and get on with being an MP. Clearly, there will be an investigation into Mr John Hayes’ dealings in the Wairarapa, and as a born and raised Wairarapa boy, I can tell the House that many long-standing National Party people are gravely concerned. National was warned.

Moving right along, I thank Maurice Williamson. He gave a speech about National’s road transport policy that was directly stolen from New Zealand First. The policy goes back to Bill Birch and the National Party team. When New Zealand First—and Tau Henare fought with us—fought to get that very same transport policy enacted, what did National members say? They said that it was unaffordable and could not be done, and now they claim that it was their idea. All I say to National members is that they should sit back and watch the ride.

They can watch New Zealand First put into place initiatives that they envy. We will have 1,000 extra police on the ground, and a review of the home detention system. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I say to Mr Henare that that was a running commentary, which is not acceptable.

RON MARK: He is still a new boy—a little rough around the edges, and going to get rougher.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to have a go at your ruling, but if the barrage is continuous at a member of the House, surely there must be some leeway for that person, whomever it is, to reply.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is not, actually. But your turn for debate will come.

RON MARK: He did not know the rules then; he does not know the rules now. Yet National members laud him as someone who will lead them on to nirvana. I say to Mr Henare that he is a good man, but he has to learn the rules, he has to brush up, and—[Interruption] People like the elderly statesman down the back—the short-time MP—will have to learn the rules, as well.

We in New Zealand First will progress the review on home detention, bring on stream more police, and review youth offending. And I have a message for Mr Sharples. He had a great maiden speech, but he needs to understand that the reason Māori are in jail is that they break the law. As Māori, we have to accept that we have a culture of violence that starts in the family. Any man who accepts within his family a man who would beat women, beat his wife, beat his children, and abuse and assault people is condoning and promoting violence. That man is the very man who contributes to the high incarceration rates of Māori—not my colleague David Carter, not Brian Donnelly, and not Michael Cullen. Māori themselves need to accept their responsibility for their culture of violence. I would have thought that Don Brash would be saying that now, as opposed to hongi-ing Hone Harawira.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I add my congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your very well-deserved appointment. It has been rather frustrating to listen to the National Party tonight. It has been a bit like the days—as many people in the House will recall—when we used to hear confession. That is what it has been like to listen to the National Party tonight.

The star confessor has been Maurice Williamson, who was tonight promising absolute heaven on earth for Auckland motorists. If National was the Government, there would be no traffic problem in Auckland because Maurice Williamson would have fixed it! He would have sorted it out if only people had known better, because National had all this money put aside to spend on Auckland roads. Maurice Williamson seems to have forgotten that he was the Minister of Transport under the previous National Government, and that not only did he do nothing about Auckland’s traffic congestion but it became worse. He left that shambles when he was unelected as Minister of Transport when that National-led Government was thrown out.

Ron Mark: He vetoed that policy.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I say to Mr Mark that he should take another call, if he can. He has a lot to contribute to this debate. He has done only a little tonight, but the volume more than makes up for it.

Maurice Williamson is a bit like the rest of the National caucus—it promises everything and delivers nothing—but because he used to be a Minister, he is worse. He did absolutely nothing in all that time to help with the Auckland gridlock problem. The only good contribution Maurice Williamson made in this House was in his singing ability. I can well remember his songs when he used to sing alongside Brian Neeson and Wyatt Creech about the “Deadwood - Blues Brothers”—about how he was part of the “Deadwoods” and how he was about to get cut out of the National Party by the then president, Michelle Boag. He sang very well, but he did nothing at all about the Auckland traffic problem.

So Maurice Williamson should not come into this House and tell us, just a few weeks after the election, that he has all the solutions, because we in this House all know that when Mr Williamson had the chance as Minister, things went backwards, and that they would again if he was in that position. He was the man who was knocked out by National’s then leader, Bill English, for being disloyal to his party. But when Don Brash was elected as leader, back came Maurice Williamson. Frankly, some people are beyond recycling.

Even though Maurice Williamson’s singing is great, he is clearly past his best, as is Don Brash, the current leader of the National Party. Don Brash is perhaps best described by the National Business Review, which is not a paper that I often quote from. But I was very attracted to its headline, which stated, in reference to Don Brash’s speech in the Address in Reply debate, “It’s like taking a soufflé to a barbecue.” The article stated that Don Brash needs to learn to take a little more advice, and that in his reply to the Speech from the Throne his words fell short. It stated: “… National squandered a major opportunity.” That is what every major media outlet in the country has been saying. The article further stated: “Brash likes to retain responsibility for the content of his own speeches.”—well, frankly, no one else would claim credit for the content of his speeches—“He writes the majority himself, and seeks opinions from pointy-headed acquaintances. … National staff need to wrest the pen out of his hands.”

Dr Brash’s deputy leader, Gerry Brownlee, is shining just as poorly. Disregarded by most of his colleagues, he started off this parliamentary term with an extraordinary attack on the Governor-General. To quote the New Zealand Herald: “One of the prime requisites of political leadership is an understanding of constitutional procedures and a certain sensitivity to the position of Governor-General. Mr Brownlee has declared himself deficient on both counts.” Well, the article was counting only two things; if it had counted more, he would have been found deficient on all counts, I am sure.

I wonder whether that was yet another Maurice Williamson - type cunning plan. That attack on the Governor-General may actually have been a back-door attack on the leader of the National Party, Don Brash. Perhaps Mr Brownlee does not have the self-confidence of Brian Connell, who said upfront what a poor view he has of his leader. Gerry Brownlee must have known that Don Brash had received a letter from the Governor-General saying: “Call me, because I won’t call you.” He is the deputy leader of the National Party, so he must have known that that letter had been received by his leader, yet he attacked the Governor-General for not ringing Don Brash. Dr Brash clearly did not feel under attack. He clearly felt very strongly in support of his deputy, because only 3 days later he leapt to the defence of his deputy, saying that he was a first-class deputy leader—only 3 days after Mr Brownlee had embarrassed himself up and down the countryside.

Perhaps Mr Brownlee should take a lead from Brian Connell, who, after his most recent mistake, issued a full and an absolutely credible—not—apology, saying that he deeply regretted the way his comments were interpreted. Dr Brash said that Mr Connell had clearly apologised to himself and the caucus, but Dr Brash refused to express confidence in Mr Connell or to say whether any further action would be taken against him. Brian Connell did not return any calls over that period, but he again said that he deeply regretted the way his comments were interpreted. It is no wonder that that caucus, with so many new people looking so distressed about the performance of their leader—in the House and outside it—and the behaviour of their deputy, is now scouting around way beyond John Key and Simon Power for someone who will be a leader in the future.

The best part of being in this Parliament is having robust debates with a competent Opposition. Frankly, over the last 6 years that has not been possible. I was hoping that with the new intake of National MPs, and with the increased diversity—although smaller membership—in the House, we would have that possibility. After hearing the maiden speeches and seeing the performances in the Address in Reply debate, I was deeply disappointed. This again will be hard work for our Government, but with the support of New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens I am confident that we will deliver on our manifesto and continue well into the coming term.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the following words be added to the Address: "and that it informs Her Excellency that this House has no confidence in the Labour - New Zealand First Government because it has no serious programme to secure rising incomes for all New Zealanders; because the Labour component of the Government has coasted over the last six years on the back of strong export prices, and utterly failed to lay the foundations for reducing the gap between living standards on this side of the Tasman and those in Australia; because it fought a dishonest election campaign, one that ransacked the public purse for irresponsible party purposes; because during that campaign it suppressed vital information about the financial consequences of its policies; and because it has trampled over all previous constitutional conventions in cobbling together a bizarre set of coalition arrangements that put personal ambitions well ahead of the national interest.”

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Abstentions 4

Māori Party 4.

Amendment not agreed to.

Address in Reply agreed to.

Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General

Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The address is as follows:

Address from the House of Representatives

to

Her Excellency The Honourable Dame Silvia Cartwright, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Principal Companion of The Queen’s Service Order, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over New Zealand.

Your Excellency—

We, the House of Representatives, thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Forty-eighth Parliament.

We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration.

Ko te tūmanako nei kia mahi tahi tātou katoa.

