Wednesday, 13 February 2008

Wednesday, 13 February 2008

Wednesday, 13 February 2008

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Aboriginals—Australian Government Apology

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I referred to your office a notice of motion on the question of the stolen generation in Australia and the apology today. I wonder why it does not appear on the Order Paper. I understood that it was collected by your office, but it does not appear here.

Madam SPEAKER: I will look into that. I understand that it will be there tomorrow.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Tax Cuts—Four Tests

1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports suggesting that he abandon his four tests for tax cuts?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, one from Mr John Key, who has suggested that the four tests cannot be met and therefore should be abandoned.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that his four tests are completely irrelevant, given that the Prime Minister has announced three times that there will be tax cuts, and he announced again today, just half an hour ago, that there will be tax cuts?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the Prime Minister and I have both, in a synchronised fashion, announced on many occasions that there will be tax cuts. But, of course, the interesting question for Mr Key is which of the following he thinks tax cuts should achieve: greater inequality, reduced social services, increased borrowing, or increased inflation. Again, he looks down, as he spent much of yesterday looking down.

Gordon Copeland: Did the Minister’s four tests have anything to do with his reneging in Budget 2007 on the tax cuts through bracket adjustments he had promised in 2005, or was it just—as he said at the time—because New Zealand taxpayers did not express sufficient gratitude to him when he decided in 2005 to reduce their tax burden?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not think the phrase “chewing gum tax cuts” came from New Zealand taxpayers at large. I remember where that particular phrase came from. However, that had nothing to do with the ongoing programme we will be announcing in the Budget. It will be interesting to see whether the National Party votes for those tax cuts. It has voted against every other tax cut this Government has introduced.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister explain why he has argued for 8 years that no tax cut could meet those tests, and why he has suddenly discovered, in election year, that tax cuts can meet all of them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is wonderful at making up a fact, asking a question about it, and then sitting down and looking very pleased with himself about it. What I will not do is what that member did—cut taxes, and then cut New Zealand superannuation to pay for it.

Sue Moroney: How does the announcement of a programme of personal tax cuts fit with previous decisions around taxation made by this Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That programme will build upon and complement the $4.5 billion a year of tax cuts already introduced for families, savers, and business. I point out yet again that, firstly, National voted against every one of those tax cuts; and, secondly, as far back as I can go in history, National has never voted for a cut to the business tax rate—only Labour Governments have done that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister remember when there were “Swiss chocolate” tax cuts without any cuts for public investment in education, health, and other areas, such as in 1998 when there was a $1.1 billion series of tax cuts, and who the Treasurer was who did that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do recollect some tax cuts in that period and I do recollect Mr Peters having something to do with them. But then I also recollect the National Government turning around and cutting New Zealand superannuation as a consequence.

New Zealand - Australia Migration—Statement

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her reported statement in early 2000 that she was ashamed of the number of people leaving New Zealand to live in Australia?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I am glad the member said “reported”, as I can find no such direct quote from me. I was, of course, extremely concerned at the time about the huge growth in the earnings gap between New Zealand and Australia in the 1990s—a 50 percent growth in the earnings gap. I note that it has not increased further since then, despite the minerals extraction boom in Australia.

John Key: If, as reported in both the Press and the Evening Post, the Prime Minister was ashamed about migration to Australia in 2000, how would she describe her feelings now, when net migration to Australia has risen to 28,000 people a year, which is the highest number for 20 years and triple what it was 4 years ago?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know there has been a major minerals extraction boom, which has sucked labour out of Australian states that do not have that boom, as well as out of New Zealand.

