Wednesday, 14 February 2007

Wednesday, 14 February 2007

Wednesday, 14 February 2007

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Statements

Parliamentary Labour Party Membership—Taito Phillip Field

Madam SPEAKER: Members, I have received the following letter:

Hon Margaret Wilson

Speaker

Parliament House

14 February 2007

Notification of Change in Parliamentary Party Membership under Standing Order 35(1)(c)

Dear Madam Speaker,

In accordance with Standing Order 35(1)(c) I wish to inform you of a change in the parliamentary membership of the New Zealand Labour Party.

Following a decision of the Labour Party caucus today, Taito Phillip Field, is no longer a member of the parliamentary Labour Party. This decision is effective immediately.

Yours sincerely

Rt Hon Helen Clark MP

Leader, New Zealand Labour Party

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Speech from the Throne—Political Integrity

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Does she stand by her statement on 14 September 2005 when she said of her then Minister Taito Phillip Field that “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”, or her statement last year on the release of the Ingram report when she said of Mr Field that “the report does not find wrongdoing by Mr Field”; if so, how does she reconcile that with her comments made earlier in the week when she said in relation to Mr Field’s behaviour that it was “immoral”, “unethical”, and “unacceptable”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Labour Party has been clear all along that the behaviour was unacceptable.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was unable to hear the Prime Minister’s response, and I think we would be keen to hear it in this part of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: It is useful at this stage to remind members, unless we are going to have an enormous amount of repetition and people leaving the Chamber, that members should be given the courtesy of being heard, whether they are asking or answering questions.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Labour Party has been clear all along that the behaviour was unacceptable.

Hon Phil Goff: To what extent does the Prime Minister believe that public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process has been damaged by revelations of cynical political manipulation, outright lies, and treachery—as revealed by the book The Hollow Men—as being commonplace in the National Party caucus and leadership?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you may have noticed since you have been in the Chair that there is a division in this House—roughly one-third there, one-third, of course, at the back bench, and one-third over there. You will have observed, surely, that the volume of noise coming from some parts is in no way similar to that from this end of the House, where people on the whole listen to the questions and do not jeer during the questioner’s time for asking the question. That was a repetition of what we have seen in previous years. I will not point to any political party, other than to say that there is nothing special about those members that warrants their getting preferable treatment to that of members at this end of the House, where people in the main have been much more quiet in their behaviour and prepared to await the parliamentary process.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. He is making the point again that there was a total disregard of my request that we observe freedom of speech in this House, which means that members can be heard.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The events the member referred to in the question of course cast doubt over the integrity in politics, and to my mind a measure of whether the National Party members can put The Hollow Men behind them will be whether they vote for campaign spending law reform.

Heather Roy: How does the Prime Minister think it boosts confidence in this Parliament when she denies that Kiwi kids go to school hungry, denies our health service is sick, and denies that our justice system is not working?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have never denied that some children go to school without food. What I say is that our schools get on with doing something about that.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement this morning in relation to Taito Phillip Field when she said: “When the word started to come out just prior to the last election of some of the practices in the office, obviously we were extremely concerned, and that concern has never gone away.”; if so, could she tell the House why she set up the Noel Ingram inquiry in such a way and with such terms of reference that she knew it would never be able to answer the questions, if she had such concerns?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have said many times in the House that the inquiry looked at whether there was a conflict of interest for Mr Field as a Minister.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: How does it help to restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament when the Leader of the Opposition promises to engage in further discussions around means of making monetary policy work better, then, when the heat comes on, claims he was merely being polite?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course, the series of flip-flops we are used to seeing from the Leader of the Opposition does nothing to enhance public confidence in him or his party.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain how her decision yesterday to start expulsion proceedings against Mr Field restores “public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament” when, for the record, she did not expel him when she thought he was “immoral” and “unethical” and she did not expel him when she thought he was “exploiting vulnerable constituents”; in fact, the only reason he seems to be getting expelled is that he had the audacity to challenge the Prime Minister and steal her thunder on the day she was delivering her speech to Parliament—which, for the record, was not worth the effort on his part?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think any reasonable person would say that the Labour Party had showed patience beyond endurance. That has just ended.

Hon Phil Goff: To what extent does the Prime Minister believe that political reputations for integrity in Parliament will be damaged by the publishing in The Hollow Men of an email from Exclusive Brethren leader Ron Hickmott, setting out in detail plans to spend $1 million to support the National Party, sent to John Key, when Mr Key later denied he had ever known anything about the plans?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government was always puzzled as to how Mr Key could remember not seeing an email. But whether or not he saw the email, the email addressed to both Mr Key and Dr Brash stated that the Exclusive Brethren had “enjoyed your presentation”.

Madam SPEAKER: This is a very general and broad question. However, I just remind members that we should come back to the essence of it.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister been in contact with the leaders of United Future and New Zealand First to discuss the changing nature of her Government support arrangements, and what assurances or undertakings did they seek now that they know they are being dragged into what could only be described as a coalition of the unwilling?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The leaders of both parties are well aware that, post-election, arrangements were set up that ensured the Government had a majority on confidence. Nothing has changed about that.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What does it do for the integrity of the political system when a member of Parliament registers his or her car at the address he or she actually lives at, but on the electoral roll has an entirely different address that happens to be in the electorate he or she was standing for, as Mr Key did?

Madam SPEAKER: As I said to members—[Interruption] I am on my feet. If members wish to remain in the Chamber, they will keep quiet. As I said to members, although this question is a very broad one, there is no ministerial responsibility for that matter. Supplementary question, John Key—[Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Mr Peters. I am sorry, but I did not see you. I did not hear your call. I did see and hear the call of the member John Key. You will be next.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Peters, but I have ruled on this matter. So let us proceed, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You can actually sometimes say: “I made a mistake and should not have called Mr Key, because he has already had four questions. Therefore, I seek to rectify my mistake.”—which I ask you now to do.

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled.

John Key: Did the Green Party seek any additional demands of her Government when she contacted its leadership yesterday to reaffirm its abstention on confidence and supply?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No. The abstention agreement is based on both sides working together in the working agreement and cooperating on certain issues, and that continues.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of public confidence and the integrity of Parliament, what are her views as to which is worse: allegations made about an MP that have been denied and are the subject of preparation for a possible court action in a country that believes that people are innocent until proven guilty, or the clear purchasing of party political policy and funding of campaigns disclosed in a book called The Hollow Men, which are yet to be denied by the National Party—which is worse?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Clearly, the latter is worse. It portrays a level of cynicism and manipulation of the political process without precedent in this country. That is why it is called The Hollow Men.

Working for Families Programme—Results

2. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received on the success of the Government’s Working for Families tax credit programme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): This programme has been very successful, with the estimated total number of eligible families at around 360,000 in the 2006-07 tax year. In particular, it is delivering very substantial reductions in the proportion of children living in poverty.

Shane Jones: What reports has the Minister received on the desirability of fully implementing the programme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Ministry of Social Development estimates that full implementation, with the $10 per week per child increase on 1 April this year and the family support tax credit, will lead to a reduction in child poverty of up to 70 percent, which will put us in the top five countries in the OECD in that respect. I have also seen the promise of Mr Key in the last election to cancel that $10 per week per child increase—enough to pay for a basic breakfast for a child—in order to fund tax cuts for the better-off.

Sustainability—New Zealand's Contribution

3. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement she made yesterday that “More than any other developed nation, New Zealand needs to go the extra mile to lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase sustainability.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes,

John Key: Does she think her rhetoric on New Zealand’s lowering its greenhouse gas emissions more than any other developed nation is consistent when she looks at her own record and the official figures, which show that New Zealand’s emissions since 1999 have grown at twice the rate of the United States, four times the rate of Japan, and are even larger than Australia’s?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I know is that emissions have been growing, the economy has been growing, and we have had dry years that have forced more reliance on thermal energy. That is why strategies like the Energy Strategy, which seek to put fossil fuel generation out of baseload and into reserve, are so important for the future.

Hon Annette King: Has she seen a newspaper report of April last year that speaks of gutting the legislation, particularly “the sustainability stuff”, which is attributed to Maurice Williamson; if so, what should New Zealanders believe when they hear the National Party leader saying that he has always believed in climate change, and could it be considered hollow rhetoric?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is indeed hollow rhetoric to say, in 2005, that this stuff about climate change is a hoax and then to say, when one becomes the Leader of the Opposition, that one believed all along in climate change being a problem. I would say that the reason we will not hear any commitment to sustainability from the National Party is that those members do not believe in it, and Maurice Williamson’s intention to gut the transport legislation to take sustainability out proves that beyond doubt.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the announcements she made yesterday amount to reductions of less than 1 million tonnes of carbon, and what does she think that does in terms of her statement to make New Zealand carbon neutral when, on a yearly basis, we emit over 75 million tonnes?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Across the proposals the Government has out for consultation on energy, on sustainable land management, on the decisions we have made on biofuels, and on the leadership the Government intends to give, there will be a substantial impact. I note that the National Party puts such a high priority on these policies that the Bluegreen website still has Don Brash as the leader on it, with the memorable quote: “Environmental issues are too important to be left to the fringes of New Zealand politics.” I am afraid that Don is now on the fringes.

Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister confirm what she meant when she stated: “New Zealand needs to go the extra mile to lower greenhouse gas emissions”, and will she tell us specifically whether the extra mile will include the imposition of additional tax on transport and/or power?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I was referring to was the likelihood of environmental protectionism, which affects New Zealand trade and tourism, hitting us if we do not go the extra mile to ensure that we are sustainable in what we do as a nation—what we produce, how we produce it—and to mount strong arguments around our travel being not actually as carbon-intensive as all the short-haul flights around Europe. Can I say to the member that on the issue of something like carbon taxes, there was not a majority to proceed with this in this Parliament.

Heather Roy: In the light of that answer, what will the cost be to Kiwi families and businesses of eliminating the 0.02 percent of the world’s carbon emissions that New Zealand generates, given that Treasury calculates this country’s lesser obligation under the Kyoto Protocol at over half a billion dollars?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think it is more important to focus on what is the cost of not going the extra mile for sustainability, because the possible loss to New Zealand in terms of trade and tourism is rather significant. I believe that if businesses and households are able to become more sustainable, over time, there are savings in it.

John Key: Is the reason the Prime Minister will not answer my question—that her savings yesterday were 1 million tonnes and New Zealand is emitting over 75 million tonnes—that, like all things the Government does in this department, her record and her rhetoric are completely different; and if she really cared about making New Zealand carbon neutral, why did she not storm in yesterday and tell the country about some really big areas of savings?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I note that the mere move of going to more energy-efficient cars in the VIP fleet in itself takes out a lot of tonnes of carbon dioxide. What we announced yesterday was the first steps in a lot of areas, and that is better than having no steps at all and a whole lot of slogans.

Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the most environmentally friendly form of transport is shipping; if she does acknowledge that, will her Government assist in the development and the enhancement of New Zealand shipping?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: One of the reasons New Zealand can show that it is indeed a sustainable producer and transporter of its goods to faraway markets is that shipping plays a very big part in primary produce commodities going to market. I defer to the member’s expertise on shipping. I think it does raise the issue of whether there should be more emphasis on shipping as a sustainable form of transport.

John Key: If carbon neutral is not just a slogan, could the Prime Minister tell the House exactly where she is going to save the other 74 million tonnes of emissions we are currently emitting, over and above the million she saved yesterday?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Emissions savings are going to come, over time, in the way we use transport, in the way we generate energy, and in many, many ways. We have to take the steps towards sustainability. We have outlined where they are; the National Party has not got a clue.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister quite clearly to outline exactly what those steps were, and she did not, because she cannot. But she came back and said she would outline them. Well, I have asked that question. Maybe she would like to.

Madam SPEAKER: I listened carefully and the Prime Minister did in fact start to outline the areas. There was, however, some interruption with noise, so that some members may not have been able to hear her.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister accept that if she were really serious about being carbon neutral, and it was not just a slogan, she would not come down to the House and save a million tonnes but she would do something about the big areas that are really making a difference—like net deforestation in New Zealand, where she could do something instead of actually putting on taxes in such an area, which is actually accelerating net deforestation in New Zealand?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In light of the member’s professed concern, I look forward to his and his party’s support for measures arising out of the current consultation on how to arrest deforestation and have more reforestation. But I know it would be a challenge to the National Party to engage on these issues.

Schools—Funding

4. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What increases have there been to school funding since 1999?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Funding for schools has increased from $3.8 billion a year in 1999 to around $5.6 billion in 2006. That is an increase of $1.8 billion, representing a 22 percent increase in real terms. That funding provides for more teachers, more classrooms, more buildings, a range of programmes designed to lift student performance, and an overall boost to operational funding. This Labour-led Government is committed to resourcing schools adequately so that they can deliver a high-quality education for all New Zealand students.

Moana Mackey: What reports has the Minister seen regarding the funding of New Zealand schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen a report of comments by the previous National Opposition spokesperson on education, who claimed that low-decile schools “are awash with cash”. In light of recent weeks, this can mean only that a future National Government would slash funding to schools in low-income areas, and replace the funding with the offer of muesli bars delivered by limousine by John Key. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please settle.

Judy Turner: What funding increases have been given to reading-recovery teachers, given that a portion of their funding comes from the pressured operations funding?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not have the funding figures specifically for reading-recovery teachers but, as the member will know, over the last 7 years the numbers of people who are in those resource areas has increased quite markedly, and along with it, of course, funding has increased as well. If the member puts down a written question, I will supply her with the specifics.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What response has he to yesterday’s release from the National Council of Women that said: “…the spirit of the law, which is unqualified access to free education, has been sidelined in the application of the Act. … It is surely time to take a good look at the funding of education and come up with a plan for realistic and adequate resourcing right across the board, so that all children can have equal opportunities.”; and when will he announce his school funding plan to address the tragic profile of Māori underachievement, so that Māori children can have equal opportunities?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would reply to the council that funding has lifted in real terms by 22 percent in 7 years, which is a marked lift in funding. I would point to the operations grant review that took place last year, which is being considered now by the Government with the sector. I would point to a range of programmes that have been put in place that are designed to lift the performance of Pacific groups like Māori. In other words, I think I would refer to our track record of 7 years as being highly successful, and argue that they should not vote for a party that says low-decile schools are awash with cash and should use muesli bars instead.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Has the Minister read the statements in response to the crisis of Māori underachievement from Paula Rāwiri, acting group manager of Māori at the Ministry of Education, who said that the data is serious and there is no quick fix; would he not agree that the fact that the Hunn report first identified Māori underachievement in 1960 has given sufficient time for a fix to be worked out; and how much longer do Māori have to wait before sufficient funds are invested appropriately in this crisis?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the quote is correct. This is serious, and there is a need to do more in this area. I think one of the most important pieces of research about to surface is the one that was mentioned yesterday but has not yet been released, and that is the work by Russell Bishop. In that work he has evaluated the Te Kotahitanga programme, which has shown, in the 59 schools that it is currently in, a dramatic improvement in results for young Māori. We are looking to programmes like that to lift across the board the performance of Māori who have, as the member has said, not been performing as well, and that is down to the system, not down to the students.

Mortgage Levy Proposal—Minister’s View

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What is his position on the mortgage levy today and how does this compare to his position last Thursday?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): My position last Thursday was the same as that which I had understood the member’s position to be last Thursday, and that was that ideas should be considered carefully, particularly when they come from Treasury and the Reserve Bank. Unlike the member, my position has remained unchanged.

Hon Bill English: Can we take it from the Minister’s answer that Government officials are now still working on the concept of a tax on fixed-interest mortgages?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Pursuant to the agreement at the end of the meeting that further work would be done on the variable interest mortgage rate, I understand that a report is coming to me at the end of this week. As a matter of courtesy I shall make it available to the joint leaders of the National Party, Mr Key and Mr English, but, of course, if they wish to continue discussions I am happy to do so; if they do not, then clearly the issue is off the table, because it would require a bipartisan approach.

Darien Fenton: What interest has been expressed in the levy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In the meeting I held with Mr Key and Mr English, Mr Key indicated a high degree of interest in the proposal, which Mr Key himself explained quite carefully at the meeting. He now claims he was merely being polite. So the National Party seems to have stumbled from a leader who claimed to be too polite to debate the Prime Minister in public to one who claims to be too polite to debate the Minister of Finance in private.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister said last week that it would be a waste of time for officials to keep working on it; and why has he defied her instruction to him to pull back on the tax on fixed-interest mortgages because it is political suicide?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The report was almost completed. Given the fact the report was being prepared—in effect—at the joint request of that member, his co-leader, and myself, I saw no need to stop it at that point. Indeed, it was Mr Key who referred to the proposal as a stabilisation reserve where the levy could be negative on occasions—and he nods his head, I see.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister confirm that this meeting was held following a written request from Mr Key to consider these matters, and that at the meeting the strongest proponent of that mortgage levy was John Key; and, given that, is this question a set-up from Bill English as a very early start in his campaign to destabilise John Key?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly true that in a letter to me Mr Key said he was very interested in debating proposals, all of which were in the public arena at the time he wrote the letter. It was very clear at the meeting that Mr Key wanted more analysis on this matter. It was very clear also that Mr English’s body language was somewhat retentive—to put it mildly. It is very clear that the members of the “dream team” cannot agree on this matter, just as they cannot agree on fiscal policy, as Mr English showed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning.

Hon Bill English: Can I take from the Minister’s answer that whether the levy proceeds depends on the Opposition’s view, and from his advocacy of the levy again at the select committee this morning that it is Labour’s policy to explore putting a tax on fixed-interest mortgages in order to buttress monetary policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I said was—and it follows a policy that I have adopted for close on 20 years now that monetary policy framework should be a bipartisan matter—that consensus would be required. If the National Party has now dogged on the agreement it entered into in December in my office, then that is the finish of that proposal. But the fact remains the problem has not gone away, and the problem for that member, who is supposed to represent a rural electorate, is that it is doing immense damage to the exporting sector. If he went down to Southland occasionally, he might find that out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister of Finance share the view of New Zealand First that the preferred method of addressing inflationary pressures now—and at the same time promoting employment and export growth—is to introduce a dramatically extended savings plan providing real incentives to increase New Zealand’s appalling rate of saving and, at the same time, to increase our domestic investment capacity; and will he consider introducing such a policy soon?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On 1 July the KiwiSaver scheme comes into operation. It is expected to have a significant impact, in my view, on the level of savings within New Zealand. We should always be open to further moves. I am personally still not supportive of compulsion on the contributor—the employee—because I now think the Government takes on a very high level of moral hazard around the failure of any particular savings scheme.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister answer the question that I asked right at the start: what is the Labour Government’s position today—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I ask members to show restraint. That was the second inappropriate comment made by that member, and it will be the last one.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister outline, for the benefit of the House and the public, just what the Labour Government’s position is on the proposal to put a tax on fixed-interest mortgages?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The position is that the fact that the National Party dogged on discussions means that no further progress can be made on that. But I invite the member actually to discuss seriously how monetary policy can be made more effective and what options are available. He has no ideas in the area, other than to slash social spending and perhaps to have tax cuts for the rich.

Hon Bill English: What are the public and the House to make of a situation where the Minister of Finance has just contradicted directly the Prime Minister’s position, which is that the proposal is a “dead duck”—and that is a quote?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not know whether the member noticed but I just put another bullet into the body. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member is entitled to be heard.

Hon Bill English: For the third, if not the fourth, time: can the Minister outline the Labour Government’s position on the proposal to put a tax on fixed-interest mortgages?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: For the fourth, if not the fifth, time: the fact that the National Party has dogged on the discussions means that it is now a dead issue. It will not proceed. [Interruption] Well, darling, if you were kissing me I would be saying no, even if you did not notice.

Superannuation Fund—Investment Policy

6. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “New Zealand can aim to be the first nation to be truly sustainable—across the four pillars of the economy, society, the environment, and nationhood.”; if so, is she confident that the investments of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are consistent with this goal?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by the statement I made yesterday. The legislation setting the mandate for investment in the Superannuation Fund is consistent with that goal, but it may be able to be improved to give better guidance to the fund.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How is the $28.7 million Superannuation Fund investment in nuclear weapons manufacturers such as Northrop Grumman consistent with her vision of a sustainable nation, and how is it consistent with her statement yesterday: “Our nuclear-free policy and the values which inspired it have become central to our national identity and how we project ourselves to the world.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As the member knows, I am one of the longest and most steadfast proponents of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status. The issues raised by the member highlight that where there are conglomerates, these issues around ethical investment are quite difficult. That is why I would welcome Maryan Street’s bill being drawn from the ballot so that a select committee can look at some of these issues more closely.

Keith Locke: How is the $17.7 million Superannuation Fund investment in cluster bomb manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin consistent with her vision of a sustainable nation, and does that investment not undermine the statement made last Friday by Phil Goff, the Minister of Defence, that “New Zealand is at the forefront of international moves to limit the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My answer is, in essence, the same as I gave to the member’s leader a moment ago. Some of these international conglomerates have many arms. It is, I think, a matter for legitimate debate as to whether something in one of those arms is so dominant that the whole company should not be invested in it. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund should be taking a close look at how funds in other progressive nations like ours actually invest.

Sue Bradford: When might we see a Government bill in this House that would put an end to the $28 million Superannuation Fund investment in tobacco companies such as British American Tobacco and the Imperial Tobacco Group, and the $40 million investment in gambling, given that both those investments undermine the health and sustainability of individuals, families, and communities?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It has not been the approach of the Government to have legislation directing what companies can or cannot be invested in. The legislation points to more general guidance, and the fund itself claims that it adheres to United Nations standards in these matters. I am on the record as saying that I find investment in tobacco companies extremely offensive, and nothing would cause me to resile from that opinion.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Prime Minister saying that the Government will simply wait for a member’s bill, which may or may not ever win the ballot, or will she commit to strengthening the legislation under which the Superannuation Fund operates, to require ethical standards for investment, as the Green Party advocated at the time the fund was set up; if so, when?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: At this point the Government is supporting the introduction of the member’s bill, which has yet to be drawn from the ballot. If the bill does not have any luck over a period of time, it may be that we will look at another approach to it. At the present time the member who has advanced the bill is publicising its intention, and that is where it stands.

Taito Phillip Field—Immigration, Associate Minister

7. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: How long after his 23 June 2005 letter to Taito Phillip Field detailing his decision to issue a special direction for a work visa for Sunan Siriwan did the former Associate Minister of Immigration, the Hon Damien O’Connor, become aware that Mr Siriwan was allegedly working for Taito Phillip Field and staying at his house in Samoa, given the Minister’s statement to the Ingram inquiry that he would have “absolutely rejected” Mr Field’s advocacy for Mr Siriwan to be granted a 2-year work permit if he had been aware of that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I am advised that the Ingram report, at paragraph 153, notes that the former Associate Minister of Immigration advised Dr Noel Ingram QC that he was “unable to recall precisely when he became aware of the allegation”. However, the Ingram report also records that Mr O’Connor was not aware of the information prior to or at the time he signed the letter on 23 June 2005.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why is it so difficult for this Minister to be truthful to this House about the facts; why can he not confirm—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question is clearly outside the Standing Orders already. Although I do not want to sound like Mr Peters, I think it is important that standards are applied to the National Party, as well as to other parties.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: My question was very specific. I know that the Minister has in his possession the correct answer to it. He did not give it to the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the member could rephrase his question without the implication of untruthfulness being expressed as explicitly as the member did. The meaning of the question can come through, to comply with the standards of the House.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why can the Minister not simply be upfront with the truth with this House, and confirm that in fact it was within 5 days of Mr O’Connor writing to Taito Phillip Field with his decision on 23 June that the Ingram inquiry found that Damien O’Connor was aware unequivocally that Mr Siriwan was working on Phillip Field’s house in Samoa?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What I can confirm is that I have received no such advice as that alleged by the member.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why did the Minister tell Parliament on 26 July last year that Mr O’Connor did not revoke his special direction because he “believed that the new information would be taken into account in the department’s processes and that no visa would be issued.”, when Mr O’Connor has said publicly that when he did receive the information he ignored it because he trusted his Labour Party colleague?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What is clear is that when Mr O’Connor’s office received an email from Mr Williams on 12 September 2005, Mr O’Connor issued a press statement that same day advising that he was reviewing the decision. He then made a decision by 19 September to insert a flag in the department’s application management system requiring that no visa be issued without reference to his office. No visa was issued. Mr Sunan Siriwan and his family have never returned to New Zealand. They reside, I understand, in Thailand.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why did he tell Parliament on 26 July last year that when Damien O’Connor realised that the new information on Taito Phillip Field would not be taken into account in the department’s processes for issuing a visa to Sunan Siriwan he acted to reverse his decision, when Damien O’Connor has admitted publicly that the reason he did not act to reverse his decision immediately was that he ignored the new information because he trusted his Labour Party colleague?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr O’Connor’s action in recording the flag in the application management system is a matter of record. The precise time when Mr O’Connor may have first been alerted by other means was not clear in the Ingram report. That is stated at paragraph 158, and I rely upon that.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why did this Minister tell Parliament on 3 August last year that “the Associate Minister”, Damien O’Connor, “did act unequivocally to ensure that the gentleman’s”—that is, Sunan Siriwan’s—“visa was not issued”, when Damien O’Connor has now admitted publicly that he did not take any action because he trusted his Labour Party colleague?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: For the third time I can confirm that Mr O’Connor obviously did take action, because on 19 September he put a flag in the application management system. I am not responsible for the amount of time that Mr O’Connor may have taken to reach that decision.

Corrections, Minister—Confidence in Department

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) on behalf of SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Gerry Brownlee: Why did it take 2 weeks after Graeme Burton first breached his parole conditions on 5 December for the probation service to seek a recall to prison, as section 61 of the Parole Act enables, when the police had told the service that if Burton’s parole was not revoked and he remained in the community he would kill someone?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: All the details surrounding that tragic incident are currently under inquiry by way of a number of investigations. It is not appropriate for me to comment on them at this point.

Madam SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Gerry Brownlee—I am sorry, a supplementary question, Hon Phil Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm, in respect of having grounds for confidence in the major function of a prison, which is to keep its prisoners secure, that, in fact, prison escapes have been reduced by 78 percent in the last 10 years compared with when National was in Government, and can he confirm that that very good track record is notwithstanding quite major growth in the prison population because there are tougher laws and more police?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can confirm that, in spite of a 68 percent growth in the prison muster numbers, we have had a reduction of 78 percent in the number of people who have escaped since the former National Government was in charge of prisons.

Gerry Brownlee: Why did the probation service not seek a warrant for the arrest of Graeme Burton when he first breached parole by reporting in on the telephone rather than in person when they knew from the police that he was not living where he was supposed to be, and why did they believe that sending him a warning letter would reach him when they knew he was not living at the address that they sent it to?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Department of Corrections is on record with its response to that. There are, however, inquiries under way that will check all the details around the timing and actions of probation staff, the police, and anyone else involved in this tragic incident.

Gerry Brownlee: Was Graeme Burton on special offender warning system alert, for which the probation service operations manual requires immediate action following serious or repeated acts of non-compliance; if so, was action not taken to recall Graeme Burton to prison because probation officers did not understand the powers they had?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I repeat, those issues are all under investigation. I can confirm that the offender was on the offender warning system and that immediate action was taken when they had that information at hand.

Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that the crucial psychological assessment of Graeme Burton prior to his release advocated a “carefully managed release under close supervision”, and can he honestly stand up in this House and claim that that is exactly what his department provided, when Graeme Burton was able to amass a stockpile of military style weapons, and commit aggravated robberies and other offences, before he was deemed to have breached parole?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There were a large number of conditions associated with the parole of Mr Burton. It is not for me to prejudge which of those may or may not have been breached. That will be the result of the inquiries currently under way.

Gerry Brownlee: Why on earth does he have any right to continue being the Minister of Corrections if he does not have an opinion on how well his department has handled this matter, and if he is not prepared to accept some responsibility for a tragedy that has hurt many, many people—not to mention the victim himself?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not prepared to judge the performance of my department based on speculation by the media nor on accusations by members of the National Party. I will await the outcome of the inquiries.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to please reflect on that answer. The Minister appears to be telling us that the well-known facts around the situation that saw Graeme Burton commit offences that have a high amount of tragedy surrounding them, were somehow just a fabrication by the media and that he is not prepared to comment on them. Why on earth is he still the Minister?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I listened to the Minister’s answers and he did address the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not for this occasion, but I noticed that you called Mr Brownlee then realised that Mr Goff was on his feet, and that you changed your decision and called Mr Goff before Mr Brownlee—a point I was making at the start of today’s question time. Perhaps you could have that in the future.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his observation. Obviously, I learn from experience.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps it would help Mr Peters if I admitted to deferring to Mr Goff knowing full well that the Government needs as much of the cavalry as it can get at the moment.