Address adopted.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That Madam Speaker, accompanied by the mover and the seconder, and other members of the House, do present the said Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by Her Excellency.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Imprest Supply Debate

Imprest Supply Debate

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill be now read a second time. The Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill will ensure that the Government will have sufficient supply to meet further policy decisions following the introduction of the 2005-06 estimates and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill, as well as meeting any increases in demand for revenue expenses and other risks or contingencies in excess of the amounts provided for in the previous bill. It seeks the authority to incur expenses of $4.8 billion and to incur a capital expenditure of $1.1 billion.

The primary reasons behind this bill are to fulfil certain commitments made before the election and certain undertakings given after the election to various other parties—in particular, to raise the level of New Zealand superannuation to 66 percent of the net average ordinary-time weekly earnings from 1 April 2006; to extend the Working for Families package, particularly in terms of increasing the abatement threshold from $27,500 to $35,000 from 1 April 2006; to reduce the abatement rate from 30 percent to 20 percent from 1 April 2006; and to introduce an interest-free student loan policy from 1 April 2006.

Those measures will have a large impact on a large number of New Zealanders. Clearly, all superannuitants will gain from the change from 65 percent to 66 percent. I emphasise that this is not a change to the statutory rate; it is an administrative change to 66 percent. It does not affect the statutory rate of New Zealand superannuation. The Working for Families package will lift significantly the gains to some 100,000 families who, from 1 April next year, already qualify for Working for Families, and it will extend the tax relief support to some 60,000 additional families. The result of that will be an enormous improvement in the level of family income for a very large proportion of low to middle income working New Zealand families. It does not affect the incomes of those on benefits, but those in employment. It is much cheaper, and much more targeted and effective, than any attempt to deliver the same gains at the same cost across the board by means of tax rate changes would be.

The student loan policy, of course, was clear Labour Party policy before the election. I emphasise again that the operating provisions of that policy impact are estimated now at some $202 million a year by 2008-09. There is, of course, some anticipated increase in the uptake of student loans, but the cost of that is included within the ongoing operating provisions impact. We cannot double count those, if we understand actual accruals accounting. There is actually an interest rate write-off, which is included within the operating provisions impact. The reason why National Party members keep getting the number wrong is that they do not understand that the existing student loan scheme already has within it a significant element of interest rate write-off. That is because, firstly, people who are students already do not pay interest, and, secondly, the current Government changed the provisions in such a way as to ensure that people are paying 50 percent of their repayments in terms of capital repayment. That requires a level of interest rate write-off at the present time. That is why Mr Key keeps getting his numbers wrong, and it is why that kind of smiling adolescence will not get him very far in terms of politics in New Zealand—because he lacks depth and any understanding of these kinds of issues.

Hon members: Ha!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I notice that Opposition members on the back bench are all saying “Haw, haw”, because it is pretty clear that most of the new members support Mr Key as the leader of the National Party, and do not support the old one down there in the front. They cannot actually disguise the fact that they are salivating at the prospect of sticking the knife into the back of the old bull and putting the new bull into the No. 1 position—and they will hear a lot more about this from the Labour Party over the coming few months, because we have seen this kind of dance from the National Party so often over recent years.

The background, of course, is one of an economy that has been moving very strongly over recent times, and indeed over the last year it has been moving more strongly than either the Reserve Bank or the Government would have wished to see. We are now seeing significant pressures in terms of inflation—which is running at around 3.5 percent or so per annum—a very tight labour market, and a very substantial current account deficit as a consequence of a long period of an inflated exchange rate within New Zealand. What is National’s answer to this? It is to have a tax cut. Now, even if one is an extreme right-wing economist—lined up against the wall, truth-or-dare kind of stuff—the notion that the answer to a current account deficit, excessive consumption, and over-inflation within the economy is a tax cut, is about as dumb as one could get in terms of macroeconomic management. It says that if people are spending too much money, the answer is to give them more money so that they can spend even more.

We look forward to the National Party trying to explain that extraordinary policy over the remainder of this evening and tomorrow afternoon, because the essential difference in this election campaign, apart from things like homophobia—and apart from things like scratching various little issues, the word for which I am not allowed to use within this Parliament—was that National said that the surplus was so big we could give some of it away and have tax cuts as a consequence. So those members said: “It’s about time you got your dividend out of your sacrifices over the last few years.” In other words, they said it was about time people got their dividend out of the Labour Government’s success in lowering unemployment and sustaining the rate of growth at around 4 percent or so per annum, which the last National Government was completely unable to do for 9 years. It actually had a growth rate of 3.1 percent per annum, on average, over its 9 years in Government.

Of course, the fallacy in all of that is, when the economy is running so strongly and we have those imbalances, that we do not feed extra demand in by way of making large tax cuts and reducing the surpluses. [Interruption] Who says so? Well, actually, if those members bother to read it—

Hon Member: Treasury.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, Treasury said that. Last week Treasury said that the Government should maintain the current level of surpluses and savings, and the much-vaunted tax cuts would have been paid for, dribble by dribble, over the next 3 years out of cutting back the growth and spending—and I will come back to that in a minute. Yesterday the Reserve Bank said very clearly that the Government should not engage in any further fiscal easing. Now, I have to explain to the members opposite that fiscal easing is not just spending more money; fiscal easing also includes cutting revenue. Fiscal easing is the gap between revenue and expenditure.

The problem with the National Party is that it has convinced itself that revenue does not matter in that respect, and we can cut it as much as we like. Of course, the National Party is up to its old tricks already. I think it is amazing how quickly members of the National Party get house-trained. Goodness me, if they were puppies, within a day they would be asking to go outside—they are so good at being house-trained. Or perhaps, in the National Party, they never learn to go outside—I am not quite sure what the difference may be. Look what we have seen even with their maiden speeches. We have seen National speaker after National speaker call for more spending. They went around the country saying that the Government was spending too much—except, of course, in each member’s electorate, where the Government should spend more. It is the old National Party trick of telling two stories, depending on where a member is. So Paula Bennett wants to spend a lot more money helping people on the domestic purposes benefit to get a job. Mr Blumsky wants us to build Transmission Gully straight away; so does Mr Guy. Mr Clarkson, who has temporarily popped in from God’s waiting room for the next 3 years and then will pop out again at the end of that particular period of time, said that our roads are totally underfunded. He wants billions more to be spent on the roads each year, and he wants the Government to spend billions more on building 6,000 new houses every year.

Bob Clarkson: Rubbish!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In his maiden speech Mr Clarkson said that he saw that 6,000 affordable houses a year are being built and sold by State housing. I ask Mr Clarkson where the money is coming from. It is coming from borrowing, of course. Mr Clarkson has yet to work his way around little, simple issues about arithmetic like that. It is not like running his business in the past.

What about that member’s front-bench colleagues? Mr Ryall, who has everything both ways in life—we know that only too well—said that we have to spend more money on drug rehabilitation services. Then Mr Ryall said we have to spend more money on aged care. Dr Brash, putting aside all private and personal care, said that, yes, we have to spend more money on aged care. Mrs Rich said we should spend more money on breast cancer drugs right now. Mr Power said we should spend more money on the police. Ms Goudie said we should put more money into subsidising passports, and so it goes on and on and on. I predict that in the next 3 years we will see Mr Key get up and say that the Government is spending too much—ha, ha, laugh, laugh, as he does for 5 minutes—and we have to cut back Government spending—ha, ha, laugh, laugh, for 5 minutes—and every other National Party spokesperson will say that the Government is not spending enough in his or her area. It sounds just like the briefings to incoming Ministers.

PANSY WONG (National): The Hon Michael Cullen has not told the public that the National Party position is that what we oppose is the wastage of the Labour Government with regard to the money it has spent. I ask members to look at one recent example of that waste. Have members heard of Converge 05? One hundred and fifty people converged together to try to convert some creative initiatives into commercial reality. Apparently, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise contributed $250,000 for 150 people to have a talkfest. That is what it was. When the organisers were asked how the Labour Government could be sure of the value of the $250,000 that had been spent, they said that it is hard to determine the benefit in the short term and that that type of creative project needs to be reassessed in the medium to long term, because at this stage people have just got together to learn, to think, and to bounce ideas off each other. That is what the National Party is opposed to. It is not opposed to Government spending but to the way this Government wastes taxpayers’ money.