Tim Barnett: Is housing affordability likely to be a factor in trans-Tasman migration?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are housing affordability problems on both sides of the Tasman. Here, our Government is taking a lead on developments for affordable housing, like that in Hobsonville. I note that last year Mr Key described the Hobsonville project as being economic vandalism and likely to lead to a big ghetto in his electorate. This morning, on Radio New Zealand, he said he agreed with it. I guess he was just talking to a different audience from the one he tried to whip up in his own electorate.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Prime Minister agree with Finlay Macdonald, who stated in the last Sunday Star Times that our declining wage and living standards relative to Australia’s are the legacy of “socio-economic vandalism” by both the Labour and National Governments through the 1980s and 1990s, and would she also agree that the great experiment in price stability run by those Governments has successfully created the desired low-inflation, low-wage, low-growth economy?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: While the Employment Contracts Act held sway in New Zealand in the 1990s, the average gap in real average earnings between New Zealand and Australia blew out from 19 percent to 28 percent. That gap has not widened since then, despite the huge minerals extraction boom in Australia.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister believe that when New Zealand loses 77,000 people a year under permanent long-term departures and replaces them with the same number of people coming in—or a few more—that is a “brain exchange”, as her other Ministers have put the case to be?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The demography experts are telling us that New Zealand is the net gainer on skills through migration at this time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that between 1984 and 1996, when the great economic experiment was persisted with first by Douglas, then by Caygill and through to people like—I have forgotten already—Richardson and Birch, Australia’s economy leaped ahead in real terms by 27 percent; and why would people in New Zealand want a change back to that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I agree with the member that hard-line neo-liberal policies in this country did a lot of damage to wages and to the social fabric. That is why this Government has pursued a different course from that.

John Key: If the Prime Minister is convinced that we are gaining under this exercise of losing so many New Zealanders to Australia, has she noticed a study done by the Australian department of immigration that pointed out that New Zealand has the biggest brain drain in the OECD in terms of native-born, tertiary-trained people leaving this country, when 45 percent of New Zealanders living overseas have a university degree?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I have not noted that, but I have noted one of our leading demography experts saying in response to that sort of wild claim made by Mr Key that claims of an Aussie brain drain from New Zealand are a myth.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister recall the effect of the “mother of all Budgets” by Ruth Richardson, when—[Interruption] I know it sounds terrible to members, because it is a home truth, is it not? I say to members I did not back it—quite the contrary. I was expelled from Cabinet because I did not back it. For the benefit of members who have been here for 5 minutes, I will give a bit of history—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just ask his question.

Hon Member: Talk about history!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am not history, sunshine. That member is. Can the Prime Minister recall the effect of the “mother of all Budgets” and what happened after it, when this country was forced into a recession?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I recall the “mother of all Budgets” only too clearly. I recall that the effect within a short period of time was for unemployment in New Zealand under the National Government to go into double figures—for Maoridom, it went to 25 percent. I recall that people could not afford to live in their State house, I recall National charging people to go to the public hospital, and I recall the benefit cuts. I recall tremendous damage being done to the economic and social fabric of New Zealand, which is why National should never occupy the Treasury benches again.

John Key: What message does the Prime Minister have for New Zealand families who are seeing their children, their loved ones, and their friends departing New Zealand in record numbers to go to live in Australia, or does she think—judging by her answers this afternoon—that the message she is sending them is that that is OK, because they are the dumb ones?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know that Kiwis are entrepreneurial people who will do well anywhere they go in the world. I also know that New Zealand, which has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world and is seeking skilled people today, is a haven for high-skilled people from other countries. If Mr Key wants to say he does not welcome those people, I would like to hear him say that at the ethnic functions he turns up at all over Auckland.

John Key: Will the Prime Minister recognise that one of the major reasons why so many New Zealanders are leaving for Australia is that their wages are significantly higher than they would be in New Zealand, and that, in fact, over the last 5 years the Australian Government has cut taxes progressively every year, the Australian Government has used private sector capital to build infrastructure, and the Australian Government has been concerned about housing affordability; and is the trend she is noticing that over the last 5 years the Australian Government has done a pretty darn good job and after 9 years her Government has finally woken up to the fact that it has some problems?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The only trend I have noticed is that the gap in real earnings between New Zealand and Australia blew out by 50 percent under a National Government and has not widened since. The other trend I have noted is for the Leader of the Opposition to get it wrong. This morning, on Morning Report, he said he was going to increase wages. When he was asked “How?”, he said “I am going to cut taxes.” Even Morning Report said “But, Mr Key, that is not increasing wages.”