Madam SPEAKER: As we know, that was not a point of order.

Pharmac—Herceptin

9. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the way Pharmac is handling applications from those requiring treatment with Herceptin; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes; the member will be aware that Pharmac keeps Herceptin under active review as new data comes to hand, including this week. Additionally, the processes around high-cost medicines, in general, are one of the questions being considered by the national medicines strategy consultation currently being undertaken by the Hon Peter Dunne.

Barbara Stewart: On what basis was the approximate cost of $300 million per annum made for the funding of Herceptin and quoted by both Pharmac and the previous Minister of Health, and was this costing independently verified?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not familiar with the figure of $300 million per annum. The figures that are generally used for treatment with Herceptin are around a quarter of that, although they are dependent somewhat on the weight of the patient.

Dr Jackie Blue: What did the Minister mean when he said in the House on 10 October that women with breast cancer were not worth the cost of funding Herceptin, and why is it that Ministers of Health in 23 other OECD countries think the opposite and care more about their women and their families?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is almost certain that the member is misquoting me, but I will say to her that Pharmac keeps Herceptin under active review as new data comes to hand, including this week.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What occurred between the election in 2005 and March 2006—because he said he was not aware of any such figure, I want to read this to him from the Evening Standard on 5 August 2005: “The problem is, Mr McNee said, that to pay for its use in all women who could be eligible would cost up to $300 million a year. That would absorb half of Pharmac’s current drug-buying budget.”; what happened between that quote and March 2006 for the annual cost of Herceptin funding quoted by both Pharmac and the current Minister of Health to be reduced from $300 million per annum to just $30 million per annum, where do the new figures come from, and why was the pre-election cost estimate 1,000 percent higher than the post-election estimate?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am afraid I still do not know. It really does not matter how many times I am asked, I will not know where the earlier figure came from. I will say to the House that the likely cost of Herceptin to the drug budget, depending on the type of treatment, will be $30 million per annum or a little less.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister says he does not know, have I not provided him with clear evidence that there are people in Pharmac prepared to lie to women who are suffering from cancer, prepared to lie to their Minister, prepared to lie to the media, and prepared to lie to the public, and is it not time, given that the facts are now out before the public, that he should get them in and fire them for such deceit?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have been the Minister of Health now for about 16 months or something of that sort, during which time no member of Pharmac that I am aware of has used the figure of $300 million per annum. Pharmac has repeatedly said that the costs of Herceptin are $30 million or less.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table five documents—rather than do them one by one, because they are so similar I will read them out. There is an article from August 2005 with Wayne McNee talking about $300 million. He is the chief executive officer of Pharmac. Article two is from August 2005, where the Minister of Health has been misled using the same figure. Article three is from March 2006 and has Wayne McNee saying it now costs $30 million—10 times less. Then there is an article from May 2006 quoting Pharmac now saying Herceptin is $30 million a year. There is also the OECD country entry showing that we are the only country in the OECD so far refusing to fund Herceptin for early-stage breast cancer.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House, and OECD report not tabled.

Waverley High School—Confidence in Oversight

10. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he have full confidence in the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s involvement with Waverley High School since 2002; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes.

Katherine Rich: Why did it take the New Zealand Qualifications Authority until late last year to issue a final warning to Waverley High School, when it knew as early as 2004 that the school was not acting on recommendations to improve assessment systems; and what does he say to the students who did the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) in 2005 and 2006 and are now left with grades that nobody knows whether to believe?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It might be worthwhile if I just rehearse the longer issue here, because it goes back to before 2004. The issues first emerged at the school in around 2002, and education agencies at that time judged that the school was quite capable of dealing with them if it had assistance. In June 2005 the Education Review Office identified more serious issues that required the ministry to give assistance, and support was given to both the principal and the board at that time. To make faster progress, a limited statutory manager was appointed in May 2006, during my watch in the portfolio. When the board resigned in June last year, the limited statutory manager was appointed as a commissioner, which is the role that is currently being carried out. In June 2006 the New Zealand Qualifications Authority also expressed concerns. I think it would be fair to say that once the limited statutory manager had become a commissioner, the education agencies were able to go into some of the issues in the school, and that led them to believe that the situation was more serious than it might have appeared in previous months. The history is one of earlier stages being able to be fixed by the school, with assistance being provided as was judged necessary, but, really, this issue was accelerated during 2005 and 2006.

Jill Pettis: What systems are in place to assist schools that are experiencing difficulties?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Education agencies have a range of mechanisms to identify schools that are in difficulty and to try to assist them. The Education Review Office and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority both conduct regular reviews to ensure that schools have good processes and policies in place. If they identify problems, they work with the school to try to clarify what the issues are and put together recommendations on which, of course, they act. The Ministry of Education monitors a range of indicators to identify any schools that are experiencing difficulties. It gathers information from agencies, parents, and the community. When those indicators show that a school is getting into difficulty, the ministry provides support as is necessary, which, of course, can lead right up to formal intervention of the kind I have just mentioned.

Katherine Rich: Following on from his answer to the question about helping schools that are having difficulties, what is he doing to assist Avondale College, which has discovered that nine history students from that school had their NCEA papers returned to them unmarked, unblemished, and with no grades—which explains why those students got a very distressing “results not available” message when they received their grades earlier this month?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The New Zealand Qualifications Authority, as the member would expect, is working with the school now.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister explain how students can sit an exam, have those exams despatched to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and have those exams sit in a wee pile and have a holiday, only to be returned unmarked, unblemished, and with no grades whatsoever?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I cannot do so right now, but the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will ensure that—

Hon Tau Henare: Find out—do your job!

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I appreciate the member’s support in this matter. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority will find out exactly what went on.

Chester Borrows: How can the Minister have confidence in his departments in respect of Waverley High School, when 50 percent of students are truant on any day but are not reported, when even with a teacher-pupil ratio of 1:8 everyone fails, when all teachers teach only 3.5 days per week, when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority claims evidence of cheating by students and teachers, when two-thirds of Waverley children are bussed out of town rather than attend Waverley High School, and when literacy and numeracy is a huge problem but there are no remedial programmes; and whose head will roll for letting this community down so badly?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member knows from the answer I gave to the Opposition spokesperson on education, there is a great deal going on at the school at the present time. I appreciate his visit as a local member to the school along with the National Party associate spokesperson Allan Peachey. At the time, of course, he wanted the school to be closed immediately; now he tells me he would like it kept open so we can discuss the problems. I will work my way through the problems and keep him informed.

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table a letter to the Minister dated 14 February, which contains my position and retracts a conversation I had with him on the telephone earlier, because I had only half the information—and he knew that.

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

Water—Quality

11. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I have had several reports. One was from the Hon Nick Smith last month, stating that 24 percent of our drinking water is unsafe, that that is “an appalling statistic”, and that “enforcement action is needed”. I received two other reports a few months earlier. Those stated that New Zealand is known for having the best standard of drinking water in the world, that it has excellent standards of drinking water, and that this is a problem that does not need fixing. Those statements were made by Dr Coleman and Dr Blue. So the National Party is both deeply concerned about the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water and deeply unconcerned. If that is the nature of its concern, then it is no wonder that it has not managed to formulate any health policy. National cannot even work out what it wants to do about New Zealand’s drinking water.

Kyoto Forestry Association—Draft Land-use Strategy

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with the statement by Roger Dickie of the Kyoto Forestry Association, following the release of the Government’s draft land-use strategy last December, that: “Imposing massive retrospective taxes on the one industry capable of sequestering carbon is sheer idiocy”?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Not surprisingly, no, he does not agree. The Government’s Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change discussion document, which I assume the member is referring to, does not propose imposing any retrospective taxes—massive or otherwise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What responsibility does his Government accept for the massive rates of deforestation that occurred in 2004, 2005, and 2006, noting that for all of the preceding 50 years New Zealand had planted more trees than it had cut down, and noting that the carbon losses from trees already felled amount to 50 times the projected savings from the window-dressing announcements from the Prime Minister yesterday?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I do not want to suggest that the member himself—or any other member of the Opposition—is responsible for deforestation or land management issues; I just want to point out that in November last year a document was tabled in this House that showed that the rate of deforestation under the previous National Government was higher than any deforestation rate that is going on now.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the figures of the Minister’s own ministry, showing the plummet from 60,000 hectares of new forest planting during the 9 years of the National Government, to net deforestation in all of the last 3 years.

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

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask whether that document goes back to the rates of deforestation in the 1980s and 1990s.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Absolutely.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It does? Well, I have no objection.

Madam SPEAKER: There was no objection; it was a point of clarification.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe that it is important to discourage deforestation, and is he concerned that deforestation is a feature of Mr Graeme Hart’s ownership of Carter Holt Harvey?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As we speak, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the ministry dealing with climate change issues has a major discussion document on deforestation and the means to address it being consulted through communities right throughout New Zealand. Deforestation is a serious issue—not just for New Zealand but for the whole world. A number of proposals in that document would address the issue and we are waiting to have the feedback from the communities of New Zealand, particularly those in the forestry industry, to help determine what the Government itself decides will be done. I note, however, that the National Party actually agrees with one of those proposals, which is tradable permits. I am pleased to have its support for that and we may well get some cross-parliamentary agreement on it.

Lynne Pillay: Has the Government costed Mr Dickie’s proposed climate change policies?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes. It is estimated that Mr Dickie’s proposal to place no controls on deforestation and to give windfall credits to Kyoto Protocol forest owners would give the taxpayers of New Zealand $1.89 billion. To meet this cost it would be necessary for the Government to impose many hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of charges on the farming community for methane emissions that it can do little about. If the National Party supports Mr Dickie’s proposals—and one can only assume that it does, given that Matthew “Hollow Men” Hooten is running Mr Dickie’s campaign—then I am interested to know when the National Party plans to tell its rural constituents, the farming community, what size of bill they will get if we are unfortunate enough ever to have a National Government in charge of this country.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that his proposal for a deforestation tax of $13,000 a hectare is contributing negatively to climate change by encouraging the chainsaws to start up early; and why does the Government not learn the lesson from its “fart tax” and its carbon tax, which it had to drop, and accept that the Government has again stuffed it up, that it is on a loser, and that it should cut its losses and drop the proposal immediately?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: That does not sound to me like a question from a party that is deeply concerned about climate change issues in this country or about anything else. I just told the House that the Government understands—even if the National Party does not—that deforestation is a major issue. As a country, we have to work our way through managing it. If we do nothing, emissions from deforestation will be equal to the increase in emissions from agriculture and transport. There are also many other environmental impacts from deforestation, not to mention flooding and nutrient run-off. At the moment, society and the environment are paying the full cost for deforestation, and those who are taking advantage of the opportunity to cut down their trees are socialising their profits and capitalising their losses, so that the rest of the community pays the bill. That is not acceptable to this Government, any more than it is acceptable to the whole of New Zealand society.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain to the House what is fair when foresters are encouraged to plant trees so that they can get credits, and the Government takes the credits from them; then, if they dare change land use, the Government says that it will whack a tax on them, and is then somehow surprised that foresters want to get in and cut their trees down early?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is no proposal to charge those people who have trees in the ground $13,000 a hectare for the privilege of having them or of cutting them—none. There is not one single proposal to charge them for that. That is the cost of deforestation to the whole community of New Zealand, and if the member read the document clearly, he would understand that. I repeat that the people of New Zealand fully comprehend the enormity of climate change. Deforestation makes an enormous contribution to that. We need to deal with it, and we will not be dealing with it in a way that Dr Smith is representing Mr Dickie’s wanting to take all the profit for himself and put all the money and the cost on everyone else in the community except him. When Mr Dickie planted those trees, and those around him also did so, there was no such thing as carbon credits or liabilities, and both have to be considered now in this new era.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It seems that the Minister has not read the Government’s own document, so I seek leave to table page 63 of Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change, which has Mr Anderton’s and Mr Parker’s picture on the front. It states that a charge will be set at $13,000 a tonne for deforestation.

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

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee

Hon Matt Robson—Contempt of House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That this House—

(1) resolves that the action of Hon Matt Robson in respect of his statement in his email newsletter “Robson-on-politics” on 1 November 2006 to the effect that the liquor and tobacco industries’ support for the Hon Peter Dunne “has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests” constitutes a contempt of the House,

(2) orders that Hon Matt Robson make an unqualified apology to the House, and that this be read by the Speaker when received,

(3) orders that Hon Matt Robson make an unqualified apology to Hon Peter Dunne and that this apology be published in his next “Robson-on-politics” email newsletter or similar vehicle.

On speaking I hope relatively briefly to this report, since the motion is lengthy and largely self-explanatory, and in the unavoidable absence of the chairperson of the Privileges Committee, Simon Power, it falls to me in my lofty role as deputy chairperson of that committee to present this report. The Hon Matt Robson made certain statements in his email newsletter on 1 November, to which the Hon Peter Dunne took exception. The committee was of the unanimous view that a fair and reasonable person reading those comments would conclude from them that Mr Dunne had, in effect, been improperly influenced by financial support from the liquor industry to cast his vote in certain ways within the House. There was, in the committee’s view, no doubt that that constituted a contempt, and warranted an apology from Mr Robson, both to the House and to Mr Dunne.

I will make two comments. Understanding as I do Mr Dunne’s strong feelings on the matter, I would raise, nevertheless, whether in all circumstances members need to bring such matters before the Privileges Committee. I have a feeling that if most of us listened to talkback radio during the day we would get very tired writing letters of complaint of privilege to you, Madam Speaker, given what passes for normal debate these days on much of the media in that respect.

Secondly, I wish to note that unfortunately Mr Robson has made further comments since, about the committee’s conclusions, which I think at the least can be described as not necessary, and unwise. I simply ask, given certain other duties that I have to perform at this stage, that I hope we will not in fact see him back before us on those particular matters, so that we can simply give them the passing ignorance that perhaps they deserve.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think the deputy chairperson of the Privileges Committee has outlined very well the case that was brought against Mr Robson and the reasons for it. I just add to it by saying that to some people it may look at first glance as if this were a relatively trivial matter, and a matter that perhaps should not have occupied so much time. But the reality is that it goes right to the heart of the ability of members of Parliament to carry out their parliamentary duties, not only as constituent representatives but also as legislators in this country, free from the accusations of any who would like to bring them that they are somehow under the direction or employ, or in the service, of bodies that are outside this particular institution.

If one were to read the comments made by Mr Robson in a broad sense, one would see that the allegation was that Mr Dunne was not a free individual but was in some way encumbered by those who were funding his political party. Of course, although we read that and immediately know it to be untrue, and give it no real moment for consideration, the fact that someone makes that allegation impinges upon the freedom of members of Parliament to go about their business. So it was appropriate for the Privileges Committee to consider this matter, and I think the requirement on Mr Robson to make his various apologies is a minimal position we could have reached but is in this case appropriate. I am disappointed that he has decided to reflect publicly upon the processes of the Privileges Committee; I think we could have expected more of him, given that he is a former chair of that committee. But we on this side of the House certainly support the findings of that committee and are very pleased that the matter was brought before the committee. We accept, as Dr Cullen has said, that it is not necessary to pick up on everything anyone says, but I point out that the reality of this was the very specific allegations of some encumbrance on Mr Dunne that were simply untrue.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. It seems we are here to consider a question of privilege on a matter of contempt committed by the Hon Matt Robson against the Hon Peter Dunne. He alleged that the liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne, as with that of the tobacco industry, has always meant that Mr Dunne has faithfully delivered for that industry’s interests.

Today the Privileges Committee has recommended that Matt Robson apologise to the House and to Mr Dunne for his remarks. But the real offence here is the issue of alcohol and tobacco sponsorship, its impact on the health of our nation, the influence it has on our politics, and the question of whether we are serious about dealing with the damning and destructive effects of alcohol and tobacco abuse. If we are, then we must accept that effective control will mean breaking the power of the tobacco industry, going cold turkey on its filthy tax dollars, and having the courage to stand up to those whose products kill by design.

Let me take this, my first, opportunity to stand in the House this year to put on record my congratulations to my whanaunga Tau Henare, his beautiful wife, and the equally fabulous Paula Bennett on taking up the challenge to stop smoking and on successfully kicking the habit. I would hope that the rest of the smokers in the House will take up the challenge also to provide leadership in the fight against tobacco addiction, because ours is not only the role of passing legislation but also the role of leadership by action.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I rise with some hesitation to interrupt, but this debate is on the Privileges Committee report; it is not a general debate on tobacco. So I ask the member to draw in his speech to the matter before the House please.

HONE HARAWIRA: I am doing so, in fact, Madam Speaker, because this is not the first issue by which this matter has been raised, and Matt Robson’s was not the first comment made about this kind of activity. I understand that a comment was made earlier. I refer here to an article on the Action on Smoking and Health website that included a statement in 2001 from the Prime Minister, no less, that Mr Dunne had consistently picked up issues in support of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. So I am making the point here that it is not the first time the issue has been raised, and neither is it a criticism just of Mr Dunne. Last year, in fact, National’s associate spokesperson on health Jonathan Coleman got his nose punched for being a bit of a dick with a cigar while dancing the light fantastic with British American Tobacco at the U2 concert.

I note also criticism of the Government itself, because in December 2005 we learnt that all five Crown financial institutions in Aotearoa had invested in tobacco companies. That is kind of sad, because we have a Government that is wringing its hands about tobacco illnesses, insisting on signs in shops saying that smoking kills, and putting horrific pictures on cigarette packets, and, hello, it is propping up the industry that is killing us all. I say this because it is important that we realise that this is right across the House. Matt Robson’s comments have simply highlighted a problem that is affecting parties right across the House.

A note to the Minister who is responsible for tobacco, Mr Damien O’Connor—does he know that this is the only product that when used exactly according to the instructions will kill someone? A note to the Prime Minister—does she know she was investing taxpayer dollars in companies that kill nearly 5,000 Kiwis every year? A note to the Minister of Māori Affairs—does he know that smoking is killing more Māori than anyone else, and that his Government is paying for it? These issues are important because, sooner or later, everybody in this House needs to come to terms with the issue of Governments taking tax duty from tobacco. It is something that was raised by the Associate Minister of Health himself Mr Damien O’Connor. He said last year that he was aware of the contentious issue and that it was one of the dilemmas we continue to work through today.

Today is a great day to start to resolve that dilemma. Last year the director of the Smokefree Coalition, Mark Peck, said: “Government must show leadership on ethical investing and refuse to profiteer from addiction, disease, and death.” This year Dalton Kelly of the Cancer Society was calling for tobacco to be taken off the counters—out of sight, out of mind.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member again but comments have to be relevant to the motion. The member is broadening into a general debate in this area. Could he please confine his comments to the Privileges Committee report.

HONE HARAWIRA: The matter of the influence, or otherwise, of the tobacco and alcohol industries on politicians in Aotearoa is what brought this matter of contempt to the House. The Privileges Committee is determined that Matt Robson, and the general public, show respect for the sanctity of Parliament. I respectfully wish to add that that respect would be greatly enhanced if the matter at the very heart of this debate, the influence of tobacco money on Government decision-making, was dealt with once and for all. The Māori Party supports the call for respect for the institution of Parliament and the integrity of its members. But we also applaud Matt Robson for his passion in trying to highlight the undue influence of industries that have destroyed so many of our communities and killed so many of our people. As for privilege, I will consider it a privilege to be able one day to stand with all others in this House when we finally ban these companies of death from the shores of Aotearoa. Kia ora.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): First, I thank the Privileges Committee for its consideration of the complaint that I made. I also say that I am naturally gratified by the conclusion it has reached. I now await the receipt of both apologies. I make no comment on Mr Robson’s comments yesterday, and I certainly do not intend to take any further action in respect of them, as the Minister of Finance may have feared. I think he stands condemned by his own comments in that regard, and no further action is required.

I simply want to make one further broad point about why I raised the complaint in the first place. It was not raised lightly, and it is certainly not the case that every time someone is subject to criticism he or she does not like, that person should run off to the Privileges Committee. But the allegation that was made went to the heart of one’s integrity in this House. We come here as free members, exercising our free minds in making decisions on the issues before us. The implication contained in the statement made by Mr Robson was that in the case of—I think, from memory—the lowering of the drinking age, my mind was anything but free and was the captive of some others. That is the essential contempt that I took exception to.

Mr Harawira is partly right in what he says. It is not the first time the issue has been raised. In fact, 10 years ago I took a similar complaint to the Privileges Committee over comments made by Action on Smoking and Health at that time. The point I want to draw from that, which is not the point the member who preceded me made, is that an unfortunate intolerance is developing in the public health sector to debate on these issues. I simply say to those groups, which are entitled to their strong views, as I am to mine and others are to theirs, that in progressing their cause they should not assume that those who have a different view are somehow acting as the agents of others. It is too easy an accusation to fly about. Although I do not intend to continue raising matters of this type, I give notice that if future allegations of this type are raised that impugn my integrity, I will be back before the Privileges Committee. I think it is possible to have a reasonable debate on these issues, without descending into personalities.

The final point I would make is that I have been involved in alcohol control policies for probably longer than anyone in this House. My involvement goes back nearly 30 years, and my views are formed not by prejudice but by looking always at what works and what does not work. Our record has not been a good one, many of the measures we have adopted over that time have not worked, and I will not be silenced in saying so.

I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the case. I say in due modesty that I think it came to the right decision, and I now await the outcome from Mr Robson.

Motion agreed to.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 13 February.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): I will be voting against the vote of no confidence in the Government because the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday was one of leadership and values. She spoke of the value of work and the value of assistance to those who need it. She showed the leadership that has been exemplified by this Government over the last 7 years, which the raucous crowd across the Chamber can only ogle and envy. She said such things as: “Labour believes that the best form of social security is a job, underpinned by fair labour law, good public healthcare and education, and affordable housing for people on low incomes.” The leadership on this issue has been led by this Government for the last 7 years in incremental steps and large steps, but always progressive steps.

For one example we can go back to December of last year, when the Government introduced the Social Security Amendment Bill. One of the aims of that bill is to begin the movement towards a work-focused system by ensuring that requirements on welfare recipients are aligned with significant developments in service delivery and support. That is why, today, I support the needs of the mother of a 10-month-old child to have an adequate income, over the demands of an employer who offers part-time, casual work to a mother who can take up that work only by placing her 10-month-old child with transient babysitters, thereby placing that child and the mother in considerable jeopardy.

This Government stands for the future of our nation, it stands for our young people, for our children, for sustainability, and it stands for jobs that pay adequate incomes. I support the Government and will be voting against the motion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): It is a pleasure to follow our leader, John Key, who has had such a fantastic start to the year, and my front-bench colleagues in this debate. National is pulling together a team that will be a very successful Cabinet and a successful Government.

I might contrast that with the new Government on the other side. Talk about the coalition of the unwilling! Let us go through some of its brief history. United Future and New Zealand First are in a Government with Labour because the Greens were not there. That is why they went in with Labour. They said: “We won’t go in if the Greens are in it.” Peter Dunne is on the record as calling them Luddites, “loony tunes”, and all sorts of bizarre things, and saying that a Government that is dependent on the Greens would be tugged to the left. Now the bad sibling who has been locked out for two elections is back home, and it is not going to be easy. The Labour leadership is going to roll out of bed every morning and have to deal with the toxic trio of New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens. Is it likely to go well? Michael Cullen and Helen Clark are driving this Government like a pair of crash dummies and it is all going in slow motion.

Let us look at what is likely to happen if the Greens come in. The first thing is that what happened yesterday is going to happen right through to the end of this Government’s life. The sustainability agenda now belongs to Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party, not Helen Clark. At the next election the choice for the country will be between National’s practical, sensible climate change policy and the Green’s climate change policy. Labour will be able to do nothing on climate change without Jeanette Fitzsimons’ say-so. It effectively has no climate change policy now.

As it is turning out, Labour is to have no tax policy either, because Peter Dunne is now running the tax policy. He is the man setting out to get all the credit—maybe Trevor Mallard is helping him—for any tax cuts. I ask members to guess which party is totally opposed to tax cuts, even more than Michael Cullen is.

Hon Members: The Greens!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Greens are totally opposed to Peter Dunne’s tax cuts. So that is what the two crash dummies will have to deal with every day: a squabbling family whose members have made it absolutely clear they do not like each other, whose agendas are quite diverse, but who, in an unexpected turn, are crowding out Labour’s agenda. What will Helen Clark be on about if it is not tax or sustainability? I can tell members that she will be strutting the world stage as New Zealand’s most expensive job seeker. She will be out there touting sustainability as her ticket to the United Nations.

A Government that has no direction gets in trouble, and how much trouble! Let us look at just the last week, at the slow motion crash of the Labour Government. Dr Cullen—unintentionally, apparently—floats his tax on fixed-interest mortgages, then he defends it, then he says it is low priority, then Helen Clark says it is a dead duck, then Dr Cullen back-pedals.

Hon Member: All in slow motion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All in slow motion. What Helen Clark did then was undermine the credibility of the Minister of Finance at a critical stage of the Budget process. He is now a lame duck who will be replaced by a lame duck.

That was last week, then yesterday the Government lost its majority. What a chapter of cynicism, with Helen Clark talking about Labour’s patience with Phillip Field. She thought she would get away with it. We heard her day after day in here say that the Ingram report cleared Phillip Field. Now she says she always knew he was dodgy. That was just yesterday.

Let us go back another couple of weeks. There is no underclass, there are no hungry children, there is no poverty, and there is no problem. If Labour gives a dollar to someone, that is—to use Dr Cullen’s gloriously religious term—the “redemptive power of the State”. That was in his speech last week. But if National encourages people to give a dollar to someone, that is Tory charity—and Labour people say it like they think it is filthy. I can tell the Government members that they would be surprised how many of their supporters are now queuing up at National’s door. People in the community sector, for instance, are coming to us and saying they do not think it is Tory charity. They are sick of bullying Ministers and smothering smarm, and they want to talk to the next Government about how to get out from under that kind of arrogance and do a better job for so many people in New Zealand who need more done for them.

Hon Member: The corridors are so busy.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The corridors are getting busy. That was just 2 weeks ago. Let us look at the 2 weeks before that. We saw the disgrace that is at the heart of the Labour Government’s moral rot: there is no sense of accountability or responsibility. Karl Kuchenbecker was shot dead by someone who was in the custody of the State. He was an innocent young father. What has happened? Nothing. We heard more excuses today from Damien O’Connor. If Phillip Field gets investigated for corruption, why not Damien O’Connor? Phillip Field only asked for the visas; Damien O’Connor gave them out by the hundred to all sorts of people who would never get one now under any other Minister. There was no apology from that Minister, no responsibility, no accountability, because he follows the model of his leader, Helen Clark.

Have members noticed over the years how she has developed a habit of being very sincere about apologising to people she has never met about things she never did—such as the persecution of the Chinese earlier in New Zealand’s history and discrimination against gays? But when a young New Zealand father dies after being shot by a man in the custody of the Government, she will not apologise. That followed on from the previous debacle, with no apology, under that Minister: the death of Liam Ashley. Damien O’Connor told us in this House it was the parents’ fault. That is Labour’s idea of responsibility. The Department of Corrections feeds a mixed-up young man to the monster in the back of a State-funded, State-run, and State-supervised prison van, he is kicked and strangled to death, and Labour takes no responsibility. Those members regard those incidents as minor political irritants.

We found out today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that Dr Cullen takes no responsibility for the target of getting the country back into the top half of the OECD. He actually said he takes that as seriously as he takes the carbon neutral target that the Government has set. Well, so do we. We take it as seriously as that. Helen Clark has no genuine, sincere intention. This Government has become entirely focused on the maintenance of the Helen Clark prime ministership. Dr Cullen is a spent force. Maybe he did a good job—history will judge—but he is on his way out. Steve Maharey is about to mess up early childhood education just like he wrecked Television New Zealand and the tertiary education sector. Trevor Mallard is still trying to work out whether to take a sun deckchair along to the Rugby World Cup like the rest of us will have to.