We oppose this Imprest Supply Bill for the very simple reason that Treasury, the chief adviser to the Labour Government, in its briefing papers has observed that there is “little information to indicate that New Zealanders are getting more services and better results from the public sector for the large increase in resources provided”. The question that National wants to ask of the whip and the few Labour MPs who have bothered to turn up to the House, is: given that Labour’s own adviser—Treasury—actually states that Labour has not lifted the performance of the public sector, how can the public have confidence in continuing to pay high taxes into the Labour Government’s coffers, when we are not getting value for money? Treasury states there needs to be a greater driver for performance across all parts of the State sector.

We happen to agree with Treasury. In the financial review coming up in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, our hard-working fellow National colleague Mrs Katherine Rich will certainly want to get to the bottom of how the $250,000 that was spent on Converge 05 was used. Of the 150 people who attended that function, only 10 paid the full cost of $1,200, and I am sure that those 10 are now rapidly trying to claim a refund for attending that conference. When we have a Government agency that is not acting responsibly in dishing out taxpayers’ money, I think the Government has a lot to answer for.

I wonder whether that was the reason why the Hon Jim Anderton, who sort of set up New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and who had a disastrous run of scandals uncovered relating to grants, is being shunted away by the Labour Government. It has now put him in charge of the agriculture portfolio. We all know that the Labour Government is less than popular with the farming community. Can members guess what happened to the Hon Jim Sutton? He was tossed out by our very good National colleague Jo Goodhew. That is what the Labour Government has in store for the Hon Jim Anderton. It is trying to line him up with the farming community, which is totally disillusioned with the Labour Government. We are looking forward to the Hon Jim Anderton paying the price for that at the next election, by losing the Wigram seat. I am sure National will put forward a good candidate.

It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, lives in denial, because she said in a speech made on 8 November: “My Government has implemented a framework for growing a higher-value economy.” We have just seen it spend $250,000 on trying to change so-called creative initiatives into commercial reality. We want to know why the Labour Government cannot just accept what is stated in the Treasury briefing papers: “New Zealand continues to be a natural resource - based economy.” Why can the Labour Government not acknowledge the backbone of our economy: our agricultural, farming, fishery, forestry, and tourism sectors? Why can it not accept that and be proud of them? But none of those sectors has actually asked New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to come up with $250,000 for a talkfest. I am sure that a lot of small businesses would love to have a share of the $250,000 so that they could have a thinktank, strategy meeting, or talkfest, but they have to risk their own hard-earned money in order to start their businesses.

Helen Clark said that the Labour Government had built a strong economy, but I wonder whether she has been following the series of surveys being put out by the various banks. The latest one, put out by the ANZ National Bank, points to the risk of New Zealand going into a recession. Business confidence is at its worst level for a long time, with 66 percent of those surveyed expressing gloom and doom in terms of their own businesses and of the economy.

The Labour Government promised it would work in partnership with stakeholders to grow our economy. All that our business community asks for is sensible initiatives. It did not ask for $250,000 worth of talkfests. All it wants is two things: firstly, a cut in company tax, which is the recommendation of the extremely right-wing—according to Dr Michael Cullen—Treasury, echoed by the business community, and, secondly, a cut in compliance costs, which I think is very sensible. The business community conducted a survey that shows that the average total cost for each enterprise, over each of the four compliance cost areas, is $53,000 a year—that is, for 2005. Can members imagine that it costs businesses up to $53,000 a year just to fulfil compliance costs?

When everything was going well, the Labour Government took the credit for that, but now that the economy is packing up, why is the Hon Michael Cullen blaming New Zealanders for saving in the form of buying their own houses? Why is he blaming the public for spending? Why can he not take some of the blame? Now it looks as though our economy is going into a recession. National will definitely not support this Imprest and Supply Bill, because it will simply waste more taxpayers’ money.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): First, I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is good to see you back in the Chair.

New Zealand First will definitely be supporting this Imprest Supply Bill, and we will be very proud to do so. We promised stability in this country, and that is what we intend to deliver. [Interruption] In response to the barracking from the National Party, I just ask all those people who voted for National to come clean, rack their brains, get out their pencils and calculators, search through all the rhetoric of the election, and tell us what they will gain over the next 3 years from having voted for National. To save those people from wasting ink and having to make the effort to go through all the speeches made by Don Brash and his team, I will tell them the answer. They got nothing. All those who voted for National got nothing from that party and, if they are not very careful, they will get nothing following the next election.

Having said that, I also say that it is true what people—including the Deputy Prime Minister—are saying: that it is inevitable that the economy will slow down. New Zealand First spoke about that during the election campaign, as well. If an economy is going to be run on immigration and on the consumption of goods that the country cannot afford—consumption way beyond the ability of our exports to pay for it—then, as we have told everybody, it is inevitable that the day will come when that all has to be paid for. The day is nigh—as they say in the Bible, which is about the only bit of it I have read lately—when that has to happen.

The next question is: where will the money to pay for it come from? [Interruption] My Scots friend over there, a good Presbyterian like myself, knows that sooner or later we will have to pay for it, but where will the money come from?

Bob Clarkson: Where’s it gone?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Oh, we know where it has gone. Where it will come from is what will concern us in the future. I can tell members where it will come from. It will all come from the same place it had to come from in the past—that is, from farmers, foresters, fishers, and all those people involved in primary production.

Pansy Wong: What about tax cuts?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I will get on to tax cuts in a minute. All those who are involved in primary production will be asked yet again, as they have been asked many, many times in the past, to crank up production and pay for the profligacy of people who have imported without thinking about how to pay for it. My Scots friends, not only here but throughout the country, know that the piper always has to be paid, and that the money will have to come from the good folk in the countryside, who will have to crank up production yet again.

It is all very well for National members to barrack, but National went around this country saying there would be tax cuts, and Labour talked about cuts for student loans and passing legislation for that before Christmas. They promised all those things, yet both of those big, old parties knew that a slowdown in the economy was coming. They both knew that their promises could not be easily fulfilled. They both knew that if they were to fulfil their promises, then it would have to be on the backs of hard-working farmers and those in the primary sector. National promised unaffordable tax cuts. I will not even go into what Labour members promised, because “They are our friends at the present time, are they not?”, I ask Barbara Stewart. We will support this bill, but both of those big parties knew that they were getting into areas of unsustainable promises, and that this would be the time when the chickens came home to roost. However, the point is that the chickens would have come home to roost whether the Government was a Labour-led Government or, indeed, a National-led Government.

Because the Labour Party got more votes than the National Party, the Labour Party is the one New Zealand First has had to support in the interest of stability in this country. Thank heavens for the good, responsible people in New Zealand First, who have had to put aside personal interests and go with what is good for the country. Rather than offering promises at the election, New Zealand First members went out and talked about things that really matter. Not only did we talk about them during the election campaign, but when it came time to put our bodies on the line and to negotiate with the party that got the most votes, what did we get? We went out there and we negotiated for serious things for our seniors. We negotiated more superannuation. We negotiated a senior citizens card, and we talked about a review of immigration.

We talked about extra police—and those extra police will be delivered. I know that it is fashionable to be pedantic and talk about whether they will be front-line or back-line, but the fact is that there will be more police, and all National Party voters can thank New Zealand First for that. I do not know whether they will lay petals at our door. I do not know whether they will open car doors for us. I do not know whether they will send roses through the mail, or whether they will spend money, but I know they will be very, very grateful for New Zealand First because National could not deliver all that, so New Zealand First has had to step up and we are delivering those things.

We all know that it will be tougher in the next few years, but people can be assured that New Zealand First has made sure there will be a $12 an hour minimum pay rate for workers. That is something Labour was not prepared to do and something National was not prepared to do, but it is something New Zealand First has made sure it has delivered. People will be very happy to have that.

We will also make sure that the land access issue—something that National went around the country raving on about but could not deliver on—will be addressed, and that there will not be any freedom to roam on farms, not only in the Waikato where David Bennett lives, or crouches, but also in the high country of the South Island and on the plains of Ashburton where Mr Connell, the favourite rebel of the National Party, comes from. We are looking after those people, from North Cape to Bluff, because National could not. We do not expect huge accolades, but we expect to be quietly thanked in the fullness of time.

SHANE JONES (Labour): I rise and follow the others who have congratulated you, Madam Assistant Speaker, on this elevation, and I rise to support this bill. This bill reflects a great deal of enthusiasm, unlike the feeling among the Opposition members, who have campaigned on divisiveness, tax cuts, and stigmatising Māori identity. It is an utter mystery to me as to how, within the first week after the election, they were only too happy to abandon all those great ideas and cuddle up to the whanaunga in the Māori Party.