John Key: On the basis of that I ask the Prime Minister whether, if someone earns $100,000 a year and his or her tax rate is 90 percent and then the person’s tax rate is cut to 10 percent under a National Government—where the person’s tax rate is lower than that under the Labour Government—that person has more after-tax wages?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the National Party’s policy is either for a 90 percent or for a 10 percent tax rate, I would like to hear more about it.

Land Use—Pressure on Environment

3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with chapter 13, dumped from the report on the state of the environment, that “significant intensification of land use, particularly pastoral land use” is “arguably the largest pressure today on New Zealand’s land, freshwaters and coastal oceans, and atmosphere”; if not, what does he believe is the largest pressure on New Zealand’s land, freshwaters and coastal oceans, and atmosphere?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): As I am sure Dr Norman told the member, because he was there, both myself and the Ministry for the Environment officials spoke at length about the damning facts in the main body of this report and the summary document, which clearly showed that this was the case. If the member has not spoken to Dr Norman about it, I recommend that she opens the report, just to the foreword, and reads my comments in there saying that the report highlights the decline in water quality in New Zealand “as a consequence of the increasing intensity of agricultural production.” Clearly, that is the case.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In that case, which conclusions specifically was he referring to when he told the media on Monday that chapter 13 was scrapped because it made a series of conclusions that were not strictly supported by the facts, and on what peer-reviewed reports is he basing that conclusion, or does he just disagree with the specialists who wrote chapter 13?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is the very area—because it is forward-looking rather than backward-looking, as the report is—that was outside the scope and actually not matched by the facts in the report.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question asked specifically which conclusions the Minister was referring to, and he has not answered that at all.

Madam SPEAKER: Does the Minister wish to add to his answer?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is the conclusion that the member was referring to in her question.

Moana Mackey: What is the Government doing to address the issues raised in the report?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Labour-led Government is already taking a lot of leadership in this area. There is a substantial work programme and a range of initiatives in place to help us reduce or mitigate the impact on our environment: the emissions trading scheme, support for household energy efficiency, support for solar heating, support for waste reduction and recycling initiatives, and environmental standards on air and water, through to the multi-million dollar funds for research into sustainable primary production and for sustainable land management. The list is actually much longer than that, but I could get in trouble with Madam Speaker if I went through it all.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister, in response to National’s policy announcement last year of 5-yearly reports on the state of the environment, say: “Oh, that’s Government policy.”, when Cabinet minutes from 2002 show that despite the Ministry for the Environment recommending a 5-year report at that time, Cabinet made a decision not to do so?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I was not aware until the member announced on the day that the report was released that the National Party had any policy in the area.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was: “Why did the Government, if its policy was to produce a 5-yearly report, reject the recommendation of the Ministry for the Environment in 2002 not to produce a 5-yearly report?” The answer I got from the Minister was totally irrelevant to that.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The transcript will show that the member prefaced his question with a remark about National Party policy for 5-yearly reports, to which I responded. If the member’s memory is as short as that, it is pretty sad.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to add any more to the other part of the question that was asked?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: As I indicated on the day, it is the Government’s policy to now produce these reports every 5 years, and I am glad the Opposition agrees with us.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister tell the House how long it will now take to get national environmental standards on water quality—as recommended by chapter 13 and as referred to in his previous answer—how long it will then take for regional councils to implement the standards in plans and consents, and how long it will then take for water quality to improve?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I can tell the member that the programme will have some draft standards for circulation in May or June. It is a process that requires a board and submissions, and it is likely to be next year before regional councils actually start their work on it. On the question of how long it takes, the advice I have had is that it does depend on the area. I am told, for example, that in the Taupō area some of the runoff does not actually get to the lake for 40 or 50 years, so it is 40 or 50 years in those areas before the water starts improving. Apparently in some areas in the South Island it can be a matter of hundreds of years until the improvements that are made actually flow through into the rivers.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was chapter 13 pulled because it clearly points the finger at agriculture and recommends a “polluter pays” principle at a time when the Minister’s Government is subsidising the farming industry’s greenhouse gas emissions to the tune of $1 million every working day and allowing it to pollute our rivers for free?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The chapter was pulled for two reasons: first, that the qualitative comments contained in the draft section were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself; second, the substantive comments being made were actually right through the report.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was the chapter pulled, then, because although the Minister’s Government proudly proclaims its biggest road-building binge in history, chapter 13 states that doubling the distance travelled by vehicles on our roads over the past 20 years is putting pressure on the environment and human health?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The chapter was pulled because the qualitative comments contained in the draft report were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself, and the substantive comments being made were carried through the report itself.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave for the member’s bill in my name, tabled with the Clerk’s Office 8 months ago, to be tabled and set down for first reading on the next members’ day.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Roading—Public-private Partnerships