They do not matter any more. It is all about Helen Clark. It is about the deals she will have to do with the Green Party to stay Prime Minister of New Zealand. I have to give her this: she is the only one left with the energy for it. She is the only one left who seems to be that bothered, but she is bothered about only her own position. As for irritants like a few casual dead bodies—well, who cares? We saw it all summed up with Phillip Field. No one apologises or is responsible for deaths. Incompetence, corruption, and misleading the public are all excusable, but if anyone is disloyal to Helen Clark, that person will get shot.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I was listening for Gerry Brownlee to clap then, and he did not—not one clap. Before John Key goes out, I want to ask him who was telling the truth. Was it him when he said he spent the entire summer writing his speech, or was it Bill English who said he wrote the speech because John Key knows nothing about social policies? Who was telling the truth? Was Bill English telling the truth when he said he wrote the speech that was given at Burnside because John Key knows nothing about social policy, or was John Key telling the truth when he said he spent the entire summer writing it? One of them is not telling the truth; one of them is telling fibs. It would be good to know which one of them it is. I note that neither of them are taking a point of order to defend themselves. Neither of them are getting up and saying: “I wrote the speech.” I will put money on it: I believe Bill English, because the speech was too good to be written by John Key.

John Key has not had a great start. Today at question time we saw his hand shake in a way that we in this Parliament have not seen a hand shake through nerves since Jenny Shipley was Prime Minister. It is a sign of someone who is exceptionally uncomfortable. It got worse as question time went on—and so, frankly, did the questions. I have never seen Opposition members, back for the first day of questions for the year, with their heads down at the end of question time in the way National members were today. They were embarrassed.

I ask Bill English another question: why, if he really wants to get into Government, did he call the Greens “toxic”? I am sure there will be a neat discussion—[Interruption] We will get to it soon. I am sure we will have a neat discussion at the Greens’ caucus meeting next week when Green members say they are in one of those parties that is looking both ways. But they were described as toxic by National’s deputy leader—effectively the co-leader, the real leader, the puppeteer who runs the National Party. He said it not only about the Greens, to be fair; he said it about New Zealand First, as well. It is a question of developing a long-term relationship with New Zealand First and United Future. I would have thought that if he had any idea he wanted to be in Government, he would be developing relationships with those parties rather than calling them toxic in the way he did.

I will make a quick comment about the mortgage levy meeting—[Interruption] No, no, let us make it absolutely clear that an agreement came out of that to get further information mainly because John Key thought it was the most viable of the ideas. John Key was the person who asked for the meeting. John Key wrote for the meeting. I was at the meeting. John Key promoted mortgage levies, not just as a tax but as something that, when the economy needed stimulation, he saw could work in a negative way out of the fund, and people who had mortgages could be given more cash in their hands. That was what John Key was promoting very, very strongly at the meeting. We have noted, despite Bill English’s comments, that John Key has not denied that. He cannot deny it because it would be very clear at that point, if he did, that he was lying.

I will make one other comment about John Key and his relationship with the truth. I will read to members, and get on the record, what John Key said on the Springbok Tour. He was asked: “Were you for or against the Springbok Tour?”. This was John Key: “I can’t even remember. Ha ha! In 1981, was I 20? Um, I don’t really know. I didn’t have a strong feeling of it at the time, I think. It was such a long time ago.” He was asked: “Where were you?”. He said: “Well, I was in New Zealand. I am just trying to think. I was in New Zealand. Um, it would have been my first year at university. I am trying to work it out. I would have been around 20, then.” I ask members whether anyone in this House can believe that. Is there another member in this House who cannot remember which side he or she was on in 1981 during the Springbok Tour? I opposed it. [Interruption] That member cannot remember but she has an addled brain, so we will forgive her. [Interruption] I was at the game at Auckland. I was protesting. I was a protester in Hamilton.

David Bennett: And you watched the game in Auckland?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I was a protester in Auckland.

David Bennett: No, you watched it in Auckland.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Actually, I was a protester. I was a marshal in Auckland. That just shows the member’s ignorance. I have a very good memory from 1981, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I was at the ground at Hamilton. I was at the ground in Auckland. I acted as a marshal in both cases, helping people to get on to the ground. So I was there—of course I was. [Interruption] What is the member saying? Where was David Bennett? [Interruption] I was protesting at both. Can the member not understand that when people went on to the field, there were a group of people who made sure they got on to the field, and who ran interference as people were getting on to the field? Mr Simich remembers that. Mr Simich had a different approach at the time. Mr Simich is not as silly as David—what is his name?

Hon Member: “Gordon Bennett”.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He is not as silly as Gordon Bennett. What I do know is that every single member in this House knows what side he or she was on. Anyone who had left primary school had a view on the Springbok Tour, and we know what that view was. To say one cannot remember means one is a liar.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He can’t say that.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Outside the House I can.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I find it extraordinary that in 2007 this forward-looking Government wants to have a debate about what occurred in 1981.

Hon Annette King: This is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I further draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the fact that I heard Annette King interject on my point of order. When I do that I am required to leave. I ask the same of her.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have one point of order on the floor, Mr Mallard. I am sorry, I did not hear, but if the member interjected, would she please withdraw and apologise.

Hon Annette King: I withdraw and apologise. It was not a point of order he was raising.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Are we still on the point of order, Mr Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I just want you to make it clear that you will rule on this point of order. It was very clear, from the first sentence, that it was not a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is that on three occasions the Minister has referred to the Leader of the Opposition with a phrase that I will not repeat, because it is grossly untrue and it is outside the Standing Orders. I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker—which I have already raised with you—that interjecting on points of order requires a member to leave. You warned Annette King and asked her to withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] She has done it again, on a very legitimate point of order that three times the Minister used an unparliamentary phrase about the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to deal with both Annette King and Minister Trevor Mallard.

Hon Annette King: I make two points, Mr Speaker. First of all, I did not interject—I spoke to Trevor Mallard. I was not speaking to the member. Secondly, the member changed the point of order. That was not the original point of order. When he stood a second time he decided to make the point of order about the member’s speech. That was not what he raised in the first instance, as the Speaker knows. He changed his point of order. That is not honest.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank all members for their contribution. I ask members to breathe through the nose for a minute. I have to accept the honourable member’s word that she was speaking to the honourable Minister Trevor Mallard, but I say to the member on my right that members can never allege that another member has lied—that is in Speaker’s ruling 41/3. I ask the member to withdraw.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw. I will say that I do not believe John Key.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding from the Standing Orders that all points of order are to be heard in silence. It is irrelevant whether a member is speaking to another person on his or her side or to someone across the Chamber. Points of order are to be heard in silence, and that is the point of order my colleague was raising.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Points of order must always be put tersely and members must speak only to the point of order. And they must be heard in silence—that is right. That has not happened today, or on just this occasion. I give a general warning to members that I will not tolerate any more interference during points of order. In saying that, I say to those members who are making points of order that they must be terse and to the point, so that they do not invite interjection.

Paula Bennett: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have dealt with the issue.

Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to seek clarification from you, Mr Assistant Speaker, as a member who does not raise many points of order and who is perhaps a little confused with this. Are you saying now that if I feel that the point of order someone is making is not succinct, and is not a strict point of order in my opinion, it is OK for me then to interject? Is that what you are saying by your ruling?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to refer to Standing Order 84(3), which is where the ruling comes from.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on whether it is a point of order to get up and say “I am confused”. My understanding is that it is appropriate to draw attention to a particular Standing Order when someone has a point of order. To get up and say “I am confused and I seek clarification” has never been allowed in this House and I ask whether you are going to allow it to continue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have heard members stand and indicate that they are not at all sure what the situation is. I take into consideration that the member is a new member and she has not been here long.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am going to make a couple of points again. First, today we saw John Key’s hand shaking. Today I referred not to 1981 but to December 2006 when John Key said that he could not remember what his position was on the Springbok Tour. I say that I do not believe him. I say that I do not believe John Key.

I also do not believe John Key when he said he wrote the Burnside speech. In this case I believe Bill English, who also said he wrote the Burnside speech because John Key, according to Bill English, knows nothing about social policy. It is clear to anyone who listens to John Key that Bill English is right and John Key does not know anything.

The next question asks when John Key is going to get rid of the sport utility vehicle (SUV) in which he commutes from the mansion in Parnell out to the electorate. How much does that SUV cost in greenhouse gas emissions?

Judith Collins: Where do you live, Trevor?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I live in Wainuiōmata and quite often ride my bike in.

Judith Collins: Where do your kids go to school?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: My kids left school nearly 10 years ago. What a silly, silly member. What is her name? She is the member who is very rough on women who work for her. We have heard about it before and we will hear more about it again, although the member is not quite as bad as John Key—

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I congratulate the National Party. It got rid of the leaders listed on its website between No. 2 and No. 3 positions, but it does not have a new No. 1 yet.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This Government is characterised by dodgy behaviour, by its capacity to continuously invent new taxes, and by empty slogans. I want to hone in on each of those three issues.

It is interesting that we have not heard too much from Labour members in the debate today about their best friend and dear colleague Phillip Field. I want to talk about the record of corrupt and dodgy behaviour by the Government in respect of Phillip Field.

I want to talk about the Government’s invention of new taxes. Over the adjournment periods this Government is always in the business of finding ways in which it can get its sticky little fingers into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. We have the Minister of Finance’s idea of a home mortgage tax. We have record low-homeownership rates here yet the Government wants to tax poor old middle New Zealanders on their home mortgages. Then we had the Prime Minister with her latest idea for a rubbish tax. It is another tax on ordinary New Zealanders. Then we have a deforestation tax to attack those New Zealanders who did the right thing for our economy and for the environment by planting forests in recent years.

The third thing I want to talk about is the Prime Minister’s empty rhetoric on sustainability and I want to compare it with this Government’s appalling record on the environment. But let me just comment on the speech made by Trevor Mallard. It was so characteristic of where this Government is at. Its big king-hit on John Key was a debate on the 1981 Springbok Tour.

Paula Bennett: 1981?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 1981—25 years ago! This is a Government with its eyes on the rear-vision mirror. We need a Government that is looking to the future, and that is what John Key is all about. John Key said it all when he said we have a Walkman Government in an iPod age. That really does sum it up.

I come to the Phillip Field issue. [Interruption] It is interesting that the Government whip has come to his feet. I find it ironic that for 15 months the Prime Minister and the Labour Party have vigorously defended Phillip Field. It did not matter that he used constituents to make a quick buck. It did not matter that he paid people slave wages. It did not matter that he abused desperate Thai migrants for his own personal benefit. It did not matter that he made a mint out of constituents who came to him in property deals that were to his benefit. That is OK, but what is not OK is to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade. If Phillip Field dares to enter into the press when the Prime Minister is giving her state of the nation speech then it is off with his head. That speaks volumes about the moral fabric of this tired Labour Government.

Labour turns a blind eye to corruption in its own ranks. It turns a blind eye to people who pay slave wages. It turns a blind eye when immigrants are abused by members of this House. But if somebody dares to interfere in the Prime Minister’s spin machine it is off with his or her head. We on this side of the House say that that is wrong.

I turn to the issue of the Government’s new taxes. One thing that has characterised this Government from the day it was elected is the booming tax revenues and the way in which they are gobbling more and more of New Zealand’s wealth. We have seen the tax take increase by over $20 billion since Labour has been in office. What has disturbed me over the adjournment period is the way in which this Government is always inventing new ways to tax. If there was anything on which I thought there was a consensus in this House, it is the importance of New Zealand homeownership. I was disturbed to read in the figures for my own Nelson electorate that over the course of the period between the censuses of 2001 and 2005, homeownership rates have declined New Zealand - wide by 6 percent and in my own electorate by more than that. So why on earth would a Government propose to tax the very people who have a home mortgage? Why on earth would it want to make it harder for those Kiwi battlers who are simply striving for a home of their own?

Then we have all sorts of things dressed up in green clothes. One of them is that the Government wants to impose a new tax on rubbish. [Interruption] I say to Mr Hughes that that is right. His Prime Minister and his Government want to put a tax on rubbish. We could make some sarcastic comments about a pretty rubbishy tax. I say to the Government that compliance costs and all of those things make a tax on rubbish a bad argument and we on this side of the House will oppose that new tax, as we will others.

Equally, the Government’s proposal in the discussion paper it released prior to Christmas to impose a new tax on deforestation would be one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in my 17 years in this Chamber. We have seen record levels of deforestation under this Labour Government. If there is any way in which New Zealand can make a positive contribution to climate change it is in terms of increasing our forestry estate. The extraordinary part is this. For 50 years—under Labour and National Governments—we have consistently been seeing the New Zealand forested area grow, and for the last 3 years we have had deforestation. It is not just economics that is driving it. If we look across the Tasman, Australia is increasing its forest estate under exactly the same commercial conditions as New Zealand.

What is killing forestry in New Zealand is this Government’s appalling policies. Labour’s proposal pre-Christmas to impose a $13,000 a hectare deforestation tax is doing only one thing this year: it is starting up the chainsaws. If we were a little bit quiet I think we could even hear them. I have talked to forestry companies that intend to bulldoze their forests flat rather than pay that tax. I have heard some daft ideas. We have had from this Government the “fart tax” and it surrendered on that. We had the carbon tax and it surrendered on that. I challenge the Government today, for goodness’ sake, to drop its deforestation tax because it is going to achieve only one thing, and that is the deforestation of more areas of New Zealand and New Zealand going backwards on climate change.

Hon Member: What’s your policy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to tell the member about policy. Yes, National has put out a comprehensive 30-page on its environment policy. On climate change it talks about a tradable emissions permit system, and we think that is a good idea. But I want to challenge the Government and the Prime Minister on her rhetoric yesterday. She said that New Zealand should lead the world in terms of carbon emission reductions.

Darren Hughes: Good idea or bad idea?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Darren Hughes says it is a good idea. Well, I want to look at Labour’s record. I want to challenge the Government’s record, because it is a bit rich for Helen Clark, 7 years in as Prime Minister, to be talking about lower emissions when our emissions have grown at twice the rate of the United States, and four times the rate of Japan. In fact, out of the 23 countries in the OECD, New Zealand’s emissions have been growing at the second-fastest rate. So they are growing at the second-fastest rate and Helen Clark says we want to be carbon neutral! Well, there is an irony in that.

Do members know what is happening right now in this country? The second biggest thermal power station built in New Zealand’s history is being fired up as we speak. It is a 385 megawatt mama. It is only slightly smaller than the Clyde dam. The Prime Minister comes down to this House talking about carbon neutrality at the same time as a State-owned enterprise is firing up the second biggest thermal power station built in New Zealand history. I say that that is a double standard. She cannot come to this House and sing that sort of tune with that sort of nonsense going on behind the scenes. It is the biggest power station bar Huntly. It is bigger than all the power stations that have been built in the last 15 years.

In fact, this Government has actually built only two power stations: the E3P station I speak of and an oil-fired power station in Whirinaki. So perhaps Pete Hodgson might be able to explain to the House how Labour members can talk about carbon neutrality in one breath and build oil, coal, and gas-fired power stations with the other. It is empty rhetoric. Carbon neutrality will go down in history just like the Prime Minister’s economic transformation speech last year. It is all hot air. New Zealand deserves better. This Government has lost the moral fibre to govern. It should go.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Having been gently challenged by the member who has just resumed his seat to make a few comments about the generation of electricity in this country, I am able to advise him as follows. Under this Government, wind energy has risen from fewer than 40 megawatts to approximately 200 megawatts, with a further 100 megawatts coming on in the next 3 months.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How much coal?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member has taken his time. He has posed his question. I said I would answer him. He would do well not to talk through the answer, because I can get on to my speech any time I wish.

I would just tell him that within the next couple of months resource consents will be lodged for the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere, to be built not far from where I live. If that were to proceed it would take us from fewer than 40 megawatts to somewhere in excess of 600 megawatts over the next year or two. That is the sort of thing that can happen when a Government decides that it is going to change the law to make renewable energy easier, and when it is going to use the Kyoto Protocol process to get carbon credits to those wind energy companies in order that—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You cancelled them.

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, we did not cancel them. They have been cashed up. That is how the wind energy system got started. That is how it took off. That is why 80 megawatts happened on one side of the Manawatū Gorge and 90 megawatts happened on the other side of the Manawatū Gorge. The member needs to check his facts, and he needs to tell the whole truth, not the bits of the truth that suit him. I could, of course, go on about geothermal. I could, of course, go on about small and medium hydro.

I think I have answered the member’s question clearly enough, and I am pleased to be able to get on with my contribution to the Prime Minister’s statement and say that the member’s party is unhappy. Three months ago the member’s party would have felt a little happier. It had just had the release of The Hollow Men—that awful book that decided that the member’s party was probably about as underhand as anyone could believe a political party could be. But the reason National members were happy 3 months ago was that they got themselves to thinking that they could draw a line under that terrible, terrible period of its politics and ditch their leader, who was, in a phrase, a liar and a misfit who could be removed from the job—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a tactic by Government Ministers to accuse both past and present leaders of the National Party of lying. I think that tactic is grossly inappropriate, and you should require Mr Hodgson to withdraw. Dr Don Brash has retired from the House, and I think we should show some respect to retired members. Members on this side of the House are not about to get up and accuse David Lange, Geoffrey Palmer, or other previous Labour leaders of lying, and, equally so, Pete Hodgson should show some basic respect.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that the use of the word “liar” is absolutely forbidden in the House when it relates directly to those who are elected current members. The same privilege does not exist to those outside the House, and the way in which a member wishes to address issues to the House is really a personal matter for that member.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not intend to repeat the phrase. I have said what I needed to say. I think the member felt pretty much the same way when he read The Hollow Men, unless, of course, he was complicit in it, or unless, of course, he was there or thereabouts with all of that stuff—the question is whether he was or was not.

National members were happy 3 months ago, because they had given themselves the idea that they had got themselves a bright new thing for a leader, that they had a carefully planned start to the New Year, and that they were going to really recollect their position and march off to more electoral success, just as Kevin Rudd had done in Australia and just as Mr Cameron had done in the UK. Well, it has not happened. Mr Cameron, 3 months into his job as leader of the Conservative Party in the UK, had damaged Tony Blair considerably. The polls had changed dramatically. Kevin Rudd, who is the leader of the Australian Labor Party, has eaten into the lead of the existing Australian Government considerably; in fact, he leads the polls in Australia by a country mile. This does not appear to be the case in New Zealand, where the last three polls all show a move to Labour and all show Labour in the lead.

The National Party is no longer happy, because it had placed all its bets on this swanky new show pony, and so far it has gone nowhere. What is more, the National Party divisions, which have been legion, have, of course, not yet disappeared. It is not difficult to come upon chatter in this place, which shows that uncertainty within the caucus persists.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, rubbish! Tells us why.

Hon PETE HODGSON:I will tell the member why. His mate Bill English stood for the leadership of the National Party 3 and a bit years ago, and on the night before the leadership vote the current leader of the National Party, John Key, said to Bill English: “I am with you.” Bill English and his mates, including the member who has just interjected on me, then went out and celebrated, because the member who interjected was doing the numbers. The member said: “We’ve got this one sewn up!”.

By the time the following morning came—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve got it all wrong.

Hon PETE HODGSON: If I have got it all wrong, why was a celebratory dinner held the night before Bill English was rolled? How is that the case? Why was a celebratory dinner held on the—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: This is a big hit!

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a matter of public record. The member cannot call it a big one—they were photographed and reported having their celebratory meeting. The next day the object of their celebration was nobody. He had just been shafted by the person who is currently the leader of the National Party. So the deputy leader of the National Party sits next to a guy who 3 and a bit years ago shafted him in a way that no politician ever forgets. Do not tell me that there is peace and harmony between the various factions of the National Party.

Why is it that yesterday in this House the Rt Hon Winston Peters said he had a few more emails, and then named a couple of members?

Judith Collins: They were stolen documents, that’s why.

Hon PETE HODGSON: OK, so they had been stolen—as if the leaks are not continuing still!

The member Nick Smith wants to know about “Watergate”. That member, in January, put out a statement about water saying he thought the quality of New Zealand’s water was no good. His own colleagues said there was nothing wrong with the quality of water in New Zealand and voted against legislation to improve it. I want to know whether the member, who continues to have a running interchange with me, is going to change his vote and vote for the Government when the legislation comes back into the House, or whether he is just going to put out press statements saying one thing and votes that say another. I suspect it will be the latter.

Let us look at what that member’s leader had to say on the issue of whether National would have gone into Iraq. Would National have led this country into Iraq under his leadership? He said: “I don’t know. Iraq is too far away.” That is leadership! Did the member John Key, the current leader of the National Party, hold a view that was for or against the Springbok Tour? The current leader of the National Party said: “I can’t remember.” Is there anybody else in this House who would say now that they cannot remember whether they were for or against the Springbok Tour? Which members cannot remember their position? No hands have gone up. The only person in this House who cannot remember his position on the Springbok Tour appears to be Mr Key.

So it goes with the mortgage levy. The situation with the mortgage levy is that in November of last year Mr Key said to Dr Cullen, at a select committee, that he was very happy to have a discussion on what was a substantial issue. In fact, he wrote to Dr Cullen a week later to confirm that he was very interested in having a meeting to discuss the options. When the meeting was held a few weeks later Mr Key outlined how such a system could work. This is the same Mr Key who is running from the idea as fast as his little legs will carry him. Why? Because Bill English said so. Because Bill English is the policy wonk in the National Party. The underlying reason for that is that Mr Key does not yet know how to write policy, which is why, of course, the National Party does not have any policies.

National does not have any health policies, for example. Every other party in this House has an interest in health policy. If one looks at the Progressive party one sees that it is interested in drugs and in the suicide issue. If one looks at the Māori Party one sees that its members are obviously interested in Māori health and in diabetes. If one looks at the Green Party one sees that its members have a huge interest in a range of issues concerning food: obesity, healthy eating, and healthy action. If one looks at United Future one sees that its members have a continuing interest in a range of issues, but particularly in pharmaceuticals. If one looks at the ACT party one sees that even it has a spokesperson who has some knowledge of, and interest in, health policy. But not the National Party. National members do not have any interest in health policy, which is why, as they enter their 8th year in Opposition, they have yet to produce any. They have no health policy. Why is it that a major party in this Parliament can enter its 8th year in Opposition and have no health policy? Its members are not fit to stand for Government.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): Just for the benefit of those listening, that was the Labour Government’s Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson. One would not know, after 10 minutes of hearing what John Key may or may not have thought during the 1981 Springbok Tour, that that was in fact the Minister of Health, who should have been talking to us about how it is that we can put $4 billion extra into health every year and end up with fewer operations. At no stage did he mention Herceptin. At no stage did he mention women dying of breast cancer, who can be cured if they get the right drugs. At no stage did we hear that. All we heard about was John Key’s thinking about the 1981 Springbok Tour. If that is the best that Labour members have to attack John Key with, well, bring it on.

I saw today a Prime Minister slinking in her seat. She was sitting so far down that I thought she had gone out. I actually had to sit myself up to look. She was sitting there, chewing her wine gums. Slinking is what this Prime Minister is doing. John Key laid it on to her today. He sorted her out and she slunk. All Labour members can talk about is 1981. Well, frankly, who cares? This country needs better than that sort of rhetoric from the Minister Pete Hodgson.

In 1999 Helen Clark, who slunk today all through question time, said that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process.” What did she give us? She gave us Taito Phillip Field. I talk about this from the position of being the Pacific Island Affairs spokeswoman for the National Party. I feel deeply upset that Taito Phillip Field has, in fact, been treated significantly differently from almost anyone else in Labour. When Taito Phillip Field did not want to cooperate with the police that was fine. When David Benson-Pope did not want to have a videotaped interview for historical child abuse claims it did not even get a mention. When Taito Phillip Field did not turn up for Parliament for 6 months that was fine too. In fact, what we had was Labour putting out its spin machine and saying that he had been suspended from Parliament in August.

Taito Phillip Field has never been suspended from Parliament. He is perfectly entitled—and I expect him to—to turn up and take his seat at the back of this House. He has never been suspended from Parliament. He is still being paid. He is still utterly entitled to all the privileges and responsibilities of a member of Parliament. The only thing that any of us here can think that Labour thinks is bad about what he is alleged to have done is that he said that he is considering suing Helen Clark for defamation, and that he wants to come back as the member for Mangere, whether or not it is with the Labour Party. Those were his crimes according to Labour. There was nothing wrong, according to Helen Clark, with anything else he did. There was nothing wrong before the last election in 2005, when she was happy to go around Māngere and South Auckland, when she was happy to say to the Pacific Island voters in New Zealand: “Give us your vote because we love you.” I have noticed, absolutely, that Labour members have been away from almost every Pacific Island function in Māngere and South Auckland, where I have been. They are not there. They have forgotten the Pacific Island vote.

One of the things that I know Taito believes, absolutely and firmly, is that he has done nothing wrong. I believe that he thinks he has done nothing wrong because the Government has always acted on the same premise. Did Helen Clark cooperate with the police over “paintergate”? No, she did not. What happened? Oh, I know, a member of her staff burnt the evidence. That is called perverting the course of justice. What happened? Nothing. So why should Taito Phillip Field feel any differently?

What happened about Don Brash’s stolen emails that Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and other people in this House had? Supposedly they were destroyed. In other words, evidence was destroyed by members of Parliament. They are people who should be prosecuted for corrupting the justice system. Yet what happens? Nothing happens. Shane Ardern had a slight flush of blood to the head and put a little tractor up two steps of Parliament House. What happened? He got prosecuted. Taito Phillip Field has operated in this way for years and years as the MP for Mangere. That has been absolutely known by the Labour Party. Labour has absolutely accepted it as the price it has to pay for those votes. Labour has put up with that because it suited them.

If we need to have any further evidence we should just look at the way that Damien O’Connor approved well over 200 visas a year for people who would otherwise not have got them. When those of us on this side of the House put in applications and letters to Ministers we might do it once, twice, three, or four times a year. We do not put them in unless we think there is some real chance of something good happening in the best interests of New Zealand. Yet we in this House are supposed to believe that Damien O’Connor saw applications coming in for visas written by the MP for Mangere for people who lived on the North Shore. There is no way at all that these people were Samoan and therefore it was natural that they would go to a Samoan MP. No, these were Thai people—nothing to do with Samoa or Māngere. These people were going to him because they knew that they had a nice, easy passage through to the Minister in charge, Damien O’Connor. What has happened to that Minister? He is still there. He is still a Minister. He is in charge of the Department of Corrections. And we all know how that is going.

So why should Taito Phillip Field be treated differently from the Prime Minister in this case? All he has ever said is that he wants to be in Parliament, whether or not it is with the Labour Party, and that Helen Clark has defamed him. That is what he said. Everything else, according to the Labour Party, is just fine. One moment the man is completely vindicated by the Ingram inquiry—a completely toothless inquiry that was set up with no right or power to call witnesses. That inquiry was never going to do anything other than give a whitewash of the event. Taito Phillip Field came out thinking that he was vindicated. Helen Clark came out saying Taito Phillip Field was vindicated, that it was the end to the matter, and that it had been fully canvassed over 9 months and with $500,000 of taxpayer money. He was never vindicated. It was never a satisfactory inquiry. It was never going to be. What happened to the very people who could have given the evidence: the Siriwans? They were never interviewed properly. They had one telephone call. Mr Siriwan was in Samoa and the interviewer was in New Zealand. That is what happened.

In the meantime, children in this country live in poverty and we have kids going to school with absolutely no food in their tummies and none at lunchtime, or anything else. This uncaring Prime Minister says it is all just Tory charity and a bit of nonsense, and that there are not any hungry kids in her electorate. That is rubbish. I say to her that she should come to my electorate. I will show her four schools in my electorate where children have to be fed when they arrive at school. I do not care if we ask the parents of those kids whether it is a bad example to have their kids fed at school rather than at home. Who cares? These kids are hungry and they need to be fed.

At one school in my electorate 60 children are fed every morning. The reason is that nobody is in charge in those homes. They have no idea of parenting or of what is in the best interests of children. It is time that we had a John Key - led National Government that says that kids must come first. We should stop being so PC, stop worrying about the adults and their sensibilities, and let us start putting the kids first.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I have just heard what I believe is one of the most trite speeches that I have ever heard, especially the end of it. It followed on from one of the greatest speeches made by a leader in this country, Helen Clark. She was looking forward and being positive about what we have done and what we will do. It is certainly sad to sit here and listen to people try to invent or turn around the point and make out that Māori are an underclass and that every child who goes to school is hungry. Because I do know teenage girls—whether they are Māori or Pākehā—who when they get to 12, 13, or 14 do not like having breakfast. I do know that a lot of people in this building do not necessarily have kai for breakfast because they are busy.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House this year. I want to say it was one of the best speeches that a leader has given for a long, long time. Very significant gains have been made by this Government in partnership with all types of people, especially Māori. All New Zealanders are benefiting from the fact that the economic fundamentals are now in place, and members on that side of the House over there—with an extreme right agenda—understand that. We have put in place the planks that ensure that the economy is strong, but we are not charging forward without denying that there are social issues that we have to address.