Colin King: Why not? They are very nice people.

SHANE JONES: I will pass comment on that.

One of the great things about this bill is that it enables us to talk about moving forward together. Throughout the recent election campaign, my good friend John Carter—and I say to him, God speed and get well soon—and I encountered huge numbers of people who want to move together and who do not want a toxic recipe of the races fighting each other or of people being driven together over fear about the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process.

Nothing more clearly demonstrated that than the response to the cynicism and the opportunism shown by the Leader of the Opposition in his visit to Whangarei, where he tried to drive a wedge in heartland New Zealand. Fortunately he was challenged very vigorously by the current member for Te Tai Tokerau, and what that showed is that the recipe used by the Opposition failed. A huge number of New Zealanders turned their backs and said that they did not want a country that is possibly going to have a hīkoi every month, 2 months, or 3 months. They said the blend they were looking for was shown by the policies Labour put out, and those policies will indeed be hugely supported through the resources being transferred through this bill.

In addition to that, despite the huge rumour-mongering, etc., Labour fought a campaign that supports families. We are not into punishing families. We are not into stigmatising or demonising those families who from time to time fall on hard times. The assistance package, which will very shortly be extended and come back into this House, where with a great deal of enthusiasm we will pass it into law, showed that our rhetoric has reality. We are spending real money by extending the family assistance package to those who absolutely need it.

The Opposition, in comparison, sought to introduce a policy of tax cuts, which would have lead to the destruction of services and the erosion of infrastructure. It came as something of a surprise to hear, when I listened to some of the maiden speeches, that despite the Leader of the Opposition trotting around and saying how vigorously he was going to cut taxes, the new member from Masterton, Mr Hayes, called for public expenditure to fix a sewerage system. Why on earth he would choose a sewerage treatment system as the item in his speech with which to launch his career, one can only ponder.

There is a deep and an unsolved riddle here. A party cannot promote tax cuts and a recipe that would benefit a tiny minority, and at the same time constantly call, in urban and rural New Zealand, for infrastructure renewal and development. One cannot get rid of dough through tax cuts whilst that money is secretly needed to fund local projects—unless, of course, one wants to raise more debt. Raising more debt would be a massive leap backwards, and perhaps it is a demonstration of how National is going back to claim its pedigree, under Muldoon, of huge, inordinate debt. Members cannot go ahead and preach tax cuts whilst at the same time want to maintain expenditure on a whole variety of pet projects—not the least of which is a sewerage system—unless they access the capital. No doubt that would happen through debt, quite apart from the impact it would have on inflation.

Fortunately, the good voters of Aotearoa decided that they did not want that. Firstly, the policy would have been fiscally profligate; secondly, it would have definitely caused inflation to spiral; and, thirdly, it was based on an ethos about people that was opportunistic and was driven to demonise the Māori personality. I am fortunate to be able to say that that strategy failed, and that it will fail for a long, long time.

In relation to the safety net, we are very, very proud to continue on with the family assistance package. It builds another strand to the net, so that those who want to help themselves have the necessary resources and the necessary revenue on a weekly basis to care for their kids—through attending sport, attending school trips, and doing the simple things that are often overlooked when we become focused on tax cuts, especially for those who are exceedingly well off.

It might be said that by allocating tax cuts to those who are exceedingly well off, others would enjoy the trickle-down effect. Well, that concept has a curious expression in the Māori language—it is known as the mimi effect. It is not unlike those who sit at the bottom and receive that which is not very nice and trickles down. That is not what we want. We want a situation where opportunity—not rampant monetarism devoid of any social conscience—is provided and rewarded, but where those who are unable at a certain point in time to help themselves can help themselves. Those people are families. There is nothing more important or long-lasting than investing in families, because families are producing tomorrow’s workers and tomorrow’s taxpayers. Without a necessary level of fiscal assistance, tax cuts would only worsen their situation.

How else would tax cuts worsen families’ situations? Demographically, we are changing. We are going toward a situation where a huge number of the new entrants to the workforce are of either Pacific Island extraction or Māori extraction, and, unfortunately, many of them are not doing particularly well in education. That is why additional resources, through the well-honed and highly popular Māori development strategy, deeply embraced by the vast majority of Māori Party voters, will spur us forward. There is no way that those groups of the very vulnerable and disproportionately unskilled can be assisted when we lay the cupboard bare by handing out the dough, racking up debt, and overlooking the assistance needed for those who are most in need.

How important will that need be over the next 15 to 20 years? Let us look at the facts. The facts are being acted out and added to and are becoming a reality, not through courtrooms but through bedrooms. We have a situation where the percentage of the population that comprises Māori and Pacific Islanders needs huge investment so that its human capital skills and capacities get to a stage that it can enrich overall society. We cannot do that by slashing. We cannot do that, either, by racking up unsustainable levels of debt, with all the hallmarks of Muldoonism.

Perhaps I might finish by saying that when our party, the Government, pursues its ideas and strategies, we are deepening people’s knowledge and awareness as to their duties and obligations. That is why we are building on families. Families are premised on obligation and duty, and they are an investment for the future. They will not flourish under a situation where essential services are cut. They will not flourish under a situation where resources are cut, and where they are cut adrift and left to the dangers of monetarism without conscience.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Mr Jones certainly makes a lot of noise, and not necessarily a lot of sense, although I must say that he did give an excellent maiden speech the other day.

I want to spend my time tonight discussing an area that has been woefully neglected by this Labour Government, and that is science and technology. We immediately hear the shrill cacophony of scorn from the Government. But this is quite serious. Let us look at the New Zealand Herald of 14 November. “No way to treat a scientist” was the headline. “There was a grim irony in Industrial Research’s announcement that it was to close its research sites in the country’s two main industrial centres and make about 20 scientists redundant.” It goes on: “The state-owned institute’s decision was made public on the same day that the speech from the throne declared that ‘science and innovation are critical to driving our prosperity’.” The contrariness did not end there. A day later the chief executive of AgResearch warned of a looming shortfall in scientific brainpower.

We have heard the Government say time and time again how much it has spent or invested in the area of research and development over the last few years. But the facts are quite different. Let us look at the 2004 research and development survey, which states quite clearly that Government spending on research and development, excluding universities, in 1998 was 0.39 percent of GDP, but by 2004 had fallen to 0.36 percent. But then, let us look at the universities. We see that in 1998, Government spending on universities for research was 0.4 percent of GDP, but by 2004 it had fallen to 0.33 percent of GDP. Who was presiding over this? It was none other than Steve Maharey.

It is no wonder the universities do not like Mr Maharey very much, and no wonder they were very glad to get rid of him, because he is the man who presided over the creation of the Tertiary Education Commission, New Zealand’s most bloated and fastest-growing bureaucracy. The wānanga is just a side effect of one of the other things he did. But he is the man who has now come over to science and technology.

What we must not do, however, is to forget his predecessor in science, research, and development. It was none other than Labour’s own billion-dollar mistake man, the Hon Pete Hodgson. He came to this Parliament and said: “I’m going to write out a cheque for $500 million because of our Kyoto Protocol policy.” He has created the biggest fiscal mistake in the history of the New Zealand Parliament, by being just plain stupid. He was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology and he is now the Minister of Health. It is absolutely vital that we do not forget his legacy. What did he do for scientists? What did scientists say about Pete Hodgson? They said that his policies were all over the place, absolutely ad hoc, with no recognition of the long-term requirements of scientists, and no recognition of the huge importance of planning.

But what about the compliance costs? I will repeat what one of the doctors from Industrial Research Ltd, Dr David Hayward had to say. He might not have lost his job, but he said: “The disintegration of IRL highlighted the funding system that required a staggering amount of scientists’ time. The bureaucracy meant it virtually cost more to apply for funding than the funding itself was worth.” That is the sort of tangled bureaucracy and hurdles that the Labour Government has created over the last 6 years in the area of science and technology, not only in terms of funding grants but also in terms of a regulation regime that is one of the most complicated in the world and that has caused New Zealand scientists in the biotechnology area to leave this country. The legacy in science and technology left by this Labour Government is woeful.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): This is the first opportunity I have had to take a call in the forty-eighth Parliament, so I would be pleased, Madam Assistant Speaker, if you would convey to the Speaker of the House my congratulations on her reappointment. I would also like to convey my congratulations to you and your colleagues on their appointments. To the members of the Government who have been favoured with ministerial warrants, I convey my congratulations. I am sure that most of them will take their responsibilities very seriously and will execute their duties accordingly. I tell those members to enjoy the baubles of office, because we in the National team intend to make sure that they earn them.