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Why does the Government now consider the Waterview Connection to be a potential candidate for a public-private partnership?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Because it is a project of significant scale. Indeed, it is the largest single roading project that we know of to make a public-private partnership a viable option, because it may allow us to complete the project earlier than if it were funded from the National Land Transport Fund, given the pressures on that fund.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall that late last year Labour ruled out the use of public-private partnerships in any form, in order to score a political point on the day, and, in fact, one Minister said Labour would die in a ditch to prevent any public-private partnership from being used in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that could be described these days as an academic question.

Martin Gallagher: Does the current pattern of road funding differ from that in 1999?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, markedly. Total central government investment in land transport has increased by over 2½ times. Total central government public transport investment is almost 12 times higher, and total central government spending on roading has doubled in that period. But there are still major infrastructure deficits that need to be overcome.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree that the potential for a public-private partnership along the Waterview Connection is indicative of a relaxation in the Labour Government’s ideological position on private sector involvement in infrastructure; if so, in what other areas does he foresee private sector involvement in New Zealand’s infrastructure projects?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the latter point, in terms of telecommunications infrastructure, of course the private sector plays the dominant—indeed, the overwhelming—role, and one of the arguments at the moment is whether the public sector should be playing a stronger role in that regard. I remind the member that the legislation that enables public-private partnerships, which were not legal in 1999 when we became the Government, was passed in 2003 under this Government.

Hon Bill English: When Labour uses the term “public-private partnership” does it mean the definition given by the Minister of Transport, who is meant to oversee this project, when she said: “we already have public-private partnerships. We have the private sector building the roads; we have the public sector paying for them.”—is that what the Labour Government means?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Very clearly we have public-private partnerships, with small Ps, because the private sector does, by and large, build roads in New Zealand. It is a long time since we had a Ministry of Works that built the roads. Most people, in the context we are talking about today, understand Public-Private Partnerships, with capital Ps, to be rather more specific around the nature of the private sector involvement in the management of the entire process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister confirm that the Government can borrow money at a lower level of interest than a business can, and that businesses always want a profit; therefore, why does the Government not just borrow the money, build the required utility, and pay it off over time—what is wrong with that option?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Claims have been made over many years that the private sector, through a public-private partnership mechanism, will be able to deliver on time, within budget, and probably more cheaply than the standard public sector - led procedures are able to do. We have not done this previously, because most of the projects we have had have been relatively small scale, and the costs involved in doing the first public-private partnership did not make it worthwhile exploring the options. This is a $2 billion - plus project. It is therefore worth testing whether those assertions are correct.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the real reasons the Government has mentioned public-private partnerships are that the Prime Minister wants a tunnel put through her electorate instead of a road, that it will cost well over $2 billion—probably $3 billion—and that the Government would have to borrow the money or put petrol tax up even further to do so, so it has decided to call it a public-private partnership?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: However expensive a tunnel might prove to be, the National Party would be quite incapable of producing a light at the end of it. But, more than that, the deep tunnel option is probably cheaper than the alternative option of a cut and fill, and certainly far easier to consent than trying to drive a road, on surface, right the way through existing areas.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that in fact Labour has been opposed to public-private partnerships the whole time it has been in office and that all it announced the other day was its intention to set up a committee to look at an option for something that cannot work under current legislation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well that is certainly more precise than anything we have heard from National so far in any of these areas. But, more than that, the member needs to remind himself that this Government went to the trouble of passing legislation through Parliament to enable public-private partnerships, which were illegal—and which party voted against that legislation at every point? The National Party voted against it.