The gains now being felt amongst Māori are huge. The unemployment rate has dropped dramatically. The entry into work is at the highest it has ever been for nearly 44 years. That is real positive stuff. I want to make a special note of the sustainability by Māori in society in this country, as the tangata whenua.

Over the past 7 years we have achieved the lowest unemployment in the developed world, putting around a third of a million more New Zealanders in work. That is huge. That is big in any country. We have also delivered almost the longest run in continuous economic growth since World War II. That is the sort of thing this Government has done—serious, pragmatic, targeted, and with specific strategies to create a better place for all New Zealanders. We have brought down child poverty hugely since the 1990s when that Government before us sold all the State houses in Wairarapa, upped the rents for people who were in State houses, and denied the need of those less fortunate families. We have put that into place. We have certainly restored superannuitants’ faith in governance and the Government of this country. We have ensured that they are looked after. We have ensured that they have a projected safe future. That is what this Government has done.

Māori are contributing significantly to this transformation and to positive development. Māori are making an even stronger contribution to the New Zealand economy. More Māori are working and fewer are in unemployment. Let me tell members clearly that across the generic downturn in the unemployment statistics, Māori unemployment statistics have come down four times quicker than anybody else’s. They have entered the workforce four times more quickly than anybody else. So National members should not sit here and wax on about an underclass or about Māori who are not going anywhere.

There are a few unemployed, but on average, in most towns and cities in this country, from the first day we came into Government to December last year, the drop-off in the unemployment rate has been 75 percent. That is not through playing marbles; that is through recognising there are social ills around in this country. That is through recognising that skill sets and the development of skills is a good thing for the nation, and especially for Māori. The unemployment rate for Māori has been at a high of 3 percent per annum, on average, since June 2000, and, as I said earlier on, Māori unemployment fell quite dramatically. Between June 2000 and June 2006 there was a 32 percent increase in the number of Māori undertaking skilled and highly skilled occupations. Māori are earning more. There has been an 85 percent increase in the wage band over $50,000. Understandably, Māori still factor in the low-income bands, but they are moving.

That is certainly about ensuring that we are a bilingual nation, and that our tikanga and kaupapa Māori are strong. One can see that around this country, with Te Matatini coming up, with the kapahaka, and with participation in the waka ama. Some of the biggest turnouts of collective whānau are done with Māori organisations in this country. They are huge. So the language is thriving. There was chortling and barraging about Māori Television. Now Māori Televison is into its third year and going pretty well. A lot of Pākehā watch it. It is pretty good Kiwi stuff, with a lot of issues relevant to Māori.

The number of Māori in the main working ages is projected to increase to nearly half a million in 2021. It is not about hoping for a browning in the workforce; it will be no different from the browning that is happening in the Super Fourteen. At one time that was a bastion of elite athletes of only one culture. The mixture of races is now certainly mirrored in the sense of economic and business opportunities that Māori have a key say in.

We want to ensure that Māori leadership and Māori governance are improved. The Māori Party and other organisations brought up issues—and quite rightly so—relating to the fact that 53 percent of young Māori boys are leaving school without qualifications. But that is narrow in relation to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement—and that is important. We want to ensure that improves.

But I want to relate to members my analysis of what is happening with young Māori . In the 1990s Māori families were put asunder, not just by right rhetoric but also by policy practices that denied all families equal opportunity. They were put asunder by it. Māori lined up on Thursdays to get the benefit, because that was the day to treat the kids to KFC, or whatever else. That is what Māori did. The agencies changed things so we did not have long queues of people lining up for the benefit. That was the picture the 1990s left us with.

Since then, things have come a long way forward. Over the last half-dozen years a lot of our teenagers brought up in families without even the basic or a dual income in the house are seeing a different thing happening. They are seeing what I saw as a kid in the 1960s and 1970s. All of a sudden jobs are available in the market—jobs where they can earn money instead of sitting at home and understanding that the biggest thing in their house is an unemployment benefit. That is what is clearly happening. And those young Māori men? Yes, they leave school, and our job, in the sense of the skilling timetable we have, is to make sure that we get stuck in with them when they leave school, no matter where they are. Modern Māori do understand. The biggest re-entry into education is mature Māori women. They are going back to learn after their children have grown up.

The Treaty settlement process is accelerating. That is quite clear. Currently, 20 groups are actively engaged with the Office of Treaty Settlements. Of these, heads of agreements in principle have been reached with a number of claimant groups. Eleven major Treaty claims have been done in our time, and that brings an added vigour to the way Māori progress and to where they go.

I would like to remind those members next door—

Christopher Finlayson: Opposite.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I remind those members opposite—those members with a tendency to flop around with extreme-right ideologies—that we have flaws. There are Māori who struggle and Māori families who are poor. But those members should cut out this nonsense about walking up the road holding on to some Māori kid’s hand and wearing the right apparel to look like the bros. They should cut out this nonsense that all Māori do not feed their kids, that all Māori are truants, and that all Māori do not know how to look after their families—[Interruption] That is what that member said. She led us to believe that Māori do not care about their families. That is what she said at the end of her speech. It is outrageous. Māori are good people. They are good people.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat has completely misrepresented what I said. At no stage did I actually even talk about Māori children. He is quite wrong to say that, and he is quite wrong to mislead.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. That was not a point of order; it was a point of debate. The member well knows that, and she should not interrupt a speech in that way. The member will apologise.

Judith Collins: I apologise.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I thank you for that, Madam Assistant Speaker. That was outrageous. I tell members seriously that Māori are going forward in this country, and that sort of nonsense is something that we as Māori people will not live with. There is a tangata whenua in this country. It is Māori. There is a Treaty that started the journey for other peoples to come to this country. Let us not forget that. Let us remember that young Māori families are going forward. We are now seeing the generation of change. We will keep them strong in their culture, but we will also make sure they participate at every level in enterprise, in sport, in culture, and in Parliament.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I was going to congratulate the previous speaker, because that speech was, for at least 8 minutes, the first vaguely intelligible contribution I have heard from him in my time here. Then he ruined it at the end, and I am very disappointed in him.

The Prime Minister’s statement yesterday was as banal as last year’s dismal effort, and it was delivered with her trademark humour and lightness of touch. This year’s effort in particular shows signs of the synthetic, market-tested language peddled by her political advisers. Last year she said that she and her cohorts were in Government to make a difference for the better. Then, throughout 2006, we all witnessed Labour’s performance over the pledge card and the disgrace of the Taito Phillip Field affair.

This year she said that her Government stands for “decent values at home”, yet in the last few days we have had the president of her own party hinting that the $800,000 the Labour Party owes the people of New Zealand may not be paid back. And we still have the disgrace of the Taito Phillip Field affair. Yesterday we learnt that Mr Field is finally history in the Labour Party. Why? Because he has committed the greatest crime of all: he has offended the leader.

The Prime Minister’s speech was an excellent example of the typical Labour approach over the last 7 years: fix the perception and leave the reality to look after itself. Time and time again this Government has tried to present itself as visionary, compassionate, and effective. The reality is, of course, quite different. It is a washed up, visionless Government that has no practical and detailed agenda for advancing the economic and social interests of this country.

Though the Prime Minister’s speech was supposed to run for about an hour, she herself could keep going for only about 35 minutes before she became bored. In those 35 minutes she sure managed to get those clichés across. There were howlers like: “Complacency will not do”, “We have to secure our future.”; and the statement that this Government has a “commitment to social cohesion and the willingness to be inclusive across ethnicity, culture, and faith”—as long as one is not a Christian. And so it went on. There was not a social democratic cliché that the Prime Minister omitted from this lousy effort.

True to form, the Labour MPs who have followed the Prime Minister have repeated her same tired slogans. Last year I commented that Labour MPs reminded me of the zombies sitting in the Soviet Politburo in the 1980s, mindlessly applauding the speeches made by their leaders, who were in various states of putrefaction. On cue, Labour MPs this year again mouthed the same inanities about economic transformation, families young and old, and national identity.

In fact, it seems to be the same pattern in other socialist parties around the world. Just the other day I was reading an article about the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Environment, Mr Miliband, who was talking about the Blair Government’s determination to deal with issues of climate change, national identity, economic transformation, and competition. At least the Labour Government in England is prepared to talk about competition. The competition aspect seems to have been lost by the New Zealand Labour Party in its rendition of the formula devised by the socialist parties of the world at some group grope last year. True to form, Labour MPs have recited the formula as though it were a litany.

Seeing the Labour MPs faithfully reciting the formula conjures up memories of the Chinese Communist Party hacks constantly singing that apparently genuine hit number from the cultural revolution: “Oh, I love to push my wheelbarrow to the collective garbage dump”. An interesting question is whether any of them really believe their own speeches. Well, I do not know. Who knows? I bet a number of them do not believe their own speeches, but they will be wary of saying anything lest they, too, join the ranks of Labour MPs bound for the knacker’s yard. Last year Parliament said goodbye to Jim Sutton, today it is Georgina Beyer, and during the year it will be curtains for two or three others. Next year one can confidently predict that another seven or eight of the Labour backbench will be saying goodbye to this place, to be replaced by more trade union secretaries.

So there we have it: another speech where slogans are more important than substance, and where the Prime Minister is more concerned about the perception rather than the reality.

Hon Member: Herceptin.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Certainly, she is not concerned about Herceptin.

It was a speech riddled by words beloved by focus groups, like “smart, active government”, and that real shocker about the Government standing for “decent values at home”. Compare this drivel, and the tired and fearful MPs who mouth it, with the fresh and dynamic National Party team, led by John Key and Bill English. I consider it a real privilege to be a member of the John Key shadow Cabinet and to have responsibilities in three areas—Attorney-General, Treaty negotiations, and arts—and I want to say something about those areas now.

First, I will talk about Treaty negotiations. The Prime Minister insolently said that the settlement process has “considerable momentum”. Well, that is just rubbish. The record of the Prime Minister and her two lacklustre Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has been very poor indeed. In the 1990s National negotiated, among others, the fisheries, Tainui, and Ngāi Tahu settlements. Between 1992 and 1999 National negotiated settlements amounting to over $500 million. Labour has not managed even half that sum in an equivalent 7-year period.

It was very interesting the other night to attend a function held by Ngāi Tahu to honour Sir Tīpene O’Regan. National was represented by Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, Doug Graham, Doug Kidd, and me. Labour could manage to send along only the Minister of Labour—who I think sloped off early—and the Minister of Commerce. It was obvious which party had made a real contribution to the rebuilding of Ngāi Tahu’s fortunes.

A John Key administration will bring to the Treaty settlement process the same energy and optimism that were brought to Treaty settlement policy by the Bolger and Shipley administrations in the 1990s. The reality is that National commenced the historic Treaty settlements policy, that Labour has done very little in the area, and that a John Key administration will justly and successfully conclude the process. How can the Prime Minister say that the process has momentum when, for example, the North and South Island inquiry, in which I participated as counsel, held its final hearing in February 2004 and, 3 years on, the tribunal has not yet been able to release its report? How is that “momentum”? What practical suggestions does the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations have? Well, he has nothing.

And look at what the Prime Minister said about the arts: “Government support for culture, … will continue to play an important part in the development of new productions across theatre, music, and dance.” That is all. Labour has run out of ideas in this area. In fact, since the Prime Minister announced the Cultural Recovery Package in 2000, Labour has done very little in this area. It was a National Government that had the first Minister for the arts and that established the Arts Council, the Film Commission, and Te Papa, and it will be a National Government that works with the arts community on issues as diverse as the interrelationship between new technologies and the arts, the reform of existing institutions, and the reform of the Authors Fund. It is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to mouth a few ritualistic phrases in her dreary speech, and for Associate Minister Tizard to turn up to functions and witter on about how passionate she is about the arts. Clichés and waffle will not do any more.

Finally, the Prime Minister also addressed the criminal justice system. If ever there was an area that is failing, it is this area, yet, once again, the Prime Minister and her Ministers showed themselves to be ignorant of what needs to be done. The Minister of Corrections is a weak man, and on his watch Liam Ashley was murdered and other shocking abuses have occurred. That Minister has no answers. Nor does the Minister of Justice, who is as bewildered by this area as he is by Treaty negotiations. The same could be said about the Minister for Courts and the cohort of Associate Ministers of Justice. So many Ministers and so few answers! The same thing applies to reform of the civil justice system. No one in this Government really appreciates the realities of legal aid, delays in the court system, the need to reform the appellate court structure, and so on.

What I despise about the Prime Minister’s speech is that she showed no respect for New Zealanders. The New Zealand electorate has been sliced and diced by her pollsters, their policy priorities cross-tabbed, and the turns of phrase most appealing to their ears focus-grouped, yet the people of New Zealand are no longer impressed by the Prime Minister’s synthetic, market-tested language. They know that there is more to Government than this shallow, shabby effort. They want a Government that knows what the issues are and has the courage to address them. After 7 years New Zealanders are entitled to expect more than the formulaic drivel that was the Prime Minister’s statement.

Sue Moroney: That’s from a party with no policy.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That is why her time is up, I say to Sue Moroney. It is time for a change; it is time for National.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): There has been a lot of talk over the long, cold summer of 2007—talk of an underclass, of children going hungry to school, of streets in my electorate. Party policies have been shamed; politicians have been blamed. There has been other talk about how well we are doing, with the supposedly splendid social and economic progress being somehow responsible for the peaceful commemorations at Waitangi and the general levels of happiness. And while all the talk flowed, other issues were raised around the kitchen tables of our nation—questions like why 11 percent of the Māori workforce is unemployed, compared with the national average of 5 percent; why 28 percent of Māori over the age of 15 are receiving a benefit, compared with 10.5 percent for the national average; or why the average hourly pay rate for Māori is $3 less than for non-Māori when they are doing the same work.

The Māori Party has some hard questions of its own to ask. How many more whānau need to be ensnared as casualties of a welfare trap—a trap that is literally stealing the hopes and aspirations of our future generations from out of our grasp? How many more whānau are to be consigned to the ever-growing mountain of the working poor? How much longer will New Zealand’s reputation be damaged by generations of child abuse, alcohol and drug-induced abuse, domestic violence, and murder? How long will we let talk flow before enduring solutions are available?

This debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, unfortunately, has seen the House revert to a battleground, all in the name of the political scoreboard. Over this last year we have been looking, listening, and learning, but it has to be said that the way in which issues are raised in this House has at times left much to be desired. We welcome the move to develop a code of conduct for politicians. Indeed, as a party driven by our kaupapa and tikanga, we look forward to a new parliamentary environment—and, we hope, this year an environment in which te reo Māori thrives through simultaneous translation.

Our interest, as it always has been, is to consolidate the influence of a strong, independent Māori voice. We do this in our commitment to the growth of healthy, resilient, independent people. We want our people to be gainfully employed for a living wage. We are dedicated towards building whānau independence and community vitality. We encourage all parties to invest in people, to inspire entrepreneurship, and to reinforce that the best solutions are determined by the people themselves.

In the instances of Māori social and educational needs, we believe that the best solutions proposed by the people themselves have been deliberately ignored in favour of the Government’s agenda of expanding the service of Government departments and agencies. All this does is to heighten Māori dependence on the State. I think of the call that has come over many years for more Māori teachers to teach Māori immersion education. How did the ministry respond? By adding a new layer of staffing in the bureaucracy called, Pouwhakataki. At the time of the murders of the two twin babies last year, what was the bureaucracy’s response? It was to strengthen its bureaucratic services to the people. In my electorate—on this very, very day—the issues associated with youth violence on our streets are confronting our communities. How does the Government respond? By sending in a team of outsiders, much to the anger of the South Auckland community.

The Māori Party is saying we have had enough of the social rescue campaigns that end up blowing money and achieving little. We believe that this House is desperately in need of some fresh new ideas—ideas that demonstrate that our investments reflect our values, like the initiative by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus that Bahrain introduced last week—a family bank. The concept is based on the ideals of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, which is owned by the poor borrowers of the bank, mostly women. The borrowers become the owners, and as they take on these new roles they ensure there is no failure of repayments.

In a different part of the world, in the Basque country, the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation set up by the “People’s Worker Bank”, allows members both access to financial services and start-up funds for new cooperative ventures. It has been so successful that in 2002 the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation contributed 3.7 percent towards the total GDP of the Basque country. These are just two examples that adhere to traditional cooperative values, focus on family, and ensure that all members have a financial stake in the success of the venture. They are models of success, based on self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

The welfare trap has created a seemingly impenetrable mindset amongst both tangata whenua and the helping agencies that keep people caught in the trap. The wholesale misery and poverty that is created by the welfare trap is clearly not producing the results that will achieve sustainable outcomes. Tangata whenua are at a crucial junction in the roads. When a decision is required to branch off into an entirely new direction, the vital decision is about what vehicle will get them there. And it should not be a question of not having enough gas to get there; the total estimated tax paid by Māori and recorded in the half-year Economic and Fiscal Update for 2006 was $3,832 million. That is plenty enough gas to nurture whānau independence, to generate community vitality, and to invest in people. We believe it would be a great day if we could redirect Government spending to enable tangata whenua to benefit from direct access to the source of the resource. Māori need to have a greater stake in the decision-making that is about us. If decisions keep being made by others about us, there will never be the necessary movement to self-determination.

This House needs to invest in ideas, invest in people, and invest in change. Importantly, we have to be brave enough to face up to the racism that is endemic in unemployment and low-wage statistics, and we must accord urgency to the need to take comprehensive action on climate change. The Māori Party has expressed its dismay that New Zealand is the fourth highest nation amongst developed nations in the emission of greenhouse gases, and that New Zealand’s emissions are growing significantly faster than those in Australia. Indigenous peoples across the globe understand their role and their responsibility as being a unique one in conserving mother Earth. The Māori Party is also committed to assisting whānau, hapū, and iwi as tangata tiaki to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment.

But it is not an exclusive duty that we hold. All of us have a responsibility to do what we can to ensure we assist this nation in not putting more carbon into the atmosphere than we are able to offset by other means. The Māori Party believes in the efficient use of water, the conservation of energy, and the need for active environmental management. We know that the urgency of the moment is upon us; we have no time to waste in point-scoring or political favours. Our priority must be to ensure we take the action that will truly make the difference for our people. It is the action that will enable tangata whenua to approach that fork in the road, confident that the choice they make will take them on the right pathway to a brighter future—a pathway built on the premise that genuine progress for all New Zealanders is a right and an entitlement; a pathway that reflects that social justice is as much the responsibility of Parliament as economic prosperity. It is a pathway to progress, to pride, and to well-being.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): It is a rare privilege for a member to be able to make a valedictory speech in this House. Those members who find themselves unsuccessful in an election do not get the opportunity, and the odd member falls into disrepute and does not have the opportunity, necessarily, to make a final statement, but I do, and I am most grateful to the House for that privilege.

I understand there is a sweepstake going around the Labour caucus at the moment as to whether I might have changed my mind by the end of this valedictory, but I am afraid there will be a loser. This is my valedictory; I will officially depart this Parliament as a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives on Friday, 16 February. In light of that, I wish all members a happy Valentine’s Day. I did not quite plan it, necessarily—recognising what that date was.

I have had the rare privilege, as we all do who sit in this House, to be a representative of an electorate, and of my party through the party list. To serve in this House is indeed a rare opportunity for us all. I know that we all respect the grave responsibility that is handed to us by the people of New Zealand when we are elected to this House, and I acknowledge that.

I begin with some acknowledgements. A member does not arrive in this place without an awful lot of help and support, trust and faith, from people.

In 1998 I successfully retained the mayoralty of the Carterton district in the Wairarapa. I was approached by the New Zealand Labour Party to give consideration to running as its candidate for the seat of Wairarapa. That lobbying was spearheaded by a wonderful former member of this House, an icon in New Zealand politics and social history, Sonja Davies. A girl finds it very hard to refuse the kind of approach she gets from such an iconic woman. I was not keen at first, I must admit, and I declined the invitation to run as a candidate, but I did accept the invitation to become a member of the New Zealand Labour Party. I subsequently, while attending a Hero Parade in Auckland, met with the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who further pursued my candidacy; she was successful after that. I wondered, given my success in local government, whether I could push the barrow a little further and make it into the New Zealand House of Representatives as a member of Parliament.

I am a transsexual. My achievements in local government had been historic internationally as the world’s first transsexual to have been elected as a mayor. That was followed up by a tremendous amount of support for my election to Parliament, which was also historic on the same scale: the first transsexual in the world to be elected to a parliament. I am very pleased and proud to say that I am now no longer the only transsexual in the world to serve in a parliament. People have been asking me recently whether I have made a difference; on that count alone, I think, yes. It is not just me; it is the nature and character of our country and its fairness, in my belief, that we can look at a person and put aside some of the foibles and human frailties that occur in all or most of us at some time in our life, no matter what our beginnings have been.

The support I received from the local Labour electorate committee in Wairarapa was tremendous. My campaign manager was Roger Beson. He was a tough taskmaster, I can tell the House, in respect of my getting around the electorate and promoting myself as possibly being Labour’s representative. I look into the gallery now and I see up there some of the faces of the chairs of the local electorate committee. I see Adam Floyd, I see Donald Simpson, and I see our current chair, Denise MacKenzie, sitting up there. I thank them all. I see Dave Morgan, who helped by being the campaign manager for the 2002 election. But, beyond that, it was the party faithful who, first, had possibly to bite their tongues at the suggestion that I might be a candidate for Labour. They stood by me, they supported me, and they took me into the family. This is something that occurs to all of us, no matter what our party hue is. We become kith and kin when we come into this place. We forge strong relationships with our caucus colleagues and we learn how to be collegial amongst ourselves, no matter what our political persuasions are in this Parliament. This country is bigger than us all, and at times we have to cooperate in order to move forward.

But this is a House of Representatives, and therefore the various views in the diverse country that we have need to be expressed and shown. The colour of this Parliament has certainly changed in that view. We have such a mix of representation in this House, whether it be ethnic, cultural, sexual, political, or whatever. There is a very good representation here in this House. I was elected to a general seat. I am Māori, I am transsexual, and I cover a number of minorities in that sense, and I was successful. There again, it shows that we have a robust democratic system in our country that does offer the opportunity for law-abiding New Zealanders who so wish to put themselves forward for public office, to stand the scrutiny and the rigours of the life we lead in this place. That is a mighty powerful thing. Many nations in the world admire our democracy, despite its faults. It is not absolutely perfect but it is coming reasonably close to it, compared with some jurisdictions around the world.

For the gay community of New Zealand, and certainly for the transgender community of New Zealand, my election was an inspiration, but it followed in the path, of course, of the election of Chris Carter, who is sitting next to me here, who was the first out gay member of Parliament, and also that of Tim Barnett, who is sitting over here. These two individuals endured some of the more unpleasant nature of discrimination and prejudice, but they laid the path, and through their own conduct they have acquitted themselves well and have gotten on with their jobs, regardless of their being gay. It has to add to our country that significant minorities can have a voice, can have a say, and can stand for representation in this House.

The rainbow sector of the Labour Party was very important in helping to promote myself, along with the rest of the out gay community within our party. They have been active. I mention this because it is significant for the gay community of New Zealand to realise that while we grizzle and groan over some matters yet to be resolved, we have come an awfully long way—certainly, under a Labour-led Government. But of course it started more than 20 years ago with homosexual law reform, which was presented by Fran Wilde, a then Labour member of Parliament. The world did not collapse; in fact, if anything it was enhanced. But one has to imagine the liberation it gave many people in a very difficult time during the 1980s, after the emergence of HIV and AIDS and some of the dreadful stigmatisation of the queer community that happened at that time, not only here in New Zealand but internationally. This country has moved on tenfold in that regard. There has been support from around the House, and very serious consideration has been given to the issues that have come before us.

I have been proud to be a staunch supporter of some of the most controversial conscience issues in this Parliament in the last few years, particularly prostitution reform and of course the Civil Union Bill and its accompanying statutory references legislation that was passed a few years ago. I will never resile from having been a staunch supporter of both of those. In regard to the Prostitution Reform Act, it is quite coincidental that perhaps the British Parliament would be interested in looking at that, given the tragedies that occurred in December in Ipswich relating to murders of prostitutes. I think it is legislation that will work. It may need some review—and, of course, that is under way—in the future. But, again, the world has not fallen in, in my opinion, because of the passing of that legislation. If anything, we are all far more aware of a situation that, frankly, we were quite ignorant about beforehand; perhaps we preferred it to be that way in some respects.

As we serve as members in this House, we cannot do all the duties required of us without incredible support from our staff. I look into the gallery now and I see my parliamentary executive secretary, Karen Gibson, I see Sheryll Hoera-Lilo, who was my electorate agent in my Dannevirke office, and I see Jo Seddon, who has been my electorate agent in my Masterton office over the last 7 years. Except for Karen, who had had a term in Parliament working for, I think, the Hon Neil Kirton, Sheryll, Jo, and I started from ground zero. In that time we learnt the hard way how to service the electorate of Wairarapa. I am grateful to all of you for the service you have given, not only to myself but to our constituents and to Parliament, frankly, in helping in the democratic process. I will acknowledge you a little later in a more personal fashion when I have concluded this speech.

For all the people who have felt inspired by my presence here in Parliament, I am grateful for that compliment. People have said to me: “Just exactly what have you achieved?”. I mentioned before that my election to Parliament was inspirational in itself, and that alone is one thing, but I have supported, and am most proud of, the programme of the Labour-led Government since 1999. The only legislation that I had difficulty with, and it is well known, was the foreshore and seabed legislation, which threw me into a bit of a corner at that time. I am Māori but I held a general seat. My electorate wanted me to support the Government, but I was listening to my tūpuna, and I was listening to my whānau, who were not in support. We all experience from time to time being torn in this way.

At the end of the day I did not have an electorate that would have supported me, should I have left Parliament or defied my party. I was nearly going to go with Tariana, but I have been saying more recently that there is something to be said for loyalty, and occasionally the rigours of Parliament and the political discipline that we have to acknowledge and adhere to sometimes mean we have to humble ourselves, and in that case I did. The party is bigger than I am, who we represent is bigger than I am, and, indeed, the job we have at hand is bigger than I am, so I humbled myself and acquiesced in that particular matter. But I have been given kind permission to express my view, and I hope I give a balanced view on that. I have been most proud to have been under the leadership of the Rt Hon Helen Clark. This has been a historic three terms for Labour; that I should have been part of it has been a tremendous honour and a tremendous privilege.

Before I conclude my speech, all of you are waiting for some witty remark. I can tell you I have been racking my brain for something such as that. In my maiden speech I made a flippant comment that became synonymous with Georgina Beyer. I will repeat it. I stated at that time that I was the stallion that became a gelding then a mayor, and now, as it was at the time, found myself to be a member. Madam Speaker, can I say to you at this point that while I have relished the opportunity of being a member in this House, I am glad I do not possess one.

Finally, I thank the constituents of Wairarapa for their support for me as their representative for two terms. I am thankful for the kindness I have received from many thousands of New Zealanders in my daily life as a member of Parliament. I will always be a person who has the utmost respect for our democracy. I have been pleased and proud to be a positive participant in our society. I am so glad that I have been able to redeem my more lurid past and practise the proper rights of being a citizen of this country. I could ask for no more than that, and, whatever my future holds, this will have to have been the greatest moment of my life. Thank you.

TIM GROSER (National): As I was listening to the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday afternoon I must admit that I thought for a minute that I had entered into a time warp and was back in my previous day job—not in domestic politics, but in international politics—listening to a speech that is not actually directed outwardly at the world but inwardly towards the political lobbies that the speaker wishes to reach. In those moments overseas, one always has the outlet of reaching for the interpretation channel to practise language skills rather than spend 30 minutes of one’s life listening to a speech that is not directed at oneself. But of course that facility was not open to us yesterday. So I sat there throughout the speech listening to the political messaging to certain people, both within this party and within certain party activist ranks, until we reached the final embarrassing last moment when the backbench of the Labour members rose in “spontaneous” joy to applaud the Prime Minister’s speech.