I would also like to take a moment to pay my respects to the memory of Rod Donald. He was a man I came to admire because he had the courage of his convictions. When people all around him, myself included on occasions, were shouting him down he still had the strength of character to get up and articulate what he believed in, and I admired him for that.

Therein I have a message for new members of the House. I have listened to some outstanding maiden speeches over the last few days. Most have cited a desire to come to Parliament to do something for their constituents, to get things done. I say to them that if they are going to achieve those ambitions, they will need to exhibit some of that Rod Donald backbone. They will need to challenge conventions, they will need to challenge conventional wisdom, and they will need to stand up and be counted when things get tough, as they will in this Chamber, let me assure them.

The last 6 years have been good economic times for New Zealand, and whilst National has significant differences from the Government, particularly around taxation and areas of Government expenditure, an objective assessment of the Government’s performance would have to say that it is fiscally responsible—the same assessment, though, would also have to mention that it should have been, because this economy has been awash with cash. If the Government could not do it in the last 6 years, it was never going to be able to do it, and the test for this Government and the concern that I have with this bill is that I do not see anything to give me any confidence that when things get tough, as they will over the next 3 years, there is a coherent strategy in place to address those issues.

Despite all the rhetoric, Labour’s economic strategy to get New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD remains a mystery. When all the rhetoric is put to one side, a detailed strategy that will bring Kiwis back to New Zealand and keep them here, a detailed strategy that will see Kiwis get a better deal, is not easily found. When economic commentators look at this Government they say that to date Labour’s performance or strategy would get a rating of “not achieved”. I know from experience that it is easy to go into a business—in this case, an economy—and make things look good when things are good. The real test of character and ability is to go into an economy or an organisation and put things right when they are tough. That is the mark of a good Government, and this Government, I think, will be found wanting.

PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): I am pleased to speak in this debate and to follow Brian Connell. I thought that he gave a very calm, politic speech. Was that the same Brian Connell I heard just a few weeks ago on National Radio saying: “Don, happy to meet you, but down in my area.”? Yes, I think it was the same Brian Connell, because he is laughing over there.

Darren Hughes: That joker has got more hair!

PAUL SWAIN: He possibly has. This is the same Brian Connell who a few weeks ago was very gung-ho about his own abilities and the fact he had been passed over. He said that Don Brash did not deserve the leadership. At that time he said that he was happy to talk about it, but that Don Brash had to go down and talk to him in his own electorate. That was a slightly different Brian Connell from the statesmanlike Brian Connell we heard from tonight.

Darren Hughes: He’s been made over.

PAUL SWAIN: He has been made over. The hair is looking good.

Darren Hughes: He’s windswept.

PAUL SWAIN: He is looking windswept, but he has also had a political makeover. However, I think the problem is that the speech has come too late. We know in this job that people have very, very long memories. In a few years’ time they will not be pulling out the statesmanlike speech made by Brian Connell in which he congratulated everybody. I was almost waiting to hear congratulations to his leader on a fine campaign. But I do not think the speech that he has just given will be one that is pulled out in the future; I think the people with long memories will be pulling out the speeches made about a month ago. They will have a look at the transcripts. I actually heard Mr Connell on the radio, on the afternoon show. He was very gung-ho then, but is very much different now. I wish the member well. He was prepared to say what he thought, and good on him for doing that, but the problem is that the people in the National Party leadership have very, very long memories.

The imprest supply is what we are supposed to be talking about. It is the spending that goes on until the middle of the year. One of the things we ask ourselves is what would be happening if, by some absolutely appalling, tragic circumstance, that other crowd opposite were sitting on this side of the House. There is not much chance of that for a very, very long time, thank goodness. I think that for probably the next 6 years that party will be absorbed in sorting out who will lead it. I have already talked about that, so I will not dwell on it.

But one of the things I thought that party would be doing now is allocating money for PC eradication. We know about the PC eradicator, Wayne Mapp. The idea might have had some chance of flying a little bit if it had not been given to Wayne Mapp. The problem with Wayne Mapp is that he is an earnest fellow and the vast majority of people cannot understand whether the National Party is really trying to make a joke of it all or really being serious. One of the things that Wayne Mapp will be known for when he leaves this place is being earnest. That is the best thing one could say about Wayne Mapp. He kind of reminds me of Don Quixote—how one pronounces it depends on which university one went to, but “Don-key-o-tee” is probably a little bit more relevant, if members will excuse the pun. There is “Don Quixote” on his little donkey—the little donkey is a bit skinny and absolutely groaning under the weight—with his lance poking at a whole lot of institutions and trying to eradicate PC. Of course, we have had trouble trying to get some definition out of “Don Quixote”, the PC eradicator, about what exactly political correctness is and, therefore, what will be eradicated.

I ask the National Party, having set up “Don Quixote”, the PC eradicator, how much PC has been eradicated up until this moment.

Hon Tau Henare: All of it!

PAUL SWAIN: No, not one thing. The problem is that as fast as “Don Quixote” can get rid of PC it gets added to by the maiden speeches of the back-bench National members of Parliament. I have not heard so many “kia oras” spoken since I was last on a marae. We now have the National Party and “Don Quixote”, the PC eradicator, wanting to get rid of all this PC nonsense, and we have all the National back-bench MPs who are indicating warmth and feeling for a whole lot of issues that the PC eradicator will try to get hold of. I did not hear much about one law for all or the Ōrewa speech.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Lots of kia ora.

PAUL SWAIN: Yes, there was lots of kia ora. If I were Wayne Mapp, the “Don Quixote” PC eradicator, I would be going with my little donkey and my lance into my own National Party caucus first. There is a lot to be done there.

Darren Hughes: The only one not doing it is Brian Connell.

PAUL SWAIN: Yes, that is true. I actually think Brian Connell should have been the PC eradicator. That might have had a bit more credibility. Dear old Wayne Mapp said he did not know that he was going to get the job, but that was the big, grand-plan strategy. Did he get anything else? Is he a spokesperson for anything else?

Hon Chris Carter: No.

PAUL SWAIN: He is the spokesperson for PC eradication. Will it be on his business card—“Wayne Mapp, PC Eradicator”? I think he should have a little cartoon on it of him sitting on his donkey and going after PC. On this side of the House we will be watching him with great interest. Each week we will ask how much PC Wayne Mapp—“Don Quixote”—has eradicated. I think the first thing to do would be to define what is meant by it, and, secondly, to work out what people in the National Party are saying. We will be measuring it. Every week we will be asking what he means and what he has done.

Of course, that was not the only post-election irony. One of the things we heard from the National Party during the election campaign—

Brian Connell: Talk about the bill.

PAUL SWAIN: I am going to talk about the bill. The notes are not particularly large, so we need to embellish a little.

One of the things we heard during the election campaign was how the National Party was going to do a thing in economics that was quite miraculous. [Interruption] Oh no, Madam Deputy, I must have more time than that. I would like to seek an extension of time at the end, because I am only just winding into my speech. National said that it would cut taxes and spend more. That is called voodoo economics. We had two campaigns going on. The leader of the National Party, Don Brash, went on television saying that National was going to cut taxes and slash spending. But in every electorate around the country, every local National Party candidate was saying that we need to spend more on roads and on health, that we need to do more for the local schools, that we should lock people up for longer, and that we need to build more prisons. Those were the kinds of things being talked about throughout the election—[Interruption]—and they were saying “kia ora” at the same time, even though they are not PC, as we are being told.

We heard so much during the election campaign about what the National Party was going to do. One person actually said that it was not going to spend more at all really; it was just going to borrow a bit and spend a bit. The leader of the National Party would absolutely turn in his grave if he could have heard what some of the candidates were saying out in their electorates, in absolute dire opposition to each other. The problem is that they are lions out in their own electorates and lambs in this House. They promise anything out in the electorate, then come into this House and talk about tax cuts. That is the problem with the National Party: it is not credible. That is why it did not win—because it is not credible—and its credibility sinks to the absolute limit with the ”Don Quixote” PC eradicator, who is on a mission to try and get rid of everything PC. To date, he has not done a single, solitary thing.