Keith Locke: Point of order—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: We have a point of order. If members interject they will leave the Chamber.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from the Melbourne Age showing that a toll-funded public-private partnership motorway was much more expensive than if it had been publicly funded.

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

Unemployment—Reports

5. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received about the level of unemployment in New Zealand?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen reports that the Labour-led Government is supporting more and more people into real jobs. We now have record employment, record labour-force participation, and record low unemployment. The unemployment rate has fallen to a new low of 3.4 percent—the lowest since records began 22 years ago, when my colleague Darren Hughes was just 8 years old.

Russell Fairbrother: How many new jobs have been created under the current Government?

Hon RUTH DYSON: We now have the highest level of employment recorded since records began—2.2 million New Zealanders are now in paid work. That means there are 377,000 more jobs in our economy than there were in 1999. That is 126 new jobs each day since Labour has led the Government. This is all further evidence of our Government’s prudent economic management.

Electricity—Supply

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Can he guarantee there will be no power cuts this coming winter?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): No Minister can give an absolute guarantee, but I can assure the member that even at this stage the Electricity Commission, Transpower, and other industry participants are working together to ensure a secure supply of electricity is maintained.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister heard that current lake inflows are lower than they were in 1992, that the Cook Strait cable is now down to one operational pole, that the Huntly power station cannot operate at full capacity because of cooling issues, and that Contact Energy’s New Plymouth plant is shut and is not likely to open again this winter; are these the reasons why Transpower has called the crisis meeting today; and when will he tell the public of New Zealand that we are now gripped by an electricity crisis?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is true that there is an unusual combination of events for this time of year, but we do not have a crisis.

Hon Mark Burton: Can the Minister explain to the House whether the unexpected withdrawal of Pole 1 of the Cook Strait cable and the retirement of the New Plymouth power station are substantially reducing North Island power capacity, and has the system been robust enough to meet these and other challenges to date?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, the effects have been substantial. The combined loss of Pole 1 and the retirement of the New Plymouth station have caused a drop in overall capacity in the North Island of 870 megawatts. In addition, we have had reduced generation at the Huntly plant, due to the unusually warm Waikato river, and partly because of the drought up there; and, of course, the Stratford plant has been out of action for maintenance. The drought conditions in the South Island have also meant that inflows are below average. But despite all of those factors—and this is an unusual combination of events—the system has been resilient enough to cope.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the combination of events referred to will likely significantly increase the price of electricity; and if that is so, how does he propose to address the concerns of elderly folk on fixed incomes, who are very nervous about the situation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would not expect this combination of events to have a material effect on residential tariffs. They are not exposed to spot-market prices.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the comments made by the electricity commissioner—a former deputy leader of the Labour Party, David Caygill—after some of the grid emergencies last month: “… I’m not sure that what sounds like a temporary set of factors coming together represents a problem we should be concerned about.”, are part of the Labour Party’s spin to convince New Zealanders there is no problem, when clearly there is?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I read the electricity commissioner’s comments. I agreed with them. I think at the time there was some exaggerated rhetoric around. It is true we have challenges this year that we did not have last year. One of the important foci at the moment is actually seeing whether we can return part of Pole 1 into service before winter.