I do not want to be tough on the backbench of the Labour Party who are on this managed exit list. As a former Labour Prime Minister put it recently in a similar context, it would be a little like booing at the Special Olympics—it is just not done. So let me try to dissect the speech politically a little bit. We start—as have journalists from the gallery and other speakers from this side of the House—with this extraordinary statement that the challenges facing our country in the 21st century require substance, not slogans.

It is always very interesting in human nature that quite often people will telegraph through their body language—and through their actual words in this case—the points of weakness that they are only too well aware exist in the presentation that they are about to make. This is exactly what the speech-writer for the Prime Minister has done. Fully conscious that this was a speech of sloganeering, the speech-writer has unconsciously sent this signal right at the beginning of the speech in the hope of countering the weakest part of it. It was very interesting.

From that point, we then get launched into this Messianic vision, launched originally at the Labour Party conference, to revive the flagging enthusiasm of Labour Party activists for a carbon neutral future. I am all for vision but I think there has to be a minimum correlation between vision and reality, between objective and delivery.

I want to draw to members’ attention an observation—a rather acerbic observation—made by a commentator on New Zealand over a century ago. This was a Frenchman André Siegfried who came to New Zealand in 1904 and wrote a book called Democracy in New Zealand. We have just heard a very stirring and excellent speech from Georgina Beyer celebrating—as we all do—our democracy. But it is not perfect, and André Siegfried, as long as 100 years ago, said the following: “New Zealand has a certain sense of apostolic mission. Many New Zealanders are honestly convinced that the attention of the whole world is concentrated upon them, waiting with curiosity and even with anxiety to see what the New Zealanders will say and do next.”

That was a little acerbic but it is important to see ourselves sometimes through a correct light of how the world actually sees this very small country of ours.

I want to draw a couple of lessons from this. First of all, let us not be too cynical. On occasion, New Zealand can—and we all could quote examples—push global agendas at the margin; when we are not way out on a limb, when we are not completely out there in nana land but are locking on to other trends internationally and some support, yes we can help bigger international causes. But when there is an enormous gap—a yawning chasm—between rhetoric and reality, I am sorry, we should remember what this Frenchman said to us 100 years ago.

This applies in particular to this Messianic concept of leading the world towards carbon neutrality when we have no track record to make a statement of that dimension. Repeating 33 times in a speech the term “sustainability” is not going to pass muster either domestically or internationally.

The second lesson I would draw is that there is a clear issue here about the relationship between environmental—and in particular, climate change—objectives and New Zealand’s economic interests. It is quite clear that every time this Labour Government, in the period of time with which it has responsibility for leading this country on this issue, sketches out a vision on climate change that is totally divorced from New Zealand’s economic interests and from considerations of New Zealand’s competitiveness, the policy will crash. It will crash, crucially, leaving nothing achieved on the environment side. It is the classic example of over-promise and under-deliver and we have just seen the same cycle launched again yesterday by the Prime Minister.

The country was waiting, I think with some anticipation, for an agenda that we could lock on to for 2007, and that was a little larger than just the agenda that is in the Prime Minister’s mind, which is the fourth election of Helen Clark as the Prime Minister come what may.

Let us face it, there are issues in climate change where there is a congruence. I can certainly make out a strong argument for a congruence between essential New Zealand interests and doing the right thing in terms of making a contribution—a realistic contribution—on climate change. Much of the debate over air miles is in that space and I, like many other observers, believe that a truly sophisticated carbon print of our principal export industries, if done truly objectively, can, in the long term, turn out to be congruent with our economic interests. I am very confident that that is where we will get to in the long term, but I am very worried about short-term diversions that may be damaging to New Zealand economic interests and even, finally, take our small part in the global climate issue in exactly the wrong direction.

So there are areas where there can be a congruence. But if we are realistic, there are also areas of conflict. Areas of conflict between climate change and New Zealand’s essential competitive interests have to be reached with some balance and some realism. I will tell members what happens if people put their heads in the sand and pretend there are no such conflicts. There will be a repetition of the “fart tax”: the policy announced, the back-off, and nothing done on that environmental objective. There will be a repetition of the carbon tax: the big bold statement advanced, then the clash with economic interests, and the tax abandoned. We will see the same in due course with the waste tax. I am quite confident that in due course we will see the same pattern.

We have seen the same pattern on the disastrous mistakes made in forestry policy, and on the miscalculation by over $1 billion of the Kyoto balance. The essential lesson is: yes, let us try to move as a country to make a contribution, but a contribution that takes no account of New Zealand’s economic realities not only will fail when it meets that hard clash of interests, but also will lead to zero results on the environment.

Now, this speech, as Bill English very astutely analysed in this debate earlier today, was actually directed at the reconfiguration of parliamentary numbers. It was directed back to the Green Party. So people like me have this image in our heads of the late Rod Donald, and Jeanette Fitzsimons, coming out of the so-called final negotiating room—with Helen Clark, Heather Simpson, and whoever else was in the room—with a look of utter despair on their faces. This was a message from the spider to the fly: “Come into the parlour. Listen to these words: ‘carbon neutrality’. Do you like the sound of that? Come into our parlour. Come back into an arrangement with Labour, because we need you for our fourth election.” That is what the Prime Minister said. That is the real import of the Prime Minister’s speech.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): The speech from the previous speaker, Tim Groser, was extraordinarily disappointing, but right at the start it made a very, very similar point to the one I am about to make. Yesterday we had two contrasting speeches. The first one was from the Prime Minister, the leader of the Labour Party. She had some vision and some ability to address the real issues and provide a pathway for New Zealand. We also had the co-leader of the National Party, John Key. His speech was shallow, flippant, and sounded like an after-dinner speech at a foreign exchange gathering. That is what it sounded like—an after-dinner speech, a speaker brought in for entertainment. Unfortunately, it was very much like Tim Groser’s speech—whinge, whine, grizzle, groan. There was not one new idea, one new thought, or one new policy. There was no vision. The problem is that the public of New Zealand see through it—that is what the polls are saying.

The Labour Prime Minister made quite clear the need for long-term strategies, not just for a sustainable economy but for a sustainable society, environment, culture, and way of life. I said before that she addressed the real issues—things like climate change. She talked about a range of the initiatives that the Government not only was doing but also was about to do.

Mr Key, on the other hand—one of the hollow men—had no new ideas, no new vision, and no new policies. The only thing I remember about his speech was his talking again about tax cuts. I got that. That is what I heard—again. But there was no vision about where New Zealand needs to go—as if, somehow, tax cuts are the vision, the policy, and the principle. Whatever one wants to do in New Zealand, tax cuts are the answer. Of course, that idea is dreary, lacks vision, and is why people are marking National down.

Then, of course, Mr Key found a few poor people in New Zealand, which was a bit of a surprise to him. But the reality is that he did not join up the dots. He did not go on to talk about market rents, which his party supports, benefit cuts, which his party introduced, or the Employment Contracts Act, which his party endorsed. Those are the issues that create an underclass. Those are things that the Labour Government has overturned in order to try to build an inclusive society.

Then Mr Key touched on the issue of climate change. The difficulty John Key has—a difficulty he will find he has now that he is under scrutiny and the honeymoon is over—is that people will watch what he says. In 2005 he said about climate change: “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.” That was said in 2005. In 2005 he said that climate change was not really a problem, that he did not really understand it, and that we would pour billions and billions of dollars into it when we were not sure whether there was really a problem.

In 2006, however, he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” This is the problem the leader will get himself into—making things up on the hoof and then backtracking when the pressure goes on. We were going to have, as I remember, National Party and industry - supported school lunches. What happened to those? I think they have gone by the wayside. That lasted only about a week, I think. This one, climate change, is the kind of thing that will receive scrutiny, and he will be found out.

Mr Key, the leader, is one of the hollow men. Those who have read the book gained a very interesting insight into the way the National Party works. For me, two key issues came from that book. The first one was that shadowy, faceless people were buying and selling policies. It was the most extraordinary thing I have seen. These faceless people in the shadows, who were not members of Parliament, most of whom had never stood for election, and who were not prepared to come out and nail their colours to the mast, in an undemocratic fashion were telling key people in the National Party what they should be doing. They said that if National did something, they would help fund it. They were buying and selling policies. There is a word for that action. It was practised in a number of countries, including Germany, in the 1930s and 1940s, and it should not be allowed to happen.

The Hollow Men suddenly exposed the rotten things that were going on in the National Party. If it had not been for the issue of the Exclusive Brethren, then National may well have got over the line, and many of those things that were being suggested would have come to pass. It was rotten, and people saw through it. Thank goodness voters acted at the last election and we are now not suffering many of the things that those faceless, hollow men were prepared to do to New Zealand.

The second thing that comes to my mind when I think about that book is the word “deceit”. What those people were telling the National Party to do—and what the National Party was prepared to do—was to say one thing prior to the election knowing that it would do exactly the opposite afterwards. New Zealand has moved on from that. New Zealand will not tolerate that any more. New Zealand has had a gutsful of that. But the National Party was prepared to do it.

There is no greater example of that than in the whole question of asset sales. Did we hear the National Party come out and say that it believed in asset sales because that was part of its policy plank? No, we did not. We heard slip and slide. We heard: “We will not sell New Zealand Post in our first term.” We knew by that that in the second term it would be a goner. National said: “Well, we are going to sell a few things, like a few farms.” The public knew that the National Party really had only three policy positions, which were being pushed by the faceless people in the shadows outside this place. Those were tax cuts, asset sales, and cuts in public spending, particularly in health and education.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I remind members that interjections are certainly acceptable but that absolute constant barracking like the member is doing is not. The member will desist.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It was clear that the National Party was running two agendas. It was running the agenda of telling people, before the election, what they wanted to hear, and the agenda of the hollow men, which was to do, after the election, the exact opposite. The point is that, luckily, the public saw through it. That is the good thing. The great thing about democracy is that people will not stand for people outside of this place trying to run what happens inside it.

Of course, if it had not been for that election, the National Party would have dragged New Zealand backwards. The National Party, if it ever gets another chance—and, mercifully, it is not likely to happen in my lifetime—will drag us back to asset sales, the Employment Contracts Act, benefit cuts, tax cuts for the rich, intolerance, and the pitting of New Zealander against New Zealander.

That is the true recipe of the National Party. The Hollow Men exposed that National members were prepared to try to waffle and weasel their way through an election campaign, not remembering things and making things up as they went, and that after the election the real National agenda, driven by people outside of this place, was to go back to the 1980s and 1990s.

Mercifully a Labour-led Government came into office in 1999 and reversed many of those trends. It built an inclusive society by changing things like the Employment Contracts Act, by building a skilled workforce, by putting more Kiwis into work, by supporting firms breaking into offshore markets, and by looking at things like telecommunications reform, KiwiSaver, and paid parental leave. The Labour-led Government has done endless things, but the point is that the job is not finished. The contrast will be a Labour-led Government under Helen Clark, leading us forward with a vision about where New Zealand should go, or a National Party dragging us back to the 1980s and 1990s, which is what it wants to do. The public decided. They said they wanted to go forward with Labour, not backwards with National.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): I say to the Hon Paul Swain that he was the accountable Minister, the Minister of Immigration, right the way through the Phillip Field saga. He was the Minister who knew that his department’s most senior officials were deeply concerned about the number of overstayers and asylum seekers that Damien O’Connor was approving in response to representations from Taito Phillip Field. He was the Minister of Immigration who met Sunan Siriwan working on the floor of Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. He was the Minister of Immigration who knew during the Ingram inquiry that he had crucial information about whether Sunan Siriwan was working for Taito Phillip Field, and he refused to tell Noel Ingram.

Hon Paul Swain: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the member reads the Ingram report, he will see that I made a full comment to the Ingram inquiry, and that is absolutely documented. The member should read the document.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Yesterday Helen Clark said that Taito Phillip Field had gone too far, and now she has given him the chop. What did Taito Phillip Field do yesterday? He dared to observe that he wanted to stand at the next election but could not be sure that it would be for Labour. For Helen Clark it was no problem that Taito Phillip Field ripped off vulnerable new migrants for his personal gain. It was no problem that he was alleged in a sworn affidavit to have directed the alteration of an official document. It was no problem that he was alleged in a sworn affidavit to have asked for money before giving assistance to a person whose wife had immigration problems. It was no problem that he was alleged to have been involved in a system of significant cash payments for immigration assistance. It was no problem that he was alleged in an affidavit to have paid hush money. It was no problem that he withheld crucial information from the Ingram inquiry. And it was no problem that he had refused to cooperate with the police.

But yesterday Taito Phillip Field rained on Helen Clark’s parade. Yesterday he spoke about the possibility of standing at the next election, and that was more important to Helen Clark than the ripping off of vulnerable people, which it is beyond doubt Taito Phillip Field was involved in. Helen Clark could not give a damn about the fact that Taito Phillip Field ripped off vulnerable people. She was happy to use his unethical vote to prop up her Government. But once he suggested that maybe he might want to stand again at the next election, that was it. Where is the principle in that?

Phillip Field’s exploitation of vulnerable new immigrants was breathtaking. Many New Zealanders have heard about the poor Thai tiler Sunan Siriwan working for no pay on Phillip Field’s house in Samoa in return for immigration assistance, the fact that he tiled 460 square metres up there, and the fact that his wife, or partner, was employed for no pay as Mrs Field’s servant. But not so many people know that Mr Sunan Siriwan also laid and painted a new floor at Maria’s Health Care Pharmacy, which was a business owned by Mrs Field’s daughter-in-law. Not many people know that he also tiled Maxine’s Cake Shop, owned by Taito Phillip Field’s stepson. As if that is not enough, four other Asians went to Samoa to work on Mr Field’s house for no pay in return for immigration assistance. Mr Prachanan and his partner Miss Ngaosri, an overstayer, went to Samoa to paint Mr Field’s house for no charge. Mr Field got Miss Ngaosri a work permit in New Zealand. There were gib-stoppers and plasterers. Mr Nakhen and Mr Kaewbabpha both went to Samoa to work on the infamous house of Mr Field’s up there, and lo and behold he got them both relevant work permits here in New Zealand. There were tilers, gib-stoppers, plasterers, and painters, from all of whom Taito Phillip Field gained personally. Here in New Zealand, four houses owned by Taito Phillip Field—one in Church Street, one in Blake Road, one in Prangley Avenue, and one here in Wellington in Kinghorne Street—were painted or worked on by immigrants from whom Taito Phillip Field gained personal benefit.

But what did Helen Clark do when she first learnt about this? Helen Clark was told the full details of the deal Taito Phillip Field had done with Sunan Siriwan to go and tile his house in Samoa in return for a 2-year work permit here in New Zealand, and Helen Clark’s office did nothing about it. She simply sent on the letter advising her of this to Paul Swain’s office. What did Paul Swain do? He was the Minister of Immigration. He did nothing about it. He sent the letter on to Damien O’Connor’s office. That was on 14 September 2005. What did Damien O’Connor do? Damien O’Connor had known about it, at that point, for 11 weeks at least. For 11 weeks at least he had known what was going on in Samoa—the conflict of interest in Taito Phillip Field exploiting those Asian migrants—and had tried to cover it up. He had done nothing. The question though that Noel Ingram could never sort out was whether Damien O’Connor knew before he made his decision in favour of Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm.

Three senior officials in the New Zealand Immigration Service spoke to Damien O’Connor’s office. Kerupi Tavita, the head of service international, one of the most senior officials in Immigration New Zealand, rang Damien O’Connor’s office to tell his office what was going on in Samoa. James Dalmer, the branch manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa, contacted Immigration New Zealand several times here in Wellington and finally rang Damien O’Connor’s office. Murray Gardiner, a senior compliance officer who had actually deported Sunan Siriwan’s partner, Ms Phanngarm, from New Zealand, emailed and rang Damien O’Connor’s office. All three phoned the Minister’s office. It is interesting that 5 days after Damien O’Connor wrote his fateful letter of 23 June 2005 telling of his decision to grant work permits for Mr Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm, James Dalmer spoke to Damien O’Connor’s office, and in his file note following that phone call he said this: “Knowledge of Thai cases. Knows that Taito has these people working for him. Damien knew that before he made the decision.”

This Labour Government just shirks its accountability. It claims that Damien O’Connor did not know. So much evidence points to the fact that Damien O’Connor did know what was going on. One thing for sure is that if it could be proved he did not know then, he did know within 5 days, and that is absolutely accepted. He knew within 5 days, yet he did nothing about it for 11 weeks until it blew up in the public domain. Nothing was done. Damien O’Connor sat on it. He hid it and covered it up for 11 weeks until it became public.

Two hundred and sixty-two approvals were made by Damien O’Connor for Taito Phillip Field. Taito Phillip Field boasted to a friend: “The Minister”—Damien O’Connor—“and I have got an arrangement between us. I do things. He does things. I’ve got an arrangement with him.” That is a direct quote of a friend of Taito Phillip Field. This Parliament has a right to know what that special arrangement was between Damien O’Connor and Taito Phillip Field. Taito Phillip Field was the one who made the requests for the special treatment of all these overstayers and asylum seekers. It was Damien O’Connor who approved them. Taito Phillip Field has boasted that he had a special arrangement with Damien O’Connor. It is time this Labour Government came clean and we got to the bottom of what is being covered up here. We know that Phil Goff met Sunan Siriwan in Samoa. We know that Paul Swain met Sunan Siriwan in Samoa. We know that Ross Robertson socialised with Sunan Siriwan—he did not just meet him once but socialised with him in Samoa. This whole thing has all the smell of a serious cover-up.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Over the summer adjournment I was privileged to spend some time in the United Kingdom and Europe. Some very interesting things were going on there, and it does give one a perspective on our country when one gets to visit large countries and see exactly what is going on. We actually have very few problems in this country, although one would not think so to listen to some of the speeches over the last couple of days. But if one spends some time in London, for example, where terrorism is a constant threat, one finds that people have their bags searched even when going into museums. One flies to an international airport where security arrangements are in one’s face the whole time. One realises then that New Zealand is, indeed, a unique and wonderful place to live and raise our families.

I am sorry to tell Mr Key that his Burnside address and other antics did not make the news there, so I have been trying to catch up a little bit since I got back. There were some interesting things going on; for example, whether the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, smoked marijuana during his Eton days. I think John Key had better be careful about modelling himself on him. But what was evident from the time I spent with parliamentarians from other countries and the various meetings I attended was that Helen Clark does make the news. She is held in very high regard, and this little country at the bottom of the Pacific is highly regarded for its excellent governance and economic and social progress. We also come near the top of the indicators for our lack of corruption, and, as I said, good governance.

Bob Clarkson: Ha, ha!

DARIEN FENTON: Mr Clarkson should read the IMF report. Go and read it.

The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday—

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member Bob Clarkson just made an unparliamentary comment to Darien Fenton.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member did accuse the member in an unparliamentary term. The member will withdraw that remark and apologise.

Bob Clarkson: I have a problem here. I think I will have to leave the House because I tell the truth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member has been asked to withdraw and apologise.

Bob Clarkson: I withdraw and apologise.

DARIEN FENTON: The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday was inspirational. It was long on substance and short on slogans, unlike the response from the Opposition. It is clear to me that over the summer Mr Key has been out there searching for ideas to try to convince New Zealanders that National has suddenly become a kind and caring party. Instead, it has been an embarrassing blundering about among what he calls the underclass, trying to arrange food for schools that do not want or need it and insulting proud communities. Yes, life can be tough for these families, and I am sure their lives can look particularly miserable in the eyes of a megamillionaire, but to label families, to denigrate their efforts to improve their lives, and—worst of all—to pretend that this Government has done nothing to change the mess that his party made of our country the last time it was in Government is, quite frankly, astonishing. National members have been banging on—in fact, the only thing I have heard in many of the speeches is about how the Prime Minister’s speech contained the word “sustainability” 33 times.

Sue Moroney: They can count!

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, exactly. The only thing that that proves is National members have learnt how to count—at least up to 33.

Sue Moroney: It took them 4 hours to work it out.

DARIEN FENTON: That is right.

Leadership in Government means dealing with some facts, and I thought I would give members a few about the record of this Government. Under Labour, 61,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, with a predicted reduction in child poverty of up to 70 percent through Working for Families. Incomes have increased in real terms for the poorest households. There has been a dramatic reduction in the cost of housing for people on low incomes. We have the lowest recorded unemployment since 1982 and the lowest in the OECD. We have had a reduction in long-term unemployment by 70 percent since 1999. We have the lowest crime rate in a generation. Kiwi students at both primary and secondary school levels are among the best in the OECD in reading, mathematics, and science. The cost of visiting a doctor has fallen by half. I remember when prescriptions were $15. What are they now? They are $3.

We have 9,171 Modern Apprenticeships; investment in workforce literacy, numeracy, and language skills; multiple increases in the minimum wage; better holidays; fairer employment laws; decent accident compensation; and the KiwiSaver scheme—and those are just a few of the achievements of this Government. This is a Government of substance, unlike the Opposition of slogans.

Hon Member: And action!

DARIEN FENTON: And action; I thank the member.

The Labour-led Government has long-term sustainable strategies for our economy, society, environment, culture, and way of life—strategies that must be driven by strong leadership and sound policies, not sound bites and media stunts. The Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament outlined a vision for sustainability as part of our national identity. Her call to action on combating climate change and the very specific policy she spelt out lead the way among nations.

Meanwhile the new co-leader of the National Party continues his flip-flops. Not long ago he was a climate change denier. A year and a half later he is a convert. In September 2004 he was telling the nation that National would make significant changes to industrial law. But 2 years later, well, he is the workers’ friend. He has changed his mind again. He is trying to pretend that the National Party now supports workers’ rights. But he was not known as the “smiling assassin” for nothing in his former life. He slashed the jobs of nearly 900 staff in Australia, but at least he did it cheerfully.

One of the obvious things about those who are not so well off is that we do need to lift wages, because only higher wages can ensure that people have a decent life. I think it is good that that is something that this Parliament does agree upon—that wages are too low in New Zealand despite the fact that real gross national disposable income per capita has increased. It is fine to say that wages are too low, but I want to know the specific steps that National will take to boost workers’ wages.

David Bennett: Change the Government.

DARIEN FENTON: And what will they do? Tell us what National’s policies are. What are the details? Tell us what they are.

Sue Moroney: Opposing a minimum wage increase. That is what their policy is.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, that is right. But hang on, I forgot. The answer is tax cuts for the rich. That is the one policy National seems to be able to stick with. How about sitting down and figuring out some good ideas, because that party seems to be completely devoid of them.

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

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I was here earlier, prior to the dinner break, and I listened to Georgina Beyer’s valedictory speech. It was a very fine valedictory speech, I must say. It was spoken without notes and from the heart, and was about the values of our democracy. It made me reflect that everyone who comes to this Parliament comes with good intentions to do better for our country. I also note, because of that, one of the opponents I had in North Shore, Helen Duncan. Helen was a very decent person, and going to her funeral and listening to the eulogies was, in a sense, quite inspiring. They actually said what each of us is here to do: good for the country by our own light.

Of course, good intentions are never enough. We all have good intentions, but they are not enough. We have all heard the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This Government has hung its all on the concept of sustainability—a good intention, dare I say it. The Collins Concise Dictionary defines sustainable as “renewable”, “a steady state”, and “not exhausting one’s resources”. My question to the Government members is whether they are sustainable. Are they renewable? Are they exhausting their votes? Yesterday, when the Prime Minister gave her speech, the Government had 61 votes. Today it has 60. Is that a steady-state situation? Is that renewable? Is the Government exhausting its resources? Any Government that comes into Parliament on the very first day of the year with 61 votes and goes out at the end of that day with 60 votes is not sustainable. The Government is exhausting its resources.

The Prime Minister says: “Oh, well, it doesn’t really matter, we’ve got the Greens to back us up.” In the Prime Minister’s statement she set out her list of important legislation. She mentioned several bills, one of which was the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, which establishes a trans-Tasman regulatory agency. Will the Greens support that bill? There is no way the Greens will support that bill. I know perfectly well that they believe in options for New Zealanders in natural health products, so why would they support the Government’s crazy bill? They will not. I suggest that 61 votes going down to 60 indicates already the Government’s first failure: the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. In desperation, that side of the House will come over to the National side and say: “Please, please support the bill.” Let us be very clear on this. National has heard clearly the messages from New Zealanders that they do not want natural health products controlled by an Australian-dominated agency under Australian-dominated rules. That is the great concern, and that is a very clear message. It is quite different, of course, from the situation of registered pharmaceuticals and of medical products. There is a distinction to be made. This Government sold out New Zealanders by not defending the interests of New Zealanders.

In one day the Government’s buzzword “sustainability” has been shown to be another hollow word. It was repeated 33 times by the Prime Minister, but was not once defined. She says that it is used like “nuclear-free”. Well, I know what “nuclear-free” means: one does not have nuclear ships, and one does not have nuclear weapons. That is all one needs as an explanation. I have asked members of this Government, yesterday and today, to define sustainability. They have all refused. Why have they refused? Because they cannot do it. So it is not like “nuclear-free”—it is not self-explanatory. It was not defined in the Prime Minister’s speech. The Government will fail on this concept.

For instance, let us take one issue alone: energy use. When most people think of energy use, they think either of using up stuff—non-renewable energy—or of having renewable energy. The Government said yesterday that it supported biofuels. That idea was actually stolen from National’s own discussion document last year. The Government is saying that biofuels will account for 3.4 percent—1 million tonnes out of 75 million tonnes—of carbon dioxide generated.

What about the bigger issues? Is this Government going to stand behind State-owned enterprises generating power from coal-fired power stations? Those include not just the existing ones like Huntly but the new ones like that at Marsden Point up in Whangarei. Will the Government stand beside those? There is one thing about coal: it is not sustainable, it is not renewable, and it is polluting. A Government that was serious about carbon neutrality would not be building coal-fired power stations. What happened in the Prime Minister’s speech? Did we hear even one mention of the future of the Marsden B power station? No, because the Government members are scared. Yet this is a country that has huge untapped hydro, geothermal, and wind resources. This Government has not built a single hydro dam in this country. It has ignored the one real renewable resource.

I note also that the Prime Minister’s statement is supposed to set out the Government’s priorities. In my role as spokesperson on Auckland I note that the Prime Minister said in her speech: “The development of Auckland as a world-class international city is critical for New Zealand’s overall growth and development.” Nobody would dispute that. The question is what the Government is going to do about it.

Later this year local body elections will take place throughout the country. The Auckland Mayoral Forum set out a plan on 13 December last year to reorganise regional government. There is a bit of an element of it being a lowest common denominator plan, because all seven territorial local authorities had to agree to it. What did the Government say about that in its prime ministerial statement? The Prime Minister stated: “The Government is currently considering its response to the region’s proposals for strengthening its governance,”. Has the Government not worked out that there are elections in October this year for the local authorities? One would think that by February the Government could tell us—the public of New Zealand and the public of Auckland—whether a bill will be presented in the next few weeks. If it does not happen in the next few weeks, it simply will not happen. I ask Government members why there is no timetable around that crucial issue. It is a mark of failure that there is not.

The Mayor of Auckland said to me recently that he wonders about the capacity of this Government to produce any sort of reform for Auckland regional governments before the next election. Why did he say that? Because there is no communication from the Prime Minister to the mayoral forum as to what the Government’s plans actually are. Local government in Auckland is left in a bind; it cannot plan, and it does not know where things are heading. It reminds me of the stadium debacle. Trevor botched that up and now we are going to have temporary seating. He says we will not be on pipes with binoculars, but who can believe that? It look like there has been another kind of botch around local government, as well.

When a Government says it is sustainable, it is supposed to be renewable. It is not supposed to exhaust its resources. It is supposed to be in a steady state—business as usual. This statement of the Prime Minister’s has failed that test. Labour did not look in the dictionary or at the popular understanding of the world “sustainable”. It thinks it can con New Zealanders and that if it repeats the word long enough, that will do—that “sustainability” is a complete policy unto itself. The public will not be fooled. Government members will say that the other side is all about style, not substance. The truth is that those in Labour are concerned about style and have no interest in substance.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): The previous member talked about desperation. If ever I heard a desperate speech that was it. I can understand why Wayne Mapp is feeling desperate. We all know that Wayne Mapp has been demoted and stripped of being the “PC Eradicator”—we thought he was doing a really good job on that—and that there are problems in his caucus with splits and divisions. Those are the tensions that exist in the Opposition caucus. There are splits and divisions in there, and by the end of the year we could be looking at a new leader—one never knows.