MARYAN STREET (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak in this imprest supply debate, which is all about making sure that there are sufficient resources, going forward from here, to implement and progress the programme of this Labour-led Government. In order to address adequately the needs going forward, we need to traverse a little history, which I am pleased to do.

Before entering this House and before running as a candidate in the recent election, I was, for the last 5 years, a member of the Housing New Zealand Corporation board and for the last year or so I was its deputy chairperson. I want to take this opportunity to talk about housing. I want to talk about where we are going with housing under a Labour-led Government, because it is a good story and an important story. I will be interested in every interjection of the National Party, because housing was a key area of complete blankness in its policy in the election campaign. In fact, it was worse than that. When National’s leader was asked what his party’s policy was on State housing, he could not remember. I want to talk about some of the things that have been done in housing in the last few years, and about why housing is such a critical issue for us to advance in the next 3 years.

One of the first things I did when I was on the Housing New Zealand board was to attend meetings in which we used to go around and visit different parts of the country at different times, to see what was happening. I am not sure whether I see the member for Northcote here, but one of the first things we did was to visit the North Shore. I had a look at the kinds of conditions that people were living in prior to the State housing renovations and urban renewal programmes that have been implemented recently. I had a look at some of the old Housing New Zealand blocks, and I looked at the backyards. Looking out the back window of one of those properties, I saw a couple of children kicking around in the backyard, and all they had to play with was a rotary clothes line—there was nothing else. I went back home to my comfortable house in central Auckland and I cried, because I saw what my daughter was fortunate enough to have in her backyard to play with, and the comparison was distressing.

Since that time I have watched the progress of Housing New Zealand Corporation as it has reversed the degenerative processes that were in place under the previous National administration. I want to talk about some of the things we did and why we need to continue to do those kinds of things. There is no reason to have Third World housing in this country. In my time on that board I saw an enormous number of quite fundamental changes in the maintenance and refurbishment of existing State houses. There have been some cases where the State houses have been knocked down and replaced with better ones—more modern, more appropriate housing for the kinds of families who need them. We have done more than 5,500 retrofits under the Labour-led Government. The retrofits are about very basic things. They are about water-lagging—putting lagging around water pipes to retain heating—and about energy conservation. We have fitted hundreds upon hundreds of smoke alarms into State houses, but beyond that also into privately owned houses that were identifiably in need.

Projects that were approved and generated by this Labour-led Government have addressed some of the most grotesque housing situations in Northland, East Cape, and the Bay of Plenty. The circumstances of some of the people who live in private houses there were such that we intervened. We hear a lot from the National Opposition about there being too much Government. Well, there are some parts of our communities, our society, that still need some assistance and will continue to need assistance. A Labour-led Government does not shy or shrink away from providing that. We have assisted private housing to come up to standard, for the sake of the health standards of the children who live there, or to prevent houses—or crates—from burning down because people who are not reticulated to an electricity supply are using candles. That is not tolerable in this country. I challenge the Opposition members to defend a withdrawal of Government services in those areas, where the need is so blatant. When one visits some of those places and sees the houses sinking into septic tanks that have not been maintained and have not been appropriately sunk in the first place, then one realises that the health of the children, in particular, who live there is the most critical thing that needs to be addressed.

The things we have done, and why we need to continue forward, are the obvious things. We restored income-related rents for State housing, so that the qualifying low-income tenants pay no more than 25 percent of their income in rent. We stopped the bulk sale of State houses—a programme that the previous National Government embarked upon—and we have increased the stock. Now we have more than 6,000 additional State houses. But more than that, some significant joint exercises are being carried out by Housing New Zealand Corporation, under the direction of this Government, with organisations like Counties Manukau District Health Board and the Auckland District Health Board. Those are the Healthy Housing projects, and they are about making sure insulation is right, that people do not have mould on the walls and moisture running down on the insides of their houses, and that the kind of overcrowding that contributes to the health difficulties of families does not occur.

I want to talk briefly about why we need to progress the things we have committed ourselves to doing, like the KiwiSaver programme. We have said quite clearly that we are implementing a KiwiSaver scheme that provides a $1,000 kick-start for each KiwiSaver account. Yes, that is Government intervention, and I am not ashamed of it. I am proud of it. If we look at a recent report written by the Salvation Army called A Home I Could Own, we see that everywhere across the country it was reported, in relation to low-income clients of the Salvation Army, that saving for a deposit was the key barrier to their owning a home.

Why is the National Party opposed to a scheme like the KiwiSaver scheme? Why is it opposed to that, when in fact it concerns a fundamental item? Aspirations for home ownership are greatest, in fact, amongst Māori and Pacific Island people. Ownership of their own homes is a key aspiration, and it remains a key aspiration of New Zealanders. How do we assist them to get in there and own their own homes? We do it through programmes like KiwiSaver, which I am proud to have this Labour-led Government continue.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): It is a great feeling to be back in this House after 3 years of absence. Some people might say, though, that I need some counselling for coming back. There are a number of pertinent issues that I will raise on this, my first opportunity. However, given that this is my first opportunity to speak in this Parliament, I will keep the salutations brief because of the time constraints of a 5-minute speech. I convey to the presiding officers my congratulations. I wish them both wisdom and fortitude in the rulings they make, because the perceptions in which the public holds this House depend very much on the manner in which it conducts itself—and that is the responsibility of the presiding officers. So I wish them well.

I also acknowledge at this time the man I replace, Mark Peck, and wish him well for the future. I am sure it is proper and appropriate that we wish him well in his fight to beat the demons that have demonised his life over the last period of time. We wish him well and trust that he can get on top of the particular problems he has had.

I was content to leave here—that is the way politics works. But a short time after I had been at home in Invercargill, I saw a march that was necessitated by the Labour Government’s first breach of a promise. That breach occurred when Labour was re-elected after the election previous to the last one. Labour had made an absolute commitment on the hustings that agriculture would be exempt from the carbon tax of the Kyoto Protocol. But before very long I was standing and observing a march of significantly irate people from the primary production sector—a march under the name “Fight Against Ridiculous Taxes”, or “FART”. That was the first breach.

I have to say that I was a convert in the 1980s to the notion that a carbon trading credit was an appropriate way forward. By about 1994 I had seen the light, because that particular regime would do nothing to solve the problem. I do not want to get into the debate about whether there is a problem. I accept that the world is getting warmer. Whether it is getting warmer faster than by a natural cycle I do not know, but I believe that mankind has done a number of things in the burning and consumption of fossil fuels that must have an impact. So we have a responsibility. I am appalled, then, that we are continuing with the notion that the Kyoto agreement will solve the problem. It is now actually a charade, because last week in the House the Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, said that $380 million could not be replaced without applying some cuts or raising the money somewhere else. So the carbon tax has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the greenhouse problem; it is purely a revenue-gathering mechanism.

I am absolutely appalled at that. I do not know why the country at large has slowed down on its “fart tax” programme, because it is indeed a ridiculous tax. It is also a breach of a contract that was made through a mandate promised in the 2002 election.

Chris Auchinvole: It’s a plunder.

ERIC ROY: It is absolutely a plunder. The member is quite right. The crucial problem is that when such a tax is applied, the primary wealth creator is the one that pays. Everybody else can pass it on.

Although the members opposite have been in a phase of self-congratulation and self-adulation over their success in regaining the Treasury benches, I just say that they should note that a blue tide began moving during the last election campaign—and that movement will not be complete until this Government is removed. The Government should take a warning: the primary production sector is the first down. Its members are a wise group of people who know that this Government is bereft of ideas and that a socialist programme is leading this country absolutely nowhere.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): It is no wonder members opposite are looking so scared—there are 20 hungry, ambitious new National MPs coming at them. They should keep an eye on their rear-view mirror and keep left unless passing as we move into the top half, and further, up the OECD averages.

Obviously Mr Cullen, who spoke recently, did not listen to my maiden speech the other night—I can give him a copy if he likes—because I told him that tax was not his money. It is ours, the taxpayers, and it comes from all of New Zealand, including the small businesses of New Zealand. Mr Cullen seemed to be able to do something that I cannot do—that is, burp and speak at the same time. There is a nightmare coming. He is out there trying to browbeat everyone down, and trying to browbeat the banks down, but there is a nightmare coming. This is what it will be: the New Zealand dollar will plummet, interest rates will rocket, and confidence will be about six feet under. We are seeing one of those three factors right now, in the confidence indicators out today. Those are not just my words; they are in the Reserve Bank’s most recent Financial Stability Report. It is all there, and it does not sound too good.