Gerry Brownlee: How does the plan to import 100 container-sized diesel generators, to avert the crisis, fit into Labour’s plans on climate change, and will he now admit that the Government’s very poor attitude to hydro generation is the real reason why New Zealand is facing an electricity crisis this winter?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We do not have a poor attitude to any form of renewable—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about Dobson.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Dobson is actually being replaced by the Arnold River scheme on the West Coast, with lower environmental impact and substantial output. It is a better scheme. In terms of Mr Brownlee’s question about mobile generators, it is unlikely that that will come to pass, but it is one of the possible contingencies being looked at, and if it were necessary we would do it.

Gerry Brownlee: Is he aware that New Zealand’s possible dependence, then, on a set of diesel generators would make us like the Pacific Islands Nauru, Niue, and the Tokelaus; is this proposal an example of what sacked electricity commissioner, Roy Hemmingway, said in a High Court affidavit recently when he mentioned that the Minister of Energy has some slightly unusual ideas, and is this issue an example of his thinking that is slightly outside the square?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The idea of mobile generators as a contingency is not one of mine. It has come from either the Electricity Commission or Transpower; I cannot recall which. As I have said before, it is unlikely to be necessary, but if it were necessary we would do it. If it were necessary, the generators would be there as a contingency, not as a first line of defence, and if that contingency came to pass, it would be for a period of hours over winter, not days over winter.

Gerry Brownlee: Has he any explanation for how we are possibly facing another winter of power shortages, when Helen Clark stated, in 2004, that the Electricity Commission is being established to build security of supply and to ensure that there is enough standby generation for dry years, and Pete Hodgson also constantly assured the House that the Electricity Commission would deliver security of supply, when, in fact, today there is a crisis meeting because that security of supply is very much under threat?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This Government has always put security of supply at the top of the list, and will always do so. Last year an additional 586 megawatts of capacity was built. There is approximately 300 megawatts of additional capacity under construction, as we speak.

Immigration Service—Asha Ali Abdille

7. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: What were the findings of the Immigration Service’s 2004 investigation into Somalian refugee Asha Ali Abdille?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration): I preface the answer to this question by noting there is a case before the courts. I am sure that neither that member nor anyone else in the House would want to jeopardise that serious matter. I am advised that the Immigration Service’s 2004 investigation into Asha Ali Abdille found that Ms Abdille had acquired criminal convictions after she was selected to come to New Zealand in 1994, but that those convictions did not affect her residency or refugee status. The report further noted that she had sought to sponsor 14 family members to come to New Zealand, and that their applications were still under consideration at the time of the report. For the member’s information, 13 of those applications were subsequently declined. One sister was granted residency in 2005.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that relatively shortly after Madam Abdille’s arrival here she stated that she was not happy and wanted to return to Somalia—so much so that there was a collection by Wellington’s refugee support service, which raised money for an air ticket home, only for her to change her mind again; if the Minister is aware of that, and if she is found to be guilty in relation to her recent antics in endeavouring to leave this country, will he ensure that she does leave it permanently?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am aware of some speculative comment in relation to the first part of the member’s question. As to the issue of what may or may not happen to Ms Abdille, it would not be appropriate, given that the matter is before the court, for me to make any comment at all on it.