But I will say about the previous member’s speech that he did acknowledge a very dear friend of ours. I also want to acknowledge the passing of our dear friend Helen Duncan. Helen was very strong in her struggle to ensure that people had their rights and protections. I accompanied Wayne at the funeral, as did many other members of Parliament who were there that day. It was a very sad occasion. I want to extend my condolences to the family—to Alan—and say very briefly: e huri noa i taua ārai e te whaea kei runga i te ringa kaha o te Atua, haere atu rā, haere atu rā, haere atu rā. Ā, kua huri noa ki a tātau te hunga ora.

[Turn about on that pathway, dear lady, in God’s mighty hand, and journey on, move on, farewell. And so to us here, the living.]

In terms of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, I stand in support of it. I want to say that the Labour Government is working well to achieve an economy that is high value, high income, innovative, and export-led, which will lead to giving New Zealanders a better quality of life.

When we compare the Prime Minister’s speech to the Opposition speech by Mr Key, we see that he just had no policy. There was no substance in his speech. I would say he was quite focused on trying to undermine the Prime Minister’s statement, but he cannot undermine the Prime Minister’s statement in the absence of policy. Quite frankly, that performance the other day was unacceptable, particularly when we know through the book that was released that one cannot buy policy. The measure of that was through the election—one cannot buy policy—and that is why they lost and we won.

But to get on to the Prime Minister’s statement, I want to say that as part of our drive towards the economy, we have been very clear and very focused in relation to ensuring that, as part of that, Māori development is excelling. But before we could get to ensuring that Māori development excels we had to make sure that there were more jobs out there and that we had the education processes and structures right. We have improved the Māori employment rate. We have got more Māori into education. Now that we have achieved those platforms we can move on to Māori development. We are seeing the emergence of Māori even more strongly as a significant stakeholder. Through asset holders and contributors to economic development, the Māori commercial asset base is already now estimated at $9 billion, with Māori owning 37 percent of the fishing quota and 10 percent of the land and forest estate. All that contributes to our combined efforts in trying to ensure that our economy is stable and sustainable, as well as contributing 7 percent of the agricultural output. I think that is a marvellous outcome. I think that is the way of the future.

Our aim is to complete the historical settlements in the next 10 to 15 years. That, again, is part of the development, and in achieving that we will need to ensure that we move very closely to that closing date.

I want to move on to the draft energy strategy. We released the draft energy strategy, which proposes that as much new electricity generation as possible should be renewable. It aims to ensure that New Zealand develops a sustainable and affordable energy system that minimises greenhouse gas emissions and that will give New Zealand an enduring, competitive advantage over other countries. That is very important as part of the pathway forward.

With our telecommunications strategy, history has been made with the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. This is the beginning of a new era. The bill equips New Zealand for the new digital age—an age where the smart use of technology will determine our continued prosperity as a country and make economic transformation a reality. [Interruption] I hear the members making some comment. I want to get back to the splits and divisions in that caucus and I want to know whether any of those members who are commenting have been promoted within their caucus. The only one I can see is Mr Nathan Guy. I understand he is a junior whip, but I do not think the other three beside him are in for promotional opportunities from their leader.

Getting back to the Prime Minister’s statement, I say that we are also raising the skill levels of the workforce. As of 30 June, there were 9,171 more apprentices—almost 30 percent more than in June 2005—and 123,000 industry trainees overall. Almost 2,300 workers have completed Modern Apprenticeships since the programme began in 2000, and the number of people taking part in this industry training in 2005 was double that in 2000. I recall that as part of the apprentice programme in the early 1990s, it was one of our duties to assist employers to check out the establishments that had apprentices. There were about five apprentices at that time in the whole of Auckland. That is simply because the National Party had stripped away the opportunity for apprentices through the Employment Contracts Act. Those members are quick to forget.

The other area of progression is through 100,000 fewer people being on the unemployment benefit. I can appreciate and understand that—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member was warned previously. His interjections are over the top. They are not allowing people to hear what is being said. He is quite entitled to interject in a reasonable way. That is not reasonable. I ask the member to desist.

DAVE HEREORA: As I was saying, there are 100,000 fewer people on the unemployment benefit. I was shocked over the previous 2 weeks to hear that the National Party has realised there is poverty out there. At the end of the day, one would think that it had never existed. But, again, I get back to the 1990s. The policies that National introduced enhanced poverty by stripping away workers’ rights with the Employment Contracts Act. National members need to stand up and be accountable for that. Labour, however, has reduced unemployment by 100,000 people since 1999. That is a 68 percent drop. At 3.8 percent, New Zealand remains one of only five out of the 27 OECD countries whose unemployment rate is below 4 percent. That is hard to argue against.

The other area that needs to be placed on record is the manner in which we support firms to break into offshore markets. New Zealand firms trying to crack into overseas markets are being supported by a $64.2 million increase in market development assistance over the next 4 years. The Venture Investment Fund has received a $60 million boost over the next 3 years to assist young New Zealand firms with high growth and potential.

Before I finish I want to say that the Prime Minister’s statement was about a pathway forward and about vision. The Opposition needs to realise that in the absence of policy, it ain’t going to win again.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Yesterday might well have been Friday the 13th for Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, because yesterday the Prime Minister made a listless and unsupported attempt to wrestle the mantle from National. The new leader of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, started on his campaign. The two “Cs” of New Zealand politics, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, were gassed out by Phillip Field, and then the Government had to rely on the Greens for support for its administration. It was the beginning of the end of the Helen Clark and Michael Cullen duo; the beginning of the end of the Labour-led Government.

National, and, more important, this country, have been waiting for such a change. The people of New Zealand demand, and they will receive in John Key, a leader of vision, passion, enthusiasm, and compassion for our country—a leader who wants the best for all New Zealanders, a leader who is not interested in self-preservation, and a leader who will become one of New Zealand’s greatest Prime Ministers and a world leader of repute, which are the things Helen Clark dreamed of but never achieved. That is what John Key will achieve.

The only Valentine’s Day gifts Helen Clark will receive, if she is lucky, will be poisoned roses from Mr Phil Goff, for yesterday the poisoned chalice of the Labour leadership was transferred to Mr Goff. He stood up when the Prime Minister failed. He showed he wants to be Labour’s new leader. Now let the internal power struggle begin.

Everyone knows that Michael Cullen is a lame duck, just like his protégé, Mr Mallard, who admitted today that he joined the 1981 Springbok Tour protest in Hamilton, then 2 weeks later was a spectator at the Auckland game. But it was Helen Clark who really sunk yesterday in her maiden voyage for the year. Not only did she misread public opinion in a speech that was well off the mark but her comrades were uninterested and unsupportive. Only the pretence of 20 hours’ free childcare education received any applause, albeit muted and clearly contrived, as even the most aloof Labour MPs will know that such a promise has already failed and has no chance in reality. Only 10 percent of local childcare proprietors in Hamilton recorded their intentions to take up the scheme.

Bob Clarkson: How many?

DAVID BENNETT: Ten percent. It is a failure.

Then to top off a horrible day for the Prime Minister, Phillip Field dropped a bombshell. He is no longer going to be afraid of the Labour Party machine. This was treated with glee from two factions—the contender for the leadership and the Green Party. So I wish Phil Goff, the most likely contender, good luck. He can be assured that many, many of his colleagues want a change in leadership. They know, like we know, that Helen Clark does not have the support of the Government, and she misreads public opinion time and time again.

The other winner of all this is the Green Party. It is now in the position to call the shots with the Labour Government. We say to the Greens that they should go for it, but they should remember the way Labour stood them up at the altar on a number of occasions. I say to them: “Go get ’em! Take them hard, too.” The Helen Clark and Michael Cullen duo was the big loser yesterday.

But let us not forget New Zealand First and the United Future parties. Both parties saw the impressive performance of John Key. At their first caucuses of the year they would have considered how to distance themselves from Labour and build alliances with John Key, as they realised he will be the key to their political survival. With the Greens leapfrogging those parties in political importance, these discussions will now demand actions from those parties. This will further serve to destabilise Helen Clark and Labour.

A Prime Minister’s speech is supposed to be visionary. It is supposed to push the boundaries. It should make us question what we do, where we stand as a country, and what our people deserve. Instead, we got what the commentators have called a Budget speech, deliberately watered down and presented without any passion or reason. But there is a reason why the delivery from the Prime Minister and the response from Labour were lukewarm. They simply did not want Helen Clark to deliver that message. They do not believe in it. It is not in their hearts. They are merely saying what Labour strategists believe will gain the support of the Greens. There is nothing more than political self-preservation in that speech.

When a party has to steal from the taxpayers to fund its campaign and does not believe in what it is saying, it is truly a sad day in politics. This void will be filled by a strong National Party, and we will give voters what they want. We are not too PC to admit that New Zealand has some major problems. We have generations of New Zealanders growing up in a world dominated by low aspirations, youth gangs, and poor self-esteem; where people have lost their pride and their hope for the future. Whatever these children’s backgrounds, New Zealanders want everyone to have a fair chance. In our sense of fair play we want to see them all succeed. What is more, in a modern world we need everyone to perform and achieve. That is what New Zealanders have been thinking about for a long time. They want health, education, and law and order to be tackled, and they know it is better to treat the cause rather than try to cure the result.

John Key has championed these issues for the last month. Labour strategy has been to deny that there is an issue. Well, there is an issue, and it is our job in this Parliament to sort it out. There is a whole generation of New Zealanders who need help. They do not need to be hidden away and ignored. They need to be given back their pride and dignity. They need to be given hope. A real Prime Minister would have delivered hope yesterday. Thankfully, hope has been delivered over the last few weeks in the form of John Key.

Labour is a party of slogans—20 hours’ free childcare education, getting back into the top half of the OECD, closing the gaps. They are all failed slogans. There is no substance, just slogans. That is Labour. But in the Prime Minister’s speech we saw a new slogan—sustainability. What was most remarkable about Helen Clark’s speech was the way she transformed her language within a year. Last year’s statement at the helm concentrated on an ambitious programme of economic growth, while this year’s statement concentrated on a sustainable programme of environmental management. There was neither any consistency nor any link between these messages. There was no reflection on whether the goals set last year had been achieved, and there was no intent to build a concentrated programme over a number of years for our country. What we saw was a complete change of tack. Yes, it was shallow and it was a big step to the left. Helen Clark sought to preserve her political position by cuddling up to the Greens. Little did she know that by Valentine’s Day she would be sleeping with them.

Transport issues are a prime example of this change in tack. Throughout last year the Government emphasised its commitment to the roading programme through its Budget, while the Greens consistently asked for greater investment in public transport. The Prime Minister’s statement last year spoke of growth and of how roads were vital in achieving this goal. In the Budget speech last year the Prime Minister emphasised the allocations of funds to the State highway network, while this year Helen Clark talks about sustainability, footprints, and the need for public transport. This year Helen Clark talks only about the public transport components of funding and spins grandiose public plans around to lure the Green Party into the web of Labour.

But what are the implications for motorists, should the Greens join this union? Green leader Jeannette Fitzsimons has said that the Greens will be insisting on prioritising national funding for public transport rather than expensive new urban highways. Let us see the Prime Minister back up her slogans with that kind of substance in Auckland. If Helen Clark does that, then even Phillip Field would have a chance of winning back his seat.

The influence of the Greens will mean the postponement of many major projects. It will stop reforms to the Land Transport Act. It will mean that the rhetoric of the last year’s economic growth and transformation will never become a reality. It will mean economic chaos for New Zealand, hence preventing any social reform. This is a perfect example of this Prime Minister’s lack of direction—her obsession with saying what she thinks people want to hear and the prostitution of political policy to preserve power. Beware, I say to the Green Party: the Labour Party is saying only what the Greens want to hear.

Not only was this a speech of slogans but it was a speech of reviews, which is the Labour Party’s favourite way of dealing with issues. Instead of substance, this speech focused on inquiries and aspirations to do things. New Zealanders do not want a Government to dream about eradicating child poverty; they want it to do something about it. New Zealanders want action. They want leadership; they do not want vague hopes for future plans. New Zealand was disappointed in the Prime Minister’s speech, and the Labour caucus was disappointed in the speech.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Xin nian kuai le, Madam Assistant Speaker—happy Chinese New Year. I have just come from the Grand Hall here at Parliament. As Minister for Ethnic Affairs, I have chaired the seventh celebration of Chinese New Year here at Parliament.

The Prime Minister, in her comprehensive speech to Parliament 2 days ago, talked about New Zealand’s growing diversity, which was recorded very graphically in last year’s census, where one New Zealander in five is now born overseas. She stated that our Labour Government has a commitment to social cohesion, and the willingness to be inclusive across ethnicity, culture, and faith is more important than ever before. That is about real leadership; it is about a Prime Minister who looks at New Zealand in its totality and states that this is an amazingly diverse country now, that it is an exciting country to live in, and that it is really important that the Government, as the political leadership of this country, sends a message out to the people of New Zealand that diversity is a positive thing.

We made a commitment when we came into Government in 1999 that Parliament—the place that belongs to all New Zealanders—would be a place where we would celebrate that diversity. And for the seventh time we have celebrated Chinese New Year. Hundreds of people, from not just the Chinese community but also the much wider community, have come along to Parliament tonight to celebrate this festival that has been celebrated in China for 5,000 years and is now part of the fabric of New Zealand society—the culture of our country.

We also celebrate here at Parliament the festival of Diwali, which is very important for the Hindu community, and the festival of Eid, which is important for the Muslim community. That is about showing the rest of New Zealand that these festivals, which are traditionally part of Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Middle East, are now part of this ethnic mix in New Zealand, and that all New Zealanders should be respected, and that their cultural heritages—whatever they are—are now part of the heritage and culture of all New Zealanders. I am really proud to belong to a Government that utterly believes in celebrating our diversity and in affirming all New Zealanders.

One of the other jobs I have besides being Minister for Ethnic Affairs is Minister of Housing. The Prime Minister in her speech to the House 2 days ago stated that in housing we would be continuing our commitment to income-related and fair rents for State housing and it remains fundamental to the Labour Party’s philosophy: “This year will see big moves to upgrade the social housing stock, moves to increase the supply of affordable housing—including through the integrated development of Hobsonville, …”. We have also brought in a variety of different opportunities for New Zealanders to buy their own homes, such as the Welcome Home Loan scheme, which has twice been adjusted to allow New Zealanders who cannot raise a deposit, but could service a mortgage, to purchase their own home. The KiwiSaver also will be an opportunity for young couples and first home buyers to use their savings to purchase a home.

The Prime Minister has signalled that later we will be introducing a shared equity scheme, so that in those areas of very high cost for housing, such as Auckland, for example, people will be able to purchase a home with Government assistance. When that house is sold, the equity and increase in value will be shared between the Government and the purchaser.

Those policies contrast very strongly with the policies of the National Party. Dr Brash, as we know, was to the hard right. The spin from his media minders was that he was actually moved to the centre, but of course he was not. Now, of course, Mr Key has not presented us with any policies at all. He says “Yes” and smiles at everybody, but eventually he will have to front up. I was reading The Hollow Men over the Christmas period, as many MPs did—and I do hope that every single National MP has read it, because the only way to fix up and root out corruption like that is to actually address it and say that they will not do that any more.

I found it interesting that in The Hollow Men, Dr Brash was recorded as having given a speech to the Property Institute that promised industry-friendly policies. He said the institute represents people involved in the Property Institute, including professional landlords. Dr Brash told them that he supported reviewing the tenancy laws, which were too heavily weighed towards tenants at the expense of landlords. He said that National would renew its 1990s programme of selling off State houses to promote homeownership. Of course, the 13,000 houses that National sold mostly went to speculators; fewer than 3,000 went to tenants. The speech to the Property Institute finished with the question of a capital gains tax, and he said that New Zealand was unusual in the developed world for not having a capital gains tax. But he did affirm the policy of selling off State houses.

We, on the other hand, in the Labour Government are committed to fair, income-related rents and to not selling off State houses. When we came to power in 1999, the Housing New Zealand Corporation managed 59,312 properties. As of 31 January 2007, we now manage 66,183 properties. We also have community housing properties provided by the Housing New Zealand Corporation—for community groups, such as Women’s Refuge and so on—and they have increased from about 1,251 to 1,593. So we are addressing not just the needs of tenants but also those very important social areas of support for battered wives and community groups that are working on health promotion and so on. Income-related rents are expensive. They cost the taxpayer a billion dollars a year. But what they do is to provide support to the poorest people in our community.

One of the things that the Opposition loves to spin is that somehow we are not providing sufficient support for Māori, for example. Well, one-third of our tenants—one-third of the 66,000-plus tenants we have—are iwi, and another third are Pacific Island peoples. We have had so much talk about an underclass, but besides the whole area of the incredible support that has gone into education and into health by this Government, we also have this commitment of $2 billion going into housing—$1 billion is going into acquiring new stock and upgrading existing stock, and $1 billion is going into supporting income-related rents. That is really important.

Besides that very practical personal support for individuals and families, we are also renewing communities. We have six community renewal programmes going. I remember listening to a speech made last night by my colleague Lianne Dalziel, the MP for Christchurch East, who talked about the renewal programme taking place in Aranui. A very poor community in Christchurch has been transformed by this renewal programme. We have the same thing happening in Talbot Park in Glen Innes, in Clendon in Auckland, and on the North Shore in Northcote. We also have work going on in Rotorua and in Porirua.

That work is about transforming communities. It is not just about renovating, repairing, and building new State houses; it is also about working at the grassroots, building strong communities, working with agencies like the health and social development ministries and so on to absolutely revitalise those communities. I know, Madam Assistant Speaker, that you came with me to visit the Northcote project, and I am sure that you were as impressed as I was with what we saw going on there. Living healthily in housing is really important. From January 2001 to 31 January 2007, the Healthy Housing programme in State houses has completed over 7,000 interventions at a cost of $80 million, so as to make those houses better and healthier places to live in.

Energy efficiency is very important. We have heard the Opposition using slogans—of course, we have yet to see some policies. Those members talk a lot about energy, but I have to say that we have had 13,000 conversions to make State houses energy efficient. We are continuing to do over 2,000 retrofits a year.

Working with local government is very important. I see in the Chamber tonight a number of people who have been involved in local government before they became central government politicians. Lots of councils around New Zealand own, particularly, pensioner housing. I see the member for the Levin area—the member for Otaki—is here. He has been to see me recently, advocating for support for his council to renovate the pensioner housing there, and I think that we have given over $5 million to that council. The council matches us, dollar for dollar, and that old housing stock is renovated. That has been happening all over New Zealand and is very important.

I talked earlier about the Welcome Home Loans. We also have a homeownership education programme going around the country, whereby people come in and they find out whether they can afford to have mortgage repayments, the best way to get a loan, and the safest way to service it. That is a completely free programme; that is really important about education.

Those are some of the things that are happening. Perhaps the most exciting project of all is in the Tāmaki area—between Glen Innes and Panmure; where I grew up—in the eastern suburbs of Auckland. The Housing New Zealand Corporation owns over 60 percent of the housing stock in the area. We are planning to completely revitalise that suburb. There will be new State housing put in, there will be private housing inserted amongst it, and that entire community will be transformed. If we are successful, that will be an amazing project—great for the Labour Government, a Government that is about delivering.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): In last year’s Prime Minister’s statement the catchcry was “economic transformation”. This year the catchcry—or slogan, if that is what we want to call it—is “sustainability”. I do not really know what that means, but I do know that the performance of this Government over the last 12 months and in the first 2 days of this sitting year is such that the Government will not be sustainable, or sustained. In fact, the Government is terminal.

I want to look first at some of the issues pertaining to economic transformation. In 2000 the Government said it wanted to have New Zealand back in the top half of the OECD. That was its aim for growth; that is what it was looking to do. Well, the latest OECD data confirms that New Zealand is nowhere near the top of the OECD. In fact, it has slipped from the No. 20 spot to No. 21. We are not in the top half; we are in the bottom third. We are not moving up; we are moving backwards. That is what is happening. So the Government can use rhetoric about how well things are going, but when it comes down to growth and productivity, and when we are compared with overseas countries—our competitors; those we have to compete with on the international stage—New Zealand is, in fact, going down.

The OECD assessed our purchasing power, the parity value of New Zealand’s real GDP per capita, to be US$25,300 in 2005. It assessed Spain at US$27,300, and Greece—slightly below us—at US$23,200. Finland occupied the mid-ranked position of 15th at US$31,400. And where was our closest neighbour in all of this? The country with which we do most of our trade—and this is the reason so many New Zealanders are moving offshore to live in Australia—was ranked 11th. Where was New Zealand ranked? We were ranked at No. 20 and we are now at No. 21.

In the Prime Minister’s speech she talked about a tax on waste. This Government has considered many taxes in the last 12 months. Do members remember the carbon tax? Do they remember the “fart tax”? The Government had to drop those. What about the deforestation tax that was discussed in question time today—the $13,000 a hectare that landowners will have to pay in tax if they move out of forestry?

The Government has the homeownership tax now. I want to make it very clear to colleagues and Government members that, although the Minister of Finance has said that this tax will not proceed, the genesis of this tax, the thought and the media comment on it—that it should actually be considered—is very, very dangerous.

New Zealanders aspire to homeownership. This tax would add about $200 per month to the cost of a homeowner’s fixed-interest rate mortgage. It has been estimated that the tax would affect about 85 percent of those who have home mortgages. In fact, 1.2 million people would be affected by this mortgage levy scheme. We aspire to homeownership; New Zealanders pride themselves on their quarter-acre paradise with a house—that is what they strive for.

In a business context the tax has ramifications that members over there would not know about. Many small-business people use the equity in their homes to secure a business loan. They do not necessarily have equity in their businesses, and, in fact, banks do not like to lend on plant, equipment, and goods. Banks like to have something more secure than that—they want land and buildings; they want a mortgage. They may well take a debenture over stock and plant, but they look for something more substantive, such as land and buildings. Small-business owners would be looking to achieve that security for working capital purposes—to be able to have the cash flow they need in their businesses. That is why homeownership is so important to small businesses.

Yet what is this Government intending to do? Well, it even thought of a mortgage levy of $202 per month, which would put absolutely huge compliance costs on small businesses or homeowners, compliance costs that would be very, very difficult to sustain. The increase for someone with a fixed-rate mortgage of $150,000 has been estimated to be $202 per month. We are very concerned about that, and although the Government today has said that it will not do the scheme, that it will backtrack—the Prime Minister said that the scheme was “dead in the water”—the very fact that it was actually debated, that it had a genesis in the paper, and that people have talked about it shows how ill-informed this Government is in trying to move New Zealanders forward in their growth and prosperity.

Another point that my colleague Bob Clarkson is really concerned about is, of course, the cost of housing. If we look in today’s New Zealand Herald, we see the headline: “City house costs 85pc above Australia: study”.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, that’s complete rubbish. You silly little man.

LINDSAY TISCH: Well, I did not write this. This was written by a New Zealand Herald reporter. And who is the person—

Hon David Carter: That’s what they do. They attack the media all the time.

LINDSAY TISCH: They are attacking the media. Just as they attack the media over comments in relation to the friction between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, now they want to go out and attack the media over making these sorts of statements. This Government is terminal; it is not sustainable—it is actually terminal.

When we look at this article I have here we see that a former Labour MP is saying: “The proportion of families able to realise the classic New Zealand dream of home ownership is dropping dramatically.” Who said that? Richard Northey. He was a Labour member, and he comes up with some reasons that the Government needs to look at. If the Government were to levy fixed rate mortgages, I can tell members that it would get extremely difficult for those people who aspire to homeownership, and even for those who already have homes. We are already seeing in some areas that as the market starts to deflate, and as we start to see mortgagee sales, the equity in many places is reduced substantially.

Some of these members probably do not even realise what happened in the mid-1980s. The Government of that time, which was a Labour Government, introduced a scheme called the mortgage discounting scheme. I happened to be a farm appraiser for the Rural Bank at the time, and we were valuing properties and giving farmers in the Waikato money to actually walk off their farms. That is the sort of problem that could be associated with this tax if the Government were to go ahead with the sort of nonsense being advocated now.

I move to the Small Business Advisory Group, a group that was set up under Minister Tamihere and that has continued. In its last report to the Government its rating of the Government’s performance was 5.8 percent. All those members on that committee have now been replaced; there is a new group of 12 members. What is most disturbing is that the group had previously, up until now, been apolitical. The people there had been representatives of their industries and trades. But now, with the naming of the new members, we see that a Council of Trade Unions representative has been appointed as a special adviser to the group. We say that that is wrong. If a trade union representative can be appointed, why is there not a member from the Employers and Manufacturers Association, or the Chamber of Commerce, or Business New Zealand? The success of an advisory group must lie in those people having their independence; the group must be robust and transparent.

We are seeing now that the Government moved because it did not like some of the recommendations that were made by the Small Business Advisory Group. It got a rating of only 5.8 percent. This Government has not helped business. This Government’s policy for growth and prosperity has not achieved anything. We will be watching very closely at Budget time, because the Prime Minister’s statement has done absolutely nothing to instil confidence in the business sector. The Government is adding increased costs in compliance for all concerned.

SHANE JONES (Labour): In contrast to what we have just heard, lucidity will now follow. Firstly, let me acknowledge the sterling contribution and the tauira, as we say in Māori, that Georgina Beyer has made in the period of time she has graced this House. The speech she gave earlier today was very gracious and, much to her credit, she was able to identify the people from the Wairarapa and various other areas who have helped her. She identified people from different minority groups, and that I think speaks volumes about the role she sought to play and the example she sought to set in enriching the qualities of this House. Of course it could be done only through our party.

The Prime Minister’s speech has been the subject of considerable envy, ill-conceived remarks, and petty politicking from the other side, which is inevitable given that her speech focused on strategy and content. Despite the fact that the Opposition caucus dashed off to Poverty Bay, impoverishing their minds no doubt with idle talk, surfing, inflicting themselves upon the local businesses, etc., wanting wine that they were not prepared to pay for, and all those sorts of antics, they have come back with a problem that reminds me of two Balkan States forced to work together. But there is no United Nations that can exercise governance or leadership between the brooding, angry, sullen, and deeply morose Mr English, and the somewhat amiable, winsome Mr Key who is wandering around, trying to spread goodwill around the country in the form of a little girl called Aroha.

The Ngāpuhi kaumātua said to Mr Key, when he came to Waitangi: “When you come here we know that you follow the footsteps of Don Brash, and although your language may have changed your intent is no different.” In the days of our ancestors they had Pākehā pets—missionaries, gunsmiths—and all the chiefs had their various supporters in the fledgling Pākehā community. The kaumātua said to John Key: “You come to us bearing ill will towards the Treaty and you do us a great disservice by bringing with you one of our mokopuna as if she is a Māori pet.” That was a very low point. Although I am not always in agreement with my whanaunga Hone Harawira, I thought that his comment was very apposite. People like John Key are very quick not to want to embroil their own children in politics, so do not take one of our mokopuna into the front line of some of the most hectic, frenzied, and angry demonstrations of race relations politics in Aotearoa.

However, on with matters of the Prime Minister’s speech. We do not propose to take a single blind bit of notice of what is said on the other side by Nick Smith and others about climate change and environmental policy. There is not a single instance, since the 1980s, where a bold, cogent, and courageous statement or initiative has been delivered upon by that party in relation to the environment. The most wide-ranging, decisive changes to our planning laws were not the work of Simon Upton, although he fiddled with them and weakened them. That environment legislation, which was put forward in an attempt to advance the notion of sustainability in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was the work of Geoffrey Palmer. Therefore, we cannot grant Opposition speakers one shred of credibility because there is no evidence that they have either ideas they can deliver on, or examples or initiatives that their constituency will embrace.

Let us focus on some of the important things that were done last year. Within 1 year of the Prime Minister identifying telecommunications as a key area requiring reform, the deal was done. Within 1 year, a problem that has afflicted us for many generations was dealt to successfully in the form of the KiwiSaver scheme. Not a single feature in the rhetoric from the other side of the House explained how those members would deal with these problems, other than some lame excuse that in the unlikely event—and I do stress unlikely—they should ever grace this side of the House they will contemplate maintaining our policies.