I have heard speakers earlier taking credit for the economic conditions over the last few years. But does the Labour Government set the price of lamb? Does the Labour Government set the price of dairy products? No, they are part of a commodity boom it has ridden on the back of, and by which it has siphoned money from the real and good New Zealand, the rural and provincial New Zealand, that it lost in the election—that National gave it the red card for. That is why there are so many new and ambitious MPs right here and coming at Labour.

That report—which, I tell everybody, is scary—also talks about the risk premium coming on to New Zealand, the Eurokiwi and Uridashi bonds, which in my previous life I used to swap. Some of the things we used to note were to look for opportunities, or for the mistakes that this Government is making right now. There is a nightmare coming. Mr Cullen knows it; he is an intelligent man. Obviously, he has also read this report.

I heard Mr Jones, I think, speak earlier about the dangers of borrowing and about debt, or perhaps it was Mr Cullen. Well, one borrows against the income stream of an asset. Can anyone show me someone in this House—or, at least, someone on the other side of the Chamber—who bought his or her house with a 100 percent deposit? No one did. One borrows against one’s future income stream and the life of the asset. That is the real world; that is how it works.

There are three things in this bill. It will allow for the funding for superannuation, the Working for Families package, and the interest-free student loan policy. Mr Cullen noted that the superannuation funding is an administrative change only for as long as it is part of the agreement with New Zealand First—therefore, it is only for as long as this Government survives. Does that mean the superannuation rate will go back to 65 percent in 18 months’ time when the Government gets kicked out? Going from 65 to 66 percent misses the point of how pathetic the New Zealand average wage is to start with. Going from 65 to 66 percent will not pay for much at all—not for the inflation that people on superannuation have to pay when electricity prices have gone through the roof, when the petrol price has gone through the roof, and when the consumer price index is increasing but we still see lower numbers now, which is all about increased prices for whiteware and things that superannuitants do not buy all the time. Their inflation rate must be nudging something like 6 or 7 percent.

Yes, Dr Cullen may be right that the Working for Families package does increase some recipients’ income, but it also increases dependency and decreases aspirations. Because of secondary tax, it effectively controls net income. The Government does not care any longer about gross incomes—it controls via net incomes by those high and punishing marginal taxes. Again, I remind Dr Cullen that it is not his money.

The third thing in this bill is about student loans. The other day Mr Maharey talked about student loans as an investment. Well, I just point out that an investment does not receive a zero percent interest return. Interestingly, the Inland Revenue Department has penalty interest rates for not paying interest on student loans. Those rates are something like 26 percent. The logic is that people are incentivised by the higher interest rate to pay off their loans. Of course, logic says that the lower the interest rate, the more people will borrow, and the less incentive they will have to pay it back. [Interruption] I say to Mr Swain that provincial and rural New Zealand is now corrected politically.

Most Labour MPs are out of town and out of touch. National has about 11 new provincial and rural seats—I thank New Zealand very much. Rural New Zealand is starting to shout; Labour should keep an eye on its rear-view mirror.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): It is typical of many of the speeches that we are hearing from the new National Party members that they still have not worked out that National lost the general election. They are talking as though they are the great representatives of the people, but they lost at the general election. The country went off to the polls after a very hotly contested election campaign, and the Labour Party, with allies in other parties, was returned to govern New Zealand. Now we have to try to pass this Imprest Supply Bill, because this debate is Parliament’s opportunity to approve the money that will be spent between now and the end of the financial year. We are looking at the sorts of things that the Government is proposing to spend money on. It is also a very good opportunity to reflect, as a confidence measure, on what would be happening if the other lot were running New Zealand. That is where we get into some big problems.

The first part of the argument regarding the Labour-led Government’s programme involves us actually having to put numbers on a page that all add up together. That is a bit of a problem in politics—what we say on the one hand, we have to be able to do on the other. We have a kind of realism problem in the Labour Party: we actually like to do the things we talk about. That is why we put out a commitment card. The figures are all there for everybody to see in a printed bill and in a printed Speech from the Throne. They are all there for everybody to see.

But members on the Opposition side of the House say that they think the Government taxes people too much. Mr Foss has just told us that tax is more or less theft, and that the money does not belong to the Government but belongs to the people. So presumably, on that basis, he does not believe in taxation, at all. Or if he believes in a bit of taxation, presumably he thinks the tax rates that the National Party took to the last general election were far too tough—he thinks that National, the party he belongs to, was too timid, and that it should have gone further with tax reductions than the $7 billion borrowing and spending-cut tax plan it proposed at the last general election.

If we accept and take as reasonable Mr Foss’s point that the taxes charged by Labour are too high and the taxes National proposed to charge were too high, that would mean savage cuts to Government spending. That is where we run into problems. That guy will get up in Parliament within the next 3 years and demand that the Government pay orchardists to rip out trees. He will get up in Parliament within the next 3 years and demand better roads between Napier and Hastings, and demand a sweetheart deal on an airport. That member will get up in Parliament within the next 3 years and demand every single bit of taxpayer dollar he can for his own area, and then say that he is a fiscal conservative, that he traded a few dollars here and there around the world, and that he believes it is not Mr Cullen’s money but the people’s.

So we have a massive contradiction; there is no logic, at all. For 3 years National will have to work out a way of trying to reconcile the craziness of saying that it wants to tax less and spend more. I am not saying that National will spend more just because I am trying to attack it politically. We had to sit through the raft of maiden speeches—which were more politically correct than the Labour Party back-bench speeches, I have to say. Of course, none of the National members campaigned in that way. They all said around the country that we needed one law for all, that the Treaty gravy train was going crazy, and that it was political correctness gone mad. But they all stood up in here, wearing the biggest pounamu and bone carvings they could, hunched up over their desks, and said: “Tēnā koutou, I acknowledge the Māori people in my area. I am trying to learn to say a few more words, with a little pronunciation that sounds vaguely South Pacific.” Those people are extraordinary in the double standard we are seeing. On the campaign trail they said that political correctness had gone mad and that they had to fix all those problems, and then they come in here and say that the Government taxes too much but that it should please, please spend more on the things they like.

I see Mr Blumsky over there on the Opposition benches. Of course, he did not really bother to add up accounts when he was at the Wellington City Council, and he does not think he should do the same when he comes into Parliament, either. He wants billions of dollars of extra spending, right across the Crown bank accounts. I bet he wants to charge people less tax, as well. Members can imagine what would have happened if Mr Blumsky had gone around the harbour ward, and said he would put people’s rates down and their spending up. I know he got into a lot of trouble when he had that job, but not even he went around, when he had that responsibility, and said he would put people’s rates down and their spending up. But that is what National is trying to do in the imprest supply debate.

At least the list MP from the West Coast was slightly more realistic in his aim, because of all the extra spending that he wanted, he wanted the strategic Arahura road-rail bridge to be done. That was the only thing that he wanted to have done. It is fair enough to hear one thing that an MP wants to have done, but we have had to sit through 15-minute speeches from all those people, demanding that more and more be done.

National became so desperate about its taxation policy during the election campaign that it even promised to get rid of petrol taxes in the last week of the campaign. That is how desperate it was to try to win the general election. So I remind the National Party of the biggest tax bribes New Zealand has ever seen—the 15-year itch the National Party gets. In 1975 it was going to get rid of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and put superannuation up to 80 percent of the average wage, and in 1990 it was going to cut the surcharge. It won those two elections. But in 2005 the 15-year bribe—the National Party itch—came around and National could not do it, despite the tax cuts, despite the petrol tax, and despite the race card. It tried all those things. For all National’s talk of the new, representative feel it thinks it has, all it did was to hoover up the votes of the other non-Labour parties. It was not some great victory by the National Party. How can its members say they feel good, having thrown everything they possibly could in order to try to buy a general election, to be sitting in Opposition—that they delighted to be there? I think that is absolutely amazing.

I see the member for Rangitikei on the Opposition side of the House. His big new plan is to build some new prisons. He was on the front page of the Dominion Post this week, stating we should build some new prisons. So we have to take all the promises from the general election campaign, plus the tax cuts—National was going to put a total of $5.2 billion into all of that. Now, since the election, all the extra promises have started. So Simon Power asks for a few more prisons. But there is a problem with that: where we will build the prisons? On the one hand National members beat their chests and say we should build a few more prisons, and on the other hand they say they should not be built in their areas.