We have just heard a lot of twaddle from the previous speaker in relation to housing, but members opposite overlook the fact that not only does our policy enable savers to develop a deposit and contribute towards a new house, but also that two elements comprise the Budget Policy Statement that will have a very positive impact on housing. First is the capital acquisition of valuable land in west Auckland, and second is an overdue and very thoughtful review that is being carried out in relation to the accommodation supplement. Those are the practical things that this side of the House is engaged in. So members will excuse us if we continue to focus on the real game on that side, which is the Balkanisation of their leadership in the absence of any content or any ideas that will stir the imagination of the community.

Let us talk about our investment in skills in the workforce. One thing that really puzzles me is how members on the other side of the House continue to talk about our people going to Australia. Yet, other than shrinking the State, slashing taxes, and shrinking the size of social expenditure, we hear no actual strategy in relation to investing in our people, other than that if we reduce wages we will bring more people into the workforce. But it is the low level of wages, which they constantly talk about, that is driving our people over to Australia. We have considerably larger numbers of Modern Apprentices and they are very important to the people to whom I belong, our Tai Tokerau iwi. It was in the 1990s that the apprenticeship scheme, the whole development strategy of human capital, was smashed, and not a single member is prepared to—

Steve Chadwick: Who by?

SHANE JONES: Obviously by the party on that side of the House. Those greying, dimmed minds might have largely gone but the content of their thinking lives on in younger minds that are not discriminating—younger minds that are not confident to move completely away from those failed policies because they know that the forces the book The Hollow Men talks about will still drive their key thinking.

The issues of apprenticeships, etc. are very important in relation to the development of the Tai Tokerau iwi. In contrast to this type of thinking, Māori Party members—and they must not escape my attention—come to this House, never saying a charitable word about their own people who are engaged in the Treaty settlement process, and never able to stand up and offer a credible alternative. In fact, they either say nothing, sit on the fence, or say very destructive things about the kaumātua who are advancing the settlement of the claims, such as the leaders of the Arawa tribe in relation to the lakes settlement.

The first thing I saw when I came back earlier this year and opened the Dominion Post was that one of the worst critics, who attacks his own kaumātua and undermines the integrity of their leadership in the media, Mr Te Ururoa Flavell, had put up his hand to run the very trust that had been formed to organise, coordinate, and generate profit from the Arawa lakes. I am not entirely sure how one would describe that without falling foul of the rules of Parliament, but I say to Māori Party members: “Don’t come to this House without the courage to support people who are making difficult decisions. Then after they have been made, and you have sought to belittle them in this House, don’t run home, put your name in for election, and want to run it, after the good work that your kaumātua have done, obviously with our side, the Government.” I shall say more about that at a later date.

We are looking forward to the debate and advancing the elements that comprised the Prime Minister’s speech, especially in the area of environmental planning and environmental initiatives. We are surfing a wave there and we are setting an agenda. We know that to make progress in politics one must set an agenda. There is no agenda coming from members opposite, other than negativity and belittling comments that are an attempt to obfuscate the Balkanisation of their own leadership. Kia ora tātou.

KATE WILKINSON (National): The start of any new year is the time to set out priorities for the year ahead and to set the standards. Although we may be disappointed in the rhetoric and slogan-filled Prime Minister’s statement, it is also disappointing to hear the solemn and sincere undertakings of Government speakers to “put aside personal attacks and sleaze”, because those undertakings were either totally ignored or were made after the personal attacks had already occurred.

It is such a waste of precious speaking time to debate personalities when there are so many issues that really do require debate. Even the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues wasted his time with a personal tirade against a former National member, because he could do so within the Standing Orders. For goodness’ sake, climate change is his baby. It is his area of responsibility and I thought he would have had the good judgment to use his speaking time wisely.

We have heard repeatedly the word “sustainable”. We have heard it on countless occasions. When we look at the dictionary definition of “sustain”—to keep from falling, sinking, or failing—then we can understand why it is uppermost on the minds of Government members. Having said that, if we try to look at any semblance of substance in the Prime Minister’s statement, we can only be disappointed. How can anyone expect us to believe that crime rates are lower when violent crime has trended upwards since this Government came to power. Since 1999 violent crime has risen by 26 percent, up from about 40,000 offences to over 50,000 offences. Grievous assaults are up 54 percent—

Darren Hughes: Stand up straight!

KATE WILKINSON: I will. Serious assaults are up 30 percent. In fact, it looks a bit like the UK Labour spin, where it states that except in areas where crime is increasing, it is actually decreasing. In the past year alone we have had violent crime up 10.2 percent. We have had grievous assaults up 19 percent—and this is only in 12 months—homicides up 31 percent, kidnapping and abduction up 46 percent, intimidation and threats up 14 percent, robberies up 20 percent, and serious assaults up 13 percent. Yet this Government has the gall to try to tell us the evidence is that the crime rates are lower.

We then have some specious promises made about parole, greater truth in sentencing, and greater consistency in sentencing. This is hard on the heels of the Burton tragedy. The Minister needs to tidy up his Department of Corrections. He needs to accept some responsibility and he needs to accept some accountability and not just say there is always room for improvement. Talk about empty slogans! Firstly, there was the Liam Ashley tragedy, which was avoidable with proper procedures. Secondly, there was the Graeme Burton tragedy, which was avoidable with proper procedures. For the trifecta, not far away was the Whakaruru case. Do members remember James Whakaruru, the 5-year-old who was tragically and violently murdered in 1999 under the watch of this Government? The murderer was sentenced to 12 years non-parole and he is now up for parole in February—7 years later. Notwithstanding the sentence was 12 years non-parole, he is now up for parole. The family is still grieving.

Where is the greater consistency in sentencing? Where is the justice in that? Where is the truth in sentencing so lauded by this Government? I request this Minister, for goodness’ sake, to put in place proper procedures so that we do not have a third avoidable tragedy in the space of as many months.

The Prime Minister says: “it can be argued that the police should have the power to make an application for recall”. I say to the Prime Minister that this is a wishy-washy statement saying absolutely nothing. It does not say that she will ensure the police will have the power to recall. It does not deal with the parole application itself. This is the stable door after the horse has bolted, and then it is only arguable that the horse has bolted and it is only arguable that the horse should—even if it could—be returned to its stable. I have to say that this is not a comforting thought for the safety of our community and for the safety of our poor victims.

This Government has the gall to state that it wants substance and not slogans. Talking about slogans, what exactly is “economic transformation”? Transformation, of course, can be transforming something bad into something good. Then again, it can be transforming something good into something bad. I suspect it is more of the latter than the former. When a Government inherits the best of economic times it runs the risk of transforming it into the worst of economic times.

Employing more people—some 30,000 to 40,000 in the public sector—may look good in terms of the employment figures—[Interruption]—it is disgraceful, but what does it do to enhance our productivity? The briefing to the Minister of Labour cautioned at the time: “much of New Zealand’s economic growth of the past decade has been fuelled by more people entering work”. Unfortunately, many of those have been employed in the public sector, doing nothing in terms of our productivity.

Much has been said about our employment figures, but not one mention has been made of the caution in that briefing that “our labour productivity is low by OECD standards and that lifting labour productivity is the central challenge for generating long-term sustainable economic growth”. That does not mean increasing the Government’s already bloated bureaucracy. Just as one isolated example, the Legal Services Agency is about to increase its staff by 40 percent. What exactly does that agency do for our economy?

I have to ask what is this Government’s vision and plan to lift our productivity, because we have not seen it. There is not one single policy, one single idea that this Government has to lift productivity in our workplace. Instead, this Government fabricates what it thinks will be the employment policy of the National Party. I ask the Government to think again, because it may very well be very wrong.

It is worrying and saddening that the range of this Government’s vision is focused solely on retaining and regaining power at any cost. Look at its response to National’s “food in schools” initiative. Some children do go to school hungry, yet this Government first said no, there was no growing underclass. Then it said that if some kids go hungry, the figure is only 15,000. Then it escalated to over 82,000. Then the Government said that if there was a problem, it was caused by National policies—I might add, over a decade ago—and if there was still a problem, the Government has policies that have addressed that problem. But it could not name them. I say the Government should get over any so-called policies of the 1990s. It is time to take responsibility.

How can we expect parents and others to take responsibility when this Government does not? What was the slogan kindly donated by Labour? It called our initiative “Tory charity”. What was the substance kindly provided by National? It was business partnerships actually providing sustenance—the food—for kids. We can all say yes, the parents should show some responsibility. We can hide our heads in the sand, but, at the end of the day, it is our children who are going hungry and our children who are being deprived of a better education because of that hunger.

Labour states with some pomp that New Zealand is doing so well, thanks to Labour, and all the negatives are blamed on Ruth Richardson. How many decades ago was that? I ask the Government to take responsibility. Certainly, it can enjoy the accolades if they are deserved. All the negatives in New Zealand are not the fault of the National Party. I say: “Get over it.” All the positives in New Zealand are not the result of Labour, either. Seven years is long enough to have done something in Government. I ask them, for goodness’ sake, to recognise fiction as fiction. Seeds of Distrust was dusted aside as pure fiction. I ask them to recognise fiction writers as fiction writers rather than to make selective, cynical judgments for political opportunity and political point-scoring. How about doing what is good for New Zealand and New Zealanders and not what is good for Helen Clark and her autobiographer?

We can look back on the Government’s so-called vision over the years and see the buzzwords. In 2001 it was the road back to modernisation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member’s time has expired.

KATE WILKINSON: Well, we detoured off that track.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member’s time has expired.

KATE WILKINSON: In 2002 it was growth and innovation. In 2004 it was innovation again. In 2005 it was investment. Now it is economic transformation and sustainability. We need more—

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since the House resumed at 7.30, I have noticed that all National Party speakers have spoken considerably over their time, including after they have noticed that you have said their time has expired. It is incumbent on the whips to make sure that members finish when the presiding officer says, unless it is a deliberate strategy to undermine the presiding officer.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I warn the member that she certainly went on for far too long after I had called time. Usually there is a bit of latitude, but I tell the member to be careful, please. I next call Doug Woolerton. This is a 5-minute speech.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I do not want to be dismal and I do not want to make jokes about these sorts of things, but I can anticipate that tomorrow’s newspapers will report suicides in unprecedented numbers, mainly among the Exclusive Brethren community, after that speech. If I were a member of the Exclusive Brethren, I would hate to think I paid all that money for such a dismal outcome.

However, I am very proud to say that New Zealand First is looking forward to 2007. New Zealand First is looking forward to having another of its policies in the supply and confidence agreement fulfilled, which is to make 2007 Export Year. We in New Zealand First have always placed a heavy emphasis on exports because, as every decent bookkeeper knows, it is the balance of payments that makes the difference. If we are importing more than we are exporting, we will end up with a deficit. That is precisely what Dr Cullen is facing at the present time—a predicted deficit in the region of $15 billion.

He knows, we know, and everybody should know that we cannot go on like that. I am pleased to see, and New Zealand First is delighted to see, that Dr Cullen has said in the last couple of weeks that he is prepared to get his hands a little bit dirty and to look at some sort of incentive or favourable treatment—I think those were his words—towards exporters. We know that almost every other country in the world—and certainly it occurs even between states in Australia—gets into the business of competing for exports. We know that the Australian Government is into the business of incentivising its systems in order to show people, in a transparent manner, what it wants them to do.

If it is exports, one should put one’s money where one’s mouth is, stump up the dollars, and say, in the most positive manner, what one wants. We are pleased to see that this is starting to happen in New Zealand. How Dr Cullen will slow consumer spending at the same time as he is doing that is a challenge I am happy to leave to him, but I am pleased to see that he is acknowledging the problem and intends to do something about it. The high dollar, over a number of years, has taken away many of the benefits that are due to and should be being received by our farmers, in particular, and our exporters, in general.

It does make a difference when the money is received first by the productive sector and then flows on through to the consumptive sector of our society. When it flows through in that way, inflation is less likely to happen.

It is sad to say that while the economy and our productive sector—namely, I am talking about dairy farmers, who supply 25 percent of our exports—are coming to grips with that, they are also having to come to grips with the capital structure of the biggest dairy company in New Zealand, Fonterra. I am concerned, and I urge our farmers to be very, very careful. I hear talk—and it is not just talk—that one of the options is to list a part of Fonterra on the stock exchange. I am here tonight to tell people, to tell farmers, to be careful of that. I believe that if that is done—

Shane Jones: You need to tell John Key that.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I know. If that path is followed, we will lose Fonterra to the likes of Graeme Hart and we will lose the capacity that that provides for our exporting. We do not want to see that happen.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I am delighted to take a call in this debate. New Zealand First is looking forward to 2007. My leader said yesterday that we are looking forward to it with enthusiasm and humour—a good combination.

I must say that I have listened with interest to many of the speeches tonight and yesterday. I have been totally amazed that those people sitting on the Opposition side of this House now want the Government—any Government, I might say—to be responsible for more and more, and, in fact, almost to become a de facto parent. This ranges from ensuring that children go to school having had breakfast—only my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly has even mentioned lunches—to ensuring that greater numbers of students are held in the school environment to achieve a higher level of education, and leave only when they have a qualification. We know that thousands leave without qualifications, but, really, if some of these measures were put in place, then the Government would be accused of interfering far too much in our families and their lives. We acknowledge that we need to engage teenagers in education that is meaningful and relevant to their future, and that is one of the challenges that any Government faces.

We know that these are complex problems and that the solutions are complex. They require far more than just money. The problems have been here for quite some time, and we cannot afford to ignore them or just use slogans as the solution.

In 2006 New Zealand First put a large number of policy initiatives in place—initiatives that will make a positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders in 2007 and beyond. Those initiatives needed the goodwill of the Government, and those with goodwill can work together for the greater good of all New Zealanders. We want to make a positive difference, and we will continue to do so through 2007 and 2008.

I will focus on two initiatives that have been put in place that are of particular interest to senior citizens and the veterans of New Zealand, and that this group will benefit from. We know that many in this group face many challenges to try to make their pensions spread that little bit further. As we indicated in the debates on the legislation that is going through this House, the SuperGold card will be available from August 2007 for over half a million seniors. That is a promise New Zealand First delivered on as a result of its confidence and supply agreement with the Government. The SuperGold card will automatically be sent to people if they receive New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pensions. New Zealand First is looking forward to this SuperGold card becoming a reality. The Australian experience shows that the discounts steadily build up, as businesses recognise the value of the card that they operate. The same thing can happen here in New Zealand, and no doubt will.

The second area where senior citizens will benefit is in the increase in superannuation they will receive this year. Grey Power has informed us that, according to its calculations, this year, 2007, as a result of our confidence and supply agreement, married couples receiving New Zealand superannuation will be nearly $6.50 a week better off because of New Zealand First’s insistence that the minimum rate be set at 66 percent of the net average wage. This means that the amount they receive will be more than just the inflation adjustment they would receive anyway. It means that this year they will finally be able to get ahead of the eight ball, even if only slightly.

To some of us in this House, an extra $6.50 a week is only small change. To people on superannuation it is the difference between a good meal and being able to pay their power bill, particularly over the winter months. When this is added to the SuperGold card, it is a meaningful development for our seniors. New Zealand First would have liked to see the rate even higher than at 66 percent of the net average wage, but for now we are pleased to be making a difference, to be making people’s lives better, and to be keeping our policy promises. The bottom line is that we are all here in Parliament to try to make New Zealand a better place in which to live.

DIANNE YATES (Labour): I wish to thank Doug Woolerton and, being a Waikato MP, to reiterate his comments on the dairy industry. Mr Woolerton can take heart that the comments of Henry van der Heyden, the chairperson of Fonterra, in the latest Dairy Exporter, confirm what he has just said in relation to the dairy industry and his reaffirmation of the cooperative nature of that farming industry.

I also thank the other New Zealand First members for their comments on the golden age card. I do not know whether it is just the chattering classes, but from listening to talkback radio I know that many older people are very grateful for the SuperGold card, but they are also very anxious. The rumour is out there that National’s policy is to increase the age of retirement to 68 years and many people are panicking about that. Many, many older people are very afraid that a National Government would increase the retirement age to 68, so there is even more incentive for them to vote Labour.

R Doug Woolerton: Or higher.

DIANNE YATES: Yes! Seventy years was another suggestion that was made.

I attended the funeral of our colleague Helen Duncan last Saturday. I pay tribute to Helen Duncan and value her work as a member of Parliament—the work she did in this House, the work she did in select committees, and the work she has done that has benefited this country. I pay tribute to the work she did for teachers through the New Zealand Educational Institute, and the resultant effect of that on the lives of many children in this country. Helen Duncan was a person who worked extremely hard on pay parity for teachers. She epitomised good Kiwi values—the values of fairness, of justice, of equal opportunity, and of access to what New Zealand has to offer, and in particular of the collectivity of people through the union movement. For Helen Duncan “we” always came before “me”, which is something I think we sometimes forget in New Zealand.

I also pay tribute to someone else who was often seen in the corridors of this Parliament, and that is John Head. Those members who have been involved, as I have been, on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, will know that John Head was the voice of “CALM”—the Campaign Against Landmines. John was constantly lobbying. In fact, there was a function in this Parliament just before Christmas organised by the Campaign Against Landmines. Not only did John represent the Campaign Against Landmines, and constantly lobby for peace and against landmines, but the New Zealand Defence Force must also be thanked, particularly our Army, for the work that has been done by New Zealanders. We can be particularly proud of our armed forces in our landmine work throughout the world, particularly in Cambodia and, as we are now seeing, in Lebanon. So I give thanks for the life of John Head and the contribution he has made to New Zealand, and for the contribution New Zealand has made to the world.

We have heard the themes of the Prime Minister’s statement in our first sitting of Parliament this year. They were the theme of a sustainable economy—what is wrong with that; the theme of sustainable families and communities—what is wrong with that; and the theme of a sustainable, unique culture and national identity—what is wrong with that? They are three very important and valuable themes. I do not mind people looking up the Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of the word “sustainability” because it means that we want this world to continue to grow and to be sustainable. The Prime Minister has outlined eco-strategies and energy efficiency strategies. She talked about biofuels, the reduction of greenhouse gases, our going towards a carbon neutral public sector, the VIP fleet, and suggestions of what we in our households can do.

It is always important for people to think globally and act locally. I thank the Hon David Parker, who, when he was asked what ordinary people could do, said they could change their light bulbs. That is very important. The average person can get out there tomorrow and change his or her light bulbs, and we have been working on that. People can look at their hot-water systems. Those are very, very practical things. People can take the bus. In Hamilton we have a new bus service that goes around the city. Many people are now saying that the bus service is so good they can leave their cars at home and take the bus. A lot of people cannot cycle as that is not always available, but Kiwis are implementing those things.

Some of our caucus members visited Thames last week, where we saw one of many recycling efforts throughout the country. These people in Thames are going through all the rubbish taken to the local rubbish dump and taking out anything of value. They have set up a little shop, they are selling that waste, and they are making a profit out of it. So it is recycling waste, looking for things that are valuable that other people could reuse, and making a business out of it.

One other thing about the sustainable economy is the value of KiwiSaver to the country as a whole, to individuals in their savings, and also to families. It will enable many families to purchase their own homes and assist them into those homes.

When we talk about sustainable families I also want to talk about health. On the one hand we have people screaming about the fact that New Zealanders are not eating, then on the other hand we have the problem of obesity. It is not always that people are not eating; some of the problem is what they are eating. I want to talk about Project Energize, which is a programme in the schools of the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. Once again, some of us visited Miller Avenue School and the principal there thanked us very much for the Fruit in Schools programmes. She pointed out that not only were children being educated in what was good food but also many children were now actually eating the good lunch they brought to school from home. Children had often been in the habit, as children will be, of putting their lunch in the rubbish tin then wanting to buy junk food. The principal said that those children were now eating their healthy food. The education programme is encouraging children to be healthy, which is having an effect on their families.

I want to talk about the millions and millions of dollars this Government is putting into the health system. Not only is it into improving access through primary health organisations but it is into building. There is building going on at Wellington Hospital. I have recently been in Tauranga where a whole new block is being built—with, I might say, solar heating. There is also a whole new block in Thames. Thames and some other places have had very run-down facilities, and the new facilities are not only more modern and will attract better staff but are also better for patients. The facilities are much, much better, as a result of the spending of millions of dollars to improve New Zealand’s health system. The Working for Families programme is also kicking in, with more families coming on board.

One other thing I want to talk about is Kiwibank and all those who were involved in setting it up. We thank Jim Anderton, Jim Bolger, and everybody who has been involved with Kiwibank. A grandmother said to me: “Do you know—my son and daughter-in-law have a loan and through Kiwibank they are saving at least $60 a month that they would not get from other banks?”. She said: “For goodness’ sake, I don’t want that John Key anywhere near Kiwibank.” He has said that he would not get rid of it in his first term. Well, let us make sure that he does not get a first term. This grandmother was absolutely dead-scared that Kiwibank, under National policy, would disappear. There is no way that the people of New Zealand want that, especially those with young families who are moving into their first homes. I thank that grandmother for pointing that out to us.

When we come to national identity, as I have said, we can be proud of New Zealand—proud of our armed forces and our landmine programme. We can be proud of our sportspeople. We can be proud of our arts people, particularly our film people. We can be proud of our influence in the Pacific, and I am very, very proud to be a New Zealander. I think all of us here talk a lot about Kiwi values and what Kiwi values mean. Somebody said to me that Kiwi values are Labour values, and I can say that that is truly the case. I am proud to be a mainstream Kiwi like every other Kiwi, whether he or she has been here for only a few weeks or for much longer. Mr Simich is saying that, as well; he is proud to be a Kiwi, too.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): If those who are listening on the radio think we are a little uncertain about what is going on in Parliament, we are actually debating the Prime Minister’s statement, which sets out some aspirations and plans of the governing party in Parliament at the start of each year. Yesterday we had an hour dedicated to the Prime Minister to deliver the Prime Minister’s statement. Tonight I will focus on two elements of this speech: what will be commissioned, and what is being omitted. So it will be a speech of commission and omission.

I found the general trend of this speech quite interesting. About halfway down the first page we have the statement of the Prime Minister: “Meeting the challenges that our country faces in the 21st century requires substance, not slogans.” After that we find the word “sustainable” or “sustained” mentioned more than 30 times. So she has already lapsed into using a slogan. In fact, this speech is imbued with the slogan “sustainability”. There is perhaps nothing wrong with that, but we need to look at the credibility of that from two points. Has the Prime Minister used slogans before? Yes she has, and several of our members have talked about that. Mr Tisch highlighted the economic transformation slogan that was there before, and the slogan that we will be in the top half of the OECD. And has the Government delivered? The answer is no, it has not, so we need to give some scrutiny to the elements of commission that are in this speech.

Sustainability is the theme, as I have said. One of the things that we really need to look at at the start of this sustainability thing is the slogan about being carbon neutral. Is it doable? Well, yes, it is with a level of pauperism that is not acceptable to New Zealand. This speech does not lay out a blueprint of how or when we will be carbon neutral. Yes, there are some quite good suggestions about things that need to be done on the way, but carbon neutral is an extraordinary aspiration. It actually means that we have to delete from our use, or stop using, 100 percent of the carbon and greenhouse gases that we are now using, or sequester them into some form that is durable. That is what it actually means.

Since we have been talking about doing our thing as a nation under the Kyoto Protocol we have actually got worse. We are supposed to be going back to 1990 levels, but we have actually slipped further and further out. My interpretation of carbon neutral—and any member following from the Government side can correct me—would say that it is not at 1990 levels that we will be carbon neutral, but that is where we have slipped to here. So we need to look at how that is going to be done.

Other members have spoken about how we are now deforesting for a whole lot of reasons, mostly through mismanagement. Punitive fines have been threatened against people who do not replant their forests, and forests are now coming down before that impacts. I guess, to be fair, we have some alternate land uses that are more attractive. Essentially we are not getting the returns from our forests that make them viable. The Government thinks that it can prop up afforestation by threatening punitive measures when it actually needs to make forestry viable.

In my patch we have had one reasonably significant wood processing plant, Bright Wood Sawmill, indicate that it is leaving the market because it can no longer compete. Why can it not compete? Well, when we look at how many new wood processing facilities have been established in New Zealand during the time of this Labour Government the answer is negative. There are not really any. They have not been established for two reasons, essentially. Firstly, they cannot actually get a contract for power supply that will allow them to establish. Secondly, there is the cost of the Resource Management Act in getting the consents to go through.

So we ask: is this a global phenomenon? Across the Tasman—and the Labour people do not like us talking about how well Australia is doing compared with here—in that same period 18 significant wood processing facilities have been established. So what we have is a problem of our own making, and that is one of the omission things. If forestry is going to be a fundamental element of sequestration, then we need to do some serious things, and there is not one word in this prime ministerial statement about how we make forestry viable if we are going to get anywhere near our goal of 100 percent neutrality. So that is an issue.

We noted in the speech from the Prime Minister that 30,000 hectares of trees will be planted up the East Coast. Is that a good start? Well, it is a start, but the Government’s own farm, Landcorp Farming, is clearing or buying from the Kaingaroa - central North Island area 35,000 hectares of established forest and putting it into dairying, which, if we believe the information about land use, is one of the worst things for greenhouse gases. So here is the Government saying that it will be carbon neutral and is planting 30,000 hectares in the East Coast—which is not a drop in the bucket if we are going to be carbon neutral—while its own farm operation, Landcorp Farming, is actively destroying forests. I say that that is seriously not credible. So there is an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of the sustainability of the forest industry if, in fact, we are going to be sustainable at all in even making some inroads—not talking about being carbon neutral, but holding up our hand and at least matching what is happening internationally.

Land use is going to be one of the keys to actually solving the problem of greenhouse gases. As I said, there is a bit of information circulating out there now that dairying is probably the least preferable option in terms of creating greenhouse gases. Yet the other alternatives are not really viable. If this was a speech about the future, about where this Government wants to go and reach its ideals—let us just assume something far less than carbon neutral, but just something that we can believe in—then there needed to be some things about the viability and sustainability of our export sector.

I mentioned dairying as one of the least preferable uses. In Southland I was told on Monday there are 28 conversions to dairying in Southland.

John Carter: Where?

ERIC ROY: In Southland. Why is that? It is simply because alternative land uses are not viable any more. They are not viable for reasons that can be sheeted home to this Government. Take the meat processing industry—predominantly sheep and beef farms. This Government brought in legislation such as the Holidays Act. It may have been a great idea, but the impact of that is $1.50 a lamb. Then there is the increase in interest rates that has a double whammy effect. There is about 114 days on average between when a lamb is purchased on a farm, processed, then sold. The impact of that interest on a lamb—every percentage point that that interest rate goes up—is $1 a lamb. So there is another $3 or so coming off the lamb. Then the impact on the exchange rate is probably another $5 or $6 a lamb. There is $10 or $12 that has come off the price of a lamb—

John Carter: Then your profit goes.

ERIC ROY: Well, what profit? There is no profit. In the last 10 weeks we have seen over $20 come off the price of a lamb. I do not have time to develop this particular argument much more but, quite simply, if this Prime Minister and this Government were serious about sustainability—not just words, placebos, or slogans, which they promised they would not do—there would be some active pursuit of making our export industry viable, because the alternative fuels that we have to look at, in terms of cost of research, are more expensive. So we need a more viable economy if we are going to be sustainable. There is not one word about making this nation more viable economically in the Prime Minister’s statement.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): I rise to support what the Prime Minister said yesterday, and in doing so I will concentrate on the topic of sustainability. This is a topic that is very close to my heart. For many, many years I have been teaching about issues of sustainability, particularly to do with agriculture and most particularly to do with land use: cropping, soil, and machinery, if one likes—and I can see my ex-student Nathan Guy grinning about it.

First of all, let me say what we are talking about in relation to sustainability. Sustainability is an attempt to provide the best outcomes for the human and natural environment, both now and in the indefinite future. It relates to the continuity of economic, social, institutional, and environmental aspects of human society, as well as to the non-human environment. It is intended to be a means of configuring civilisation and human activity so that society and its members and economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while at the same time preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in the very long term. Sustainability affects every level of organisation from the local neighbourhood to the entire planet.

Sustainability is the ability to achieve continuing economic prosperity, while protecting the natural systems of the planet and providing a high quality of life for our people. It is not just about talking about production; the important thing is that there is prosperity while protecting the environment. Achieving sustainable solutions calls for stewardship, with everyone taking responsibility for solving the problems of today and tomorrow. Individuals, communities, businesses, and Governments are all stewards of the environment. The built environment where we live, work, shop, and play affects human health and the national environment—directly and indirectly. It can impact on indoor and outdoor air quality, animal habitats, and unspoiled areas.

Advancing toward long-term sustainability requires understanding of the complex interaction amongst the components of ecosystems, including their capacity for resilience under conditions of environmental stress. In the long term, achieving sustainability will require that energy be produced by cleaner and more efficient technologies, be used more efficiently and with greater conservation, and be developed from renewable resources.

The potential impact of materials and chemicals on human health and the environment is at the heart of many sustainable programmes that seek to reduce waste and chemical contamination and to promote the use of safe chemicals and cleaning material. However, when society, economy, and environment are viewed as separate, unrelated parts of the community, then communities’ problems are also viewed as isolated issues. Economic development councils, for example, try to create more jobs. Social needs are addressed by health care services and housing authorities. Environment agencies try to prevent and correct pollution problems.

This piecemeal approach can have a number of bad side effects. For example, solutions to one problem can make another problem worse. Creating affordable housing is a good thing, but when that housing is built in areas far from workplaces the result is increased traffic and the pollution that comes with it. Piecemeal solutions tend to create opposing groups, as well. How often have we heard the argument that when the environmentalists win, the economy will suffer, and its opposing view that if business has its way, environments will be destroyed? Piecemeal solutions tend to focus on the short-term benefits without monitoring long-term results. For example, the pesticides DDT and 2,4,5-T seemed like a good solution to insect pests at the time, but the long-term results were devastating. Rather than a piecemeal approach, what we need is a view of the community that takes into account the links between the economy, the environment, and the society. It will accelerate progress towards a just, healthy, and ecologically sustainable New Zealand and provide a model for the establishment of future sustainable measures.

New Zealand’s economy is based on agriculture. Unfortunately, almost half of our gas emissions are also from agriculture. In New Zealand, of course, although we want to export more animal products the issue is also about gas emissions from agriculture. That is where we are going to have some problems. I am all for the initiatives that were announced yesterday and that will be announced in the future, but, as an agricultural country, we will have to do a lot more about problems in agriculture. I myself have been involved with measuring nitrous oxide emissions, carbon dioxide emissions, and methane emissions from farms over the years. We have found that there is no easy solution for New Zealand at the moment. We have to be very upfront about it. We can do a lot more in the transport sector, for example. We can do a lot more in the housing sector in terms of energy conservation, and in terms of environmental pollution control. But the difficulty is going to be in how we handle our agricultural issues. The road we have taken as a country—the road being taken by this Government—is the first step to a long-term solution.

Eric Roy: First steps on the wrong route.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: No, it is the right route. This Government can be proud of what it has done, of what it is achieving, of the goals it has set, and of how it has taken leadership. Last week we were in Australia—I was with a number of my colleagues from the other side of the House—and we saw the drought in that country. We saw the problems the farmers are facing. Those are the issues that can affect us, particularly on the East Coast where the rainfall patterns are not something that one would really like to see. There are a whole lot of issues coming up for us.

I want to end my speech by talking very briefly about interfaith dialogue, and peace and harmony in New Zealand. I am very delighted that this Government is taking a lot of initiative in terms of promoting peace and harmony through dialogue. The Prime Minister mentioned the interfaith dialogue that is to take place in New Zealand at the end of May this year. This is an issue that I think is very important for this country and this region. We have had a couple of meetings in the Philippines and Indonesia in the last couple of years, and the next one is to be in Waitangi. I am delighted that I am part of that, and I am delighted that this Government is taking a new initiative in promoting peace and harmony.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): The domino effect has begun, and nothing portrayed that more than John Key’s charismatic speech in the House yesterday. It was also portrayed by this morning’s Dominion Post photograph of Helen Clark sitting all alone in this House, surrounded by a sea of empty seats. That was the photo that everybody saw in the Dominion Post. So I say again that the domino effect has begun.

Guess what? The “no new slogan” Helen Clark has a new slogan: sustainability. Would members believe that it was mentioned at least 33 times in one speech? I have to say that I think her speech-writer would have been cringing. What about the word “accountability”? Was that mentioned in the speech?

Chris Auchinvole: Was it?

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, actually, no, not once. Not once did we hear the word “accountability” yesterday. Not only did we not hear the word “accountability” but nor are we getting any either, because this Government does not know the meaning of the word. Accountability has been missing in action from Helen Clark and her Ministers for the past 7 years. I have to say that I am sure Lianne Dalziel is very aware of that word. No wonder Georgina Beyer would rather go dancing. Labour does not know what accountability means, yet the State Services Commission says that accountability is the state of being accountable, is to be liable, is to be called on to render an account, is the obligation to bear the consequences for failure to perform as expected, and is the requirement to explain fully and accurately all or any aspects of one’s own performance or that of one’s staff. I am sure that Lianne Dalziel’s story is one we are all very aware of.

However, if the definition of accountability is not clear enough for members, I can recommend a good book—The Accountability Handbook: A Guide to the Accountability Process. Members will find that in the Department of Conservation. I heartily recommend to the Labour members that they would do themselves and the public more good if they stopped reading fiction during their holidays and doing up houses under questionable circumstances and actually took an interest in what people really want.

Time and time again we see disastrous money management, countless examples of buck-passing, and failure to take responsibility by this Government. The accountability hall of shame is growing bigger by the day. Lianne Dalziel is in there, but pride of place in the accountability hall of shame is not Lianne Dalziel, it is Helen Clark, who left two police constables to take the rap for speeding to make sure she caught a flight to Wellington for a rugby test. A survey at the time showed that a majority of voters believed that the Prime Minister should have stepped forward over the speeding issue. Fifty percent of Labour supporters believed that, too. But did that prick her conscience? No. Helen Clark’s reaction was that the police were in charge of the motorcade.

Recently, what speeding has Helen Clark been doing? She has been running as fast as that speeding motorcade to distance herself from the Taito Phillip Field affair. It took a threat by Taito Phillip Field to jump ship to force her hand, and then it was straight into damage control and the arms of the Greens. That is Helen’s worst nightmare, and I have to say that it does not seem long ago that those two girls were at each other’s throat. Can members recall that those two girls were at each other’s throat?

Damien O’Connor is keeping his head down over the Taito Phillip Field affair. We are still waiting to see the audit report that he promised would be out in December and that will show his appalling lack of oversight of problem gambling service provider contracts.

Lynne Pillay: What?

SANDRA GOUDIE: I am sorry. Am I not speaking loud enough? Damien O’Connor—he is the one. He is going up into that accountability hall of shame.

Of course, add the Department of Corrections to the list—another shambles, with Damien O’Connor, again, at the helm. The list of incompetencies and sheer negligences within his department just gets longer and longer. Crime is up by 6.9 percent over the past 12 months. Violent crime is up by 10.2 percent. The list goes on, and the department’s financial review shows that it has gambled millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on cost blowouts on prison contracts. It is absolutely shameful. Labour apparently did not have a clue how much the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Prison would cost to build until 3 years after the work began. How nuts is that? As for the Parole Board, we have another vote of no confidence in the same Minister, as innocent lives are lost and no one steps up to take responsibility. No one is accountable. Damien O’Connor is another one to take pride of place in the accountability hall of shame.

Parekura Horomia—well, well, well—is another star failure who is a shining light in that accountability hall of shame. I tell members that this is just a litany of failure. Under this Minister’s stewardship, Te Puni Kōkiri has crashed and burned, with the Auditor-General highlighting a failure to meet the ministry’s own operational guidelines. This is from a Minister who admitted that advocating for Māori is tiresome. He said that in this House. That is what Parekura Horomia said in this House—that advocating for Māori is tiresome. This is extraordinary. So here is another Minister who will be in the accountability hall of shame.

The list goes on. Steve Maharey is another Minister in meltdown—this time over the much vaunted 20 hours of free childcare. That is another empty promise, another flawed policy, with only one in five providers surveyed offering the 20 hours of free early childhood education. Early childhood education providers have quickly spotted that this is a lemon. That is exactly what this policy is. That is another Minister in the accountability hall of shame.

Of course, my favourite is Chris Carter. How could we forget the debacle over the Whangamata marina in my own electorate? Chris Carter has left taxpayers to foot the bill for his blatant disregard of the process. I am pleased to say that the community of Whangamata was not prepared to back down. It took on this arrogant Government and won, and Chris Carter was sent packing from Whangamata with his tail between his legs in yet another embarrassing backdown for Labour. We have to look at housing, as well. That is another failure for him.

Jim Anderton, Minister for Biosecurity, is another failure. He is up to his neck in it. Michael Cullen—the “Minister of Greed”—has gouged New Zealand taxpayers and racked up a huge surplus. He proposed a mortgage tax, only to have the idea declared dead in the water by Helen Clark. Just like the mortgage tax proposal, and like Mallard with his waterfront stadium, Michael Cullen is indeed a dead duck.

The only shiny beacons in this House are my National Party colleagues who are doing such an excellent job of addressing the real issues with some basic Kiwi values: individual freedom and choice, personal responsibility, strong families, and caring communities. That is what matters to New Zealanders like the young mother who wrote to me only this month.

Chris Auchinvole: What did she say?

SANDRA GOUDIE: She said that Labour is making it so hard to teach our children what is morally right, that we have become a nation of over-the-top PCers, and that we care more about what others think than about doing what is right. That is what that young mother said. She said that lots of people know what Labour is up to and that they are trying to fight it at every turn. She said that the Government just does not listen and that she is disappointed, disillusioned, and very scared about her future, her children’s future, and her grandchildren’s future. She said that this Government has done so many disgusting, morally wrong things during its term, and she asked when it would end. My reply to her will be that there is only one team in Parliament that is prepared to be accountable, that knows how to manage money, and that cares about people. That team, led by John Key, is the National Party. “It’s always better in blue. Party vote: National.”—that is what I will be telling that young mum.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I am quaking in my boots, following that really deep, absolutely meaningful presentation. I think it is really significant that the member Sandra Goudie spoke about her grandchildren but not about her great-grandchildren—and I know, looking at that member, that she has great-grandchildren. I know there are other generations that follow on. What a puffed-up load of rubbish!

And who is the leader of those members opposite? It is dear old John Key. I was in Waitakere the other day amongst people who were talking about the leader of the National Party. Some asked who the new leader was, and they were told that it was Bill English. Oh Gosh, that was a bit of a mistake! But we corrected them. “No, no, no!”, we said, “It’s John Key.”

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It is Bill English.

LYNNE PILLAY: Oh, it is Bill English! It is a moving feast. When I told them that the new leader of the National Party was John Key, they asked about what he says. I told them that he went from Parnell out to the poor people, the underclass, and found they were lacking. They said: “Gosh, it is really, really sad. Suddenly, someone—the leader of the National Party—has found there is someone poor in ‘New Zilind’.” Have members noticed that on the other side of the House—and I want to acknowledge the previous speaker—the new term is “New Zilind”. It is not “New Zealand”—that is so uncool—but is “New Zilind”. And that has come straight from the leader. He said: “We in ‘New Zilind’ realise there is an underclass in ‘New Zilind’.” I can see Chris Finlayson over there looking jubilant. Those members are excited. They are members of the select committee I chair, and they love it there. We are a happy group.

Anyway, this “New Zilinder” jumped in his car and went out from Parnell to find some poor people from the underclass. We were talking about this, and the people in Waitakere then asked where this guy came from. I told them that he was the member for Helensville. They lived in his electorate, but they did not know that! They said that they thought their MP was Chris Carter and they asked whether we were telling them that this guy from “New Zilind”—because they were from New Zealand—was actually a Westie. We said: “No, no, no. He is not a Westie; he just pretends to be a Westie. He lives in Parnell.” That is why, at the age of 55—or is he younger—he has only just discovered some poor people, because he did not know there were poor people.

Members will die when they hear this, but John Key was brought up in “New Zilind”, in a State house.

Hon David Benson-Pope: No!

LYNNE PILLAY: He was! He said that he was brought up in “New Zilind” in a State house, but that “We’re not going to have any of those in the future. My good mates sold most of them off. Now someone wants to put some in Helensville, but, by gosh, we’re going to oppose that!”.

I want to talk about the matter of 4 weeks’ holiday, because John Key is a family man. Do members know that that guy from “New Zilind” kept the cab waiting? He was on his way out to get in it when his son said: “Dad, you haven’t been in the spa with me.” They were just doing that father-son thing, I am sure, but he kept the taxi waiting—he kept our fuel running—while he jumped in the spa, which is what they have in Parnell, and romped around with his son. He did that because he is a caring dad. I ask members why that dad from Parnell, and from “New Zilind”, does not support 4 weeks’ holiday. I can see Chris Finlayson nodding. Members opposite are feeling sick with guilt. Why would that guy not support ordinary Kiwi families having 4 weeks’ holiday? When I asked John Key why he opposed it, he said: “Lynne, people in ‘New Zilind’ and England would rather have the money. I know, because I interviewed young people and they said that they would rather have the money than an extra week’s holiday—and if they didn’t I wouldn’t have employed them.” That is the sort of guy we are dealing with.

He also said there was an underclass, but he opposed paid parental leave, 4 weeks’ holiday, minimum wages, and Working for Families. I find it a bit rich coming from that member. I have to say this—I do not want to be unkind, but to me, that member has serious credibility issues, and that is serious.

I am not having people insinuating things. [Interruption] I am very respectful of that member’s problems, but to do “Ugh!” to us is just not acceptable—not to “New Zilinders”. How do we feel as “New Zilinders”?

Hon Member: Not happy.

LYNNE PILLAY: We are not happy—OK. I will ask John Key where he was when apprenticeships were happening. [Interruption] What is it with you guys—you are all so bald! That is that Bennett fellow; it is not the other fellow. That Bennett fellow is interjecting. Come on! Why is it that those members are so opposed to ordinary—

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a well-known fact in this House that when members refer to another member, they refer to his or her full name. I would just ask you to point that out to that new member over there.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that the member has pointed that out well enough, and I thank the member.

LYNNE PILLAY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just ask the member to correct that statement. He is the new member; I am the older member.

Hon Tau Henare: Yes, you are an old member.

LYNNE PILLAY: I do not look like it, though—I still have my hair, mate!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think a number of members tonight have tried to mimic other members, or to make comments about the way other members appear or, maybe, about imperfections in things that they say or in the way that they say them. It is coming close to personal reflections, but I think both sides have had a bit of fun with it, so we will leave it at that.

LYNNE PILLAY: I would really like to talk about the concerns of the leader of the National Party about poverty, or about the underclass. I would like to ask why the National Party did not support the most innovative way of supporting families in New Zealand—through Working for Families. That is what I ask. And I ask that really genuinely, because I think maybe we can work together on this. Working for Families provides support for families. Certainly, on these benches we accept that the answer is not to give tax relief to people who earn a considerable amount of money; we do not want to. If we want to support our families, then Working for Families works. I ask why, when the member for Parnell—sorry, Helensville—has been out and seen some poverty, he would not support the minimum wage, workers’ rights, Working for Families, or paid parental leave, but would suddenly present himself as the champion of the underclass. It just does not gel.

I also ask members opposite where that member was when we returned apprenticeships that the National Party had annihilated. Where was that member? He was very quiet. Why did he not stand up and say: “Yes, we made a mistake. We were wrong. We should train. Our industries need tradespeople.”? Why did that not happen? I can hear the people now saying: “You are right. It should have happened.” It should have happened, and they are hanging their heads in shame. But I say now that it is not too late. They should talk to Hon Bill English or John Key—whoever the leader is, because it is a moving feast—and tell them that they think apprenticeships for tradespeople might be a winner, because their policy is a bit like playing squash. They back the winner. If they back training, education, and early education for young kids, they will have a winner. Then I think we might work towards a win-win. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): Every time that I come down to this House now and listen to the debates that are going on and to the contributions from the Labour members of Parliament, it saddens me, because I reflect back to the Labour Governments of the past and I think of the men of honour they used to be.

Hon Member: Good debaters.

JOHN CARTER: They were good debaters, but they had standards. They used to set standards, they used to be people of honour and dignity, and they used to represent this country to a level where people looked up to them and even revered some of them. Sadly and unfortunately, those days are well gone.

Hon Member: Come off it!

JOHN CARTER: Yes, it used to be like that. Younger members here may not remember, but it is true. Sadly and unfortunately, what we now see in this House is a very shallow shadow of those past Governments.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Shallow men.

JOHN CARTER: It is sad. Young people like Darren Hughes and so on just would not remember those days. Even for people like Lianne Dalziel and David Benson-Pope, it is a dim memory. I think of the recent event around Taito Phillip Field and I think to myself that it did not matter that the Government used his vote while he employed someone from Thailand to tile his house. Those members thought that that was OK and that it did not matter. It did not matter that Taito Phillip Field underpaid that guy from Thailand—short-paid him—while Labour used his vote. They thought that was all right. They thought that it did not matter that Taito Phillip Field misled the Ingram inquiry. Helen Clark continued to use his vote; those members thought that that was all right and that it did not matter.

The fault he showed was not that he was dishonest, not that he misled, not that he underpaid, not that he misused, and not that Helen Clark allowed all that to happen. That was OK, apparently. The sin was—

Chris Auchinvole: What did he do wrong?

JOHN CARTER: He threatened Helen Clark that he was going to stand again. That was a criminal offence. That was below the dignity of that party. That lowered the standard. Well, how disgraceful! All those other things are OK! A member can be a criminal, can offend against the State, can misuse somebody, can use somebody who is impoverished to better himself or herself, and can misuse a ministerial warrant—all those things do not matter—but God forbid that that member threaten the Prime Minister!

The fact is that once upon a time the leaders of that party used to have some standards. Now they have none. We heard yesterday about this whole issue of sustainability in the speech that she gave. The only thing that matters to her is the sustainability of her leadership and the continuation by Helen Clark of the prime ministership of this country. She does not care one toss any more about the fact that there is absolute social dysfunction in this country. She does not care about the fact that in this country there are no consequences any more. She does not care about the fact that people in this country know their rights but do not know their responsibilities. That does not matter to her. All she cares about is that she continues to be our Prime Minister.

You know, history will look at this woman and say that she was never a leader of this country. Helen Clark is a very cunning, clever, manipulative schemer of political issues.

Hon Member: Why do you say that?

JOHN CARTER: Because she has been able to be clever enough to keep ahead of the game. But, finally, it is starting to fall off. The wheels are turning against her. Taito Phillip Field is but one. The Graeme Burton affair was an absolute disgrace. That comes straight back on to her prime ministership. And just this last week we saw Michael Cullen and the mortgage levies debacle. What happened? All of a sudden it has all started to run amok. That is what happens when we get prime ministers who are clever and cunning, but who are never leaders. Finally, the wheels fall off. That is what is starting to happen in this country.

I want to address one issue that is really important to this nation, which is the issue of leaky buildings. It is a major, major problem in this country, and Clayton Cosgrove has never done anything to try to address the issue. Every time he is asked he does not have an answer. He has done nothing at all, yet we have now in this country—members should listen to this figure—over 250,000 homes, which equals a city the size of Wellington, that do not have compliance certificates. There are 250,000 homes in which people are living in this country that are not properly registered to live in yet. Who allowed that? That Government is allowing that to happen.

What is even worse is that because of the inactivity of Clayton Cosgrove, we are still seeing these leaky homes being built. There is a simple answer. The Government just needs the balls to do it, but it has not and it will not. Even one of the past presidents of the Labour Party, Bob Harvey, came out the other day and said that the Government should front up. That came from Bob Harvey. He is saying that the whole thing is a fiasco. He is saying that it is a disgrace. He is the guy who stood out there and defended the Government, but he has stopped. He has finally given up on this Government.

This Government says it is doing a lot for this country. I just want to remind members that it promised a rates inquiry, and now it is saying “Wow! We’re having one.” Actually, what a lot of hooey that is! I have just read what the chairman of the panel, David Shand, has said about the rates inquiry. The whole thrust of the inquiry is focusing on funding. Well, that was not what this Parliament asked for. That was not what we were told when Mark Burton said we would have an inquiry. But this guy, David Shand, has said three things that I think are important—

Chris Auchinvole: Who?

JOHN CARTER: David Shand, the chairman of the panel for the rates inquiry.

Christopher Finlayson: A former Labour candidate for Wellington Central.

JOHN CARTER: Really! Well, that says something in itself—no standards there, either. But we actually knew that.

What he said is: “The background document we have released lays out what we”—being the panel—“think …”. I thought the inquiry was about what New Zealanders thought, for God’s sake. But no. Mr Shand is saying that it is what the members of the panel think. He goes on to say that the panel will say what the most important issues are. I thought an inquiry was about finding out from New Zealanders what they thought were the most important issues. Then he says: “… and [it] includes a list of questions we would like people to consider …”. What about asking them about the things they might like to consider? I would have thought that is what the hell an inquiry is about. Then he goes on to say: “Fundamentally, we are looking at the wider issue of funding of local government, not just rates.” Well, whoop-de-doo. But when I went on to read it, it did not say anything about anything else, so I do not know what he might otherwise be talking about.

Finally, I want to bring members to the issue of “Rick the Dick”—the Minister of Civil Defence, Rick Barker. He is in charge of civil defence. What an absolute shambles. I want to tell a little story. It is an absolute shambles. Rick said: “It’s all going to be all right. Don’t worry. Before we can tell you, the tsunami will have got you, so don’t worry about it. It will all be OK.” Members will not believe this, but just yesterday I was told this story, which is a true story. Civil Defence headquarters decided it was going to have a civil defence exercise in the Wairarapa. It got all the team together. They shut down the headquarters in Wellington, and they all shot off over to the bunker in the Wairarapa to hold an exercise. Wait for this. They all got over there, and they could not run the exercise. Do members know why? It was because someone had forgotten to take the key to the bunker in the Wairarapa, and they had to drive all the way back over to Wellington to get the key. They had to delay the exercise for 6 hours. Someone needs to tell Civil Defence and Rick Barker that in that time a lot of people would have died in a tsunami. If it had been a volcano, there would be a bloody big bang by the time they got the key, after 6 hours. If it had been an earthquake, it would rattle a hell of a lot while someone fishes around in his or her pocket for the key. These guys cannot even organise a civil defence trial over the bloody hill. For God’s sake! The guy in charge said: “The warning system is a bit clunky.” The civil defence system is a bit clunky and, I have to say, so is the Minister.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): If I were John Carter I would be one of the last members of Parliament to talk about governing arrangements. The highlight of John Carter’s parliamentary career was when he was the senior Government whip. His entire job was to stand up and cast the vote for Manu Alamein Kopu, who was given a third-floor office in the Beehive and a limousine in which to run around Wellington City. He had to cast individual Independent votes for Tau Henare, Tuku Morgan, and Rāna Waitai. They were too lazy to form a party for parliamentary purposes, because it meant that one of them had to be in the Chamber all the time, and they could not have that. He had to cast the votes of Ann Batten and every flotsam and jetsam breakaway that ever existed, and that was the pinnacle of John Carter’s career. If I were John Carter I would not come down to the Chamber and start talking about governing arrangements, because nothing in New Zealand will ever be as bad as that pathetic, ragtag Government that limped out of the 1990s when he was the chief whip.

It is a great pleasure to support the Prime Minister’s statement in the Chamber tonight. There is no doubt at all that after 7 years New Zealand is a stronger, fairer, and more confident society because of Helen Clark’s Government and the leadership that Labour, working cooperatively with other parties in Parliament, has been able to deliver. In this country, which is fairer, stronger, and more confident, people are doing a lot better, but there is still a huge amount to do. We do not have a Labour Party if we think everything is going to be fine and we arrive at a point where we are finished. If we think things can be at a point where we are finished, we join the National Party, we become conservative people, and we think that after implementing two or three policies everything will be sorted out. But we are progressive people in the Labour Party, and we believe we have to keep on going, keep on moving, and keep on rising to the challenges.

This year the challenge the Prime Minister gave to the country was around sustainability. The National Party does not like that. Its members spent 10 minutes in every speech they gave telling us why they did not like the number of times the word “sustainable” was mentioned, but they were not able to propose policies that would be environmentally friendly. The Prime Minister suggested that we have a big goal for our country: that we try to make our country the first one in the world to be carbon neutral. She has put out a few policies that we could work on this year as a Government and as a community, as individuals around this country and businesses, to try to achieve some of that. I know that it is a hard challenge; there is no doubt about that. The environment has reached a point where people are now focusing on it in a way that other parties have done for a lot longer. It means we have to do something about it, in a very real way.

The Prime Minister put out the goal, which is what the leader of a country should do, and now we come through and look at some of the specific things she mentioned. She talked about New Zealand’s energy efficiency strategy. We talked about the targets for biofuel sales. We talked about making the Public Service carbon neutral as a way of modelling good behaviour to the country. We talked about the Government procurement. The Government buys a lot of things in the course of a year, and if there is a way we can work with the business community to establish products that are environmentally friendly and as carbon minimal or neutral as they can be, then the Government ought to bring procurement to the fore in that regard. We talked about ways in which we can let our households identify how they might be able to reduce their carbon emissions, as well.

I want to know whether National Party members support or oppose those policies. They are silent now—even Chris Auchinvole, who is paid $115,000 a year to scream in the evening only, but is very quiet in the afternoon. I have not quite worked out why that is. He is always a little bit louder at night. He is paid a lot of money. He will not give us an opinion on some of those specific policies that have come out to meet the wider goal of making New Zealand a carbon neutral society.

Of course, the Government will continue with the themes of last year: delivering economic transformation to get wages up and to get jobs more sustainable in New Zealand; delivering to families, young and old; and also making sure that we build a strong sense of national identity. [Interruption] I hear the two list MPs asking how we will do that, so let me give them an example of it in respect of families young and old. On 1 April this year we will give every family who is eligible for Working for Families an extra $10 a week per child. Does the National Party support or oppose that?

Chris Auchinvole: You haven’t done it yet.

DARREN HUGHES: It is going to happen on 1 April. It is legislated for. The National members voted against that, and this year kids in our electorates will get $10 a week extra per child from Working for Families to help those families. John Key wanted to give that money—

Anne Tolley: But it’s their money!

DARREN HUGHES: Anne Tolley interjects that it is their money. She misses the point. John Key does not want those families to have it. He wants her to have it. So Anne Tolley wants to take 10 bucks a week per kid off the children from low-income families—because their taxes can never be cut enough to give them that amount—and she wants to take it for herself. I am against that, and Working for Families is the way that this year we are going to support families young and old—to answer the question from the list MPs.

We are going to move this year on KiwiSaver. We are going to bring in the last group of people for the primary health organisations. We are going to give 4 weeks’ annual leave—less than the amount that members of Parliament take—to every working person in New Zealand. We are going to put the minimum wage up to $11.25—that was opposed by National members; it was 7 bucks an hour when they were in charge of New Zealand—it is going to be $11.25 just next month. We have the SuperGold card, in coalition with New Zealand First, to deliver to seniors in that regard, and we are bringing a big focus on Export Year 2007.

In my own electorate I am delighted to see unemployment fall spectacularly. Do members know that only 29 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds in the town of Levin are unemployed? We have cracked the problem of youth unemployment, and now we have to make sure the wages for those kids come up. We are investing in the pensioner housing scheme, which the Minister of Housing talked about earlier, that delivers a $10 million package to Horowhenua. In May we will open the Horowhenua Heath Centre—a $16 million investment. DesignTex will open up with $2 million worth of Government money in order for us to bring our apparel and textile companies to bear. This year we will do a lot of work on transport, to further the aim of Transmission Gully and to get our rail network sorted out between the Kapiti coast and Wellington. So I am very delighted indeed about what the Labour-led Government will mean for my electorate of Otaki.

I look across at the National Party and see that under MMP all different sorts of styles emerge, but I have never seen a major party operate a dual leadership system. It is a new innovation under MMP when we have co-leaders of the Opposition. There is no doubt at all that Bill English pulls all the strings over there, because John Key is good for only one thing: getting up and making a few gags. There is no substance to John Key, and how do we know that? He went to give a speech in Burnside, all worried about poverty. Then he said there would be a food in schools programme. He found somebody who ran a muesli bar company who would supply some food. What do we then find out? The guy running the company was a neighbour from his street in Parnell. This is not a detailed, thought-out policy; this is a case of John Key chatting to a guy over a barbecue over summer and saying he would not mind a few of those muesli bars being sent to a school in Auckland. A Government cannot be run on anecdote, which is what John Key is attempting to do. That is why lurking behind him is Bill English. But Bill English made a fatal flaw today when he spoke in the House: he called other parties in Parliament toxic.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.