We saw that with Mr Ryall, who is a slightly odd sort of character. He used to go around saying we need more prisons, but not in the Bay of Plenty. As soon as people wanted to build a new prison in the Bay of Plenty, guess which piece of legislation the National Party reached for, in order to try to slow it down? It was the Resource Management Act. Yet what was National’s position on that Act? Its position on that Act, around the country, was that we had to get rid of political correctness gone mad, and the appeals process—except when National needed it. The National members also said we had to try to cut taxes, except when they wanted to spend money on their favourite thing.

It is absolutely extraordinary that National now comes in here to the House to oppose a bill that actually adds up. It does not like it, but its members will have to explain to people why they are voting against legislation that puts into place some policies that, I think, will be quite popular out there. I am glad the student loan money will get voted through in this bill. I am delighted that the National Party keeps making a big song and dance about the student loan issue. It is on the wrong side of that argument, completely—just as it was in 2000. I ask the National members to please put in all their six questions tomorrow on the student loan policy. Of course, in the Labour Party we had the scarfies on our side—actually the National Party had scarfies on its side, too, but our scarfies were students and its scarfies were from a cult. National put a taxation plan out there that gave members of Parliament, like all of us, $91 a week in tax cuts, but that gave two-thirds of people less than $10 a week. That is fairness; that is the mainstream! The mainstream is now people who are very, very wealthy, but those who get only 10 bucks a week back are not counted as part of it.

Finally, I say the National Party is very upset about the support we are getting from New Zealand First and United Future. It is absolutely devastated about it. National has not explained to Parliament how it is that the Government, working with two parties, is a hotchpotch arrangement, but a National-led Government of five parties would be a fantastic idea. How is that? It is a stable Government if it is Don Brash and five parties, but if it is Helen Clark and two other parties on top of the Government, that is a hotchpotch. How does that work? It does not work, and that is why the National members will sit over there on the Opposition benches for another 3 years and try to work out why this Government is making progress on things that people actually care about. That will lead to 9 long years in Opposition for the National Party. We have to watch people like Mr Power wasting away their middle age in Opposition, sitting around and trying to find work to do.

The only other good thing that will happen, I think, in the taxation area, is—[Interruption] Trying to find work to do—that is right. Well, I tell the member he should keep on looking, because it will take a while. I see that Mr Copeland from United Future will speak next. As part of our arrangement with United Future, we will look at the corporate tax rate. The interesting thing about that is that a Labour-led Government will go back to the polls at the next election with a better policy towards business regimes than the National Party had in its taxation plan at the last election. So for all those members’ talk about freeing business from the shackles, their taxation plan was the harshest on their business supporters.

We have an Imprest Supply Bill that takes us through to the end of the financial year. It is balanced, it has been worked out, and it contains policies that Kiwis want—against a pie-in-the-sky policy that says: “I want this; I want that. I am like a kid in a lolly shop: I want to try to get a job that pays lower wages but pay my mortgage off at an even higher rate.” It will be 3 long, bad, sorry, sad years on the Opposition benches for those members, because they will have to get out all the abacuses in the world to work it out that talk is cheap, and that being in Government is good.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): United Future will vote in favour of this Imprest Supply Bill. I thought I would take the opportunity tonight to explain why, because I know from my experience of the last 3 years that for the next 3 years every time I stand up to say that United Future disagrees with the Government about something—and we will do on plenty of things—members on the other side of the House will bay at us and ask why we voted for the Government’s Imprest Supply Bill.

I will get down to telling members why. The election was, by any standards, a major set-back for United Future. With our caucus cut from eight to three, on just about any calculation we would have been irrelevant to the make-up of this Parliament. Therefore, I had contented myself with the thought that I would spend the next 3 years experiencing for the first time what it is like to be on the Opposition benches, engulfed and surrounded by the new eager beavers of the National Party. I thought it might be fun.

I had fantasised, for example, that United Future might get lucky and end up in a Parliament with New Zealand First on the Government benches and United Future on the Opposition benches. That would have given me the opportunity to design a little sign, similar to the one that Winston Peters had last time, that read “poodle power”. Believe you me, for those members who were not around during the last 3 years, Winston Peters did have a little sign like that. Every time we stood up to speak, Winston Peters would put up his little sign that read “poodle power”.

It was quite a mutually beneficial arrangement, because every time Winston Peters put up his little sign he would grin like a Cheshire cat, and I would look at it and read in bold letters from Winston Peters the thought: “I am jealous.” Believe you me, I have already heard some speeches like that delivered by members opposite, who decry parties like United Future—and now also New Zealand First—and the members just sound so jealous. I am sorry, but as the old saying goes, when the rubber hits the road and all is said and done, we have just had an election and the people have spoken. Members opposite should just get over it and accept the reality of the next 3 years. I think they will experience greater contentment that way than they would by going down the road of jealousy.

One interesting little point, Madam Assistant Speaker, which will be of personal interest to you, is that in the last 3 years, not one single Speaker ever noticed Winston Peters’ little sign. He sat in a seat on what is now the National front bench, and he always managed to have his sign tilted and directed at about where I was sitting. No Speaker ever actually saw his little sign, so I thought I would just give you that tip, Madam Assistant Speaker, in case some member opposite is tempted to come up with a similar sign this term. It would be quite pleasant if someone did, but maybe it is contrary to Standing Orders; I do not know.

In any event, United Future is back on the Government side of the House with just three MPs, one of them the Minister of Revenue, and with the Labour Government committed to advancing 15—yes, 15—major United Future policy planks. That is not a bad outcome, and it is one that will ensure that the next 3 years of this New Zealand Parliament will see some positive outcomes. We may be small, but we sure are influential. It is not for nothing. We are doing this for the people of New Zealand. We are doing it for the families of New Zealand. We are doing it for the communities of New Zealand. We are doing it for the charities of New Zealand.

Darren Hughes: For the businesses.

GORDON COPELAND: We are doing it, as Darren Hughes has just mentioned, for the businesses of New Zealand. The National Party said that the businesses of New Zealand will have to wait until 2008. We will deliver long before then. There are only three of us, but we will deliver where National members have failed to deliver.

We will deliver for farmers in this country, and, believe it or not—and this will be a comfort to Jeannette Fitzsimons—we will deliver for the environment. We have two party colours: purple and green. The Green Party has two colours: bright red and green. Ours are purple and green. We will deliver in our supply and confidence agreement these things—and I ask members to listen. We will have a nationwide pest reduction strategy. We actually want to get rid of weasels, stoats, and possums so that the beautiful birdlife of this country can flourish. That is what we will do in the next 3 years.

We will address issues to do with water quality, which is a problem in many, many rivers in whole areas of New Zealand, such as the city of Dunedin, which has no fresh water. We will fix that. We will fix the agrarian runoff. Nitrate leaches into the water, which allows weeds to grow in the first place. For the benefit of those who are not scientific, I say weeds feed on nitrate, and if nitrate is stopped from going in the rivers, the weed problem will be cleared up. We will do that. We will have—members should listen to this one—public access along rivers and lakes in this country, so that people who want to catch a trout can get to their favourite fishing hole. That is what we will deliver to the people of this country, as part of our confidence and supply agreement. I say that the Green Party and United Future should have a lot in common in those policies. The members of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society have signalled that once we have begun the pest reduction, they will give us their support at the next election, so I look forward to that with great interest and great enjoyment.

I could go on. Through our agreement, we are going to review the prostitution law. We are going to use private hospital capacity. Dr Jackie Blue spoke about that during her maiden speech, and I thought what she said was very, very impressive. We are actually going to start doing it. Our supply and confidence agreement states that appropriate private hospital capacity will be used to reduce waiting lists. We are going to deliver on that. It will happen during the next 3 years of this Parliament. I say to members opposite: “Eat your heart out, guys. We’ll be doing that.” We will be bringing in tax breaks for charities—something that charities have waited 18 years to get. This Parliament—parties from both the left and the right—has failed charities for the last 18 years. We are still stuck with a miserable 630 bucks for donations rebate; that will become at least $6,300 under United Future.

United Future is going to deliver all that, supported by the Labour Party. I think that is quite an amazing achievement for a team of just three MPs. In exchange we are only too happy to give our votes in support of the Imprest Supply Bill.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.