Ron Mark: Would the Immigration Service ignore, in normal circumstances, an immigrant’s amassing of a huge dossier of convictions—including at the time of the 2004 review those of threatening to kill and common assault, two counts of assaulting a police officer, and a charge of conspiracy to murder after allegedly hiring someone to kill another person in a case that did not go to trial because a police witness refused to testify—when determining his or her ongoing right to live in New Zealand?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Bearing in mind, again, the legal proceedings, I am advised that Ms Abdille was selected to enter New Zealand as a legitimate quota refugee in 1994, as I said. I am advised that Ms Abdille had no criminal convictions when she arrived in New Zealand. I also note that since 1999 quota refugees have received a full psychiatric evaluation on arrival in New Zealand. I am advised that in 1994 little, if any, psychiatric support or evaluation was provided to quota refugees. I would note that quota refugees, by the very nature of their being refugees, have been subject to trauma, which is why they are in refuge from their countries. I repeat that in 1994 there was very little support; now, since 1999, full psychiatric assessments have been done as refugees enter New Zealand.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister concerned that despite being described by the chairman of the Wellington Somali Community Association as having “quite a history of mental instability”, and as being “an alcoholic and very unstable”, Abdille was declared by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board to be of no threat to herself and others just days before she attacked and wounded two Air New Zealand pilots with a knife?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am aware of a number of those facts. As I have said, since 1999 quota refugees have been supported with psychiatric assessments. It is worth noting, though, that if issues are identified, full and ongoing treatment is offered. However, I am advised that under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act individuals cannot be compelled to accept treatment or be incarcerated, except under certain circumstances. Compulsory treatment requires a court to determine that a person is mentally disordered within the meaning of the Act, and to make a compulsory inpatient order or community treatment order for that person’s treatment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that this will have occurred to you and to others, but I ask what credence can be applied to a police record obtained from the authorities in Somalia. I mean, do we get it from a warlord, or what?

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order.

Capital and Coast District Health Board—Deaths on Waiting List

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: How many patients have died while on the waiting list for heart surgery at Wellington Hospital in the past 3 years?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): It is a priority for this Government, and for all New Zealanders, to ensure that hospital quality and safety are amongst the best in the world. OECD data shows that we have the best 30-day survival rate for hospital treatment of heart attack patients. However, it is a sad fact that around 18,000 people in New Zealand died during the past 3 years of heart disease. I am advised by the Capital and Coast District Health Board that, of these, 10 were on the waiting list for cardiac surgery there.

Hon Tony Ryall: How many of these deaths were preventable?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It has been alleged, to my knowledge, that three deaths were preventable. I have asked the Director-General of Health to mount an urgent independent investigation to ascertain the veracity of those claims.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What is the Government doing to improve hospital safety?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Although the district health boards remain primarily responsible for clinical service delivery, the Prime Minister underscored yesterday that the Government is making improvement in quality and safety a top priority. To this end, a national Quality Improvement Committee has been set up. I have moved quickly to link part of the district health board budgets to progress on this agenda, and to formally convey this policy, through my annual letter of expectations, to all district health boards.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why, despite the spending of billions of extra dollars on health, has the heart surgery waiting list at Wellington Hospital trebled since Labour came into office, while the amount of heart surgery done there has flat-lined in recent years?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Under this Government, some 4,500 new nurses and some 2,000 new doctors have been brought into our health system. I am advised that the Capital and Coast District Health Board was not funding-constrained in its elective surgery, and we are working with it urgently to identify and resolve other bottlenecks.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What steps are being taken at the Capital and Coast District Health Board?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As well as appointing a new chair and Crown monitor, I asked the Director-General of Health to set up an independent review of the three alleged cardiac cases. In addition, I have asked for an urgent recovery plan to reduce the waiting list. The Capital and Coast District Health Board is working on this, and I am advised that it will result in an increase in elective cardiac surgery throughput of approximately 50 percent, cutting the waiting list by at least half by November 2008. I will continue to push for the earliest possible reduction.

Heather Roy: Does the Minister stand by his Government’s solemn promise to those Kiwis desperately waiting for heart surgery that if they have 50 points and certainty of treatment, they will receive life-saving heart surgery within 6 months; and whose fault is it that the Capital and Coast District Health Board has failed to honour this promise for 70 patients, whose lives have been put at risk, with the result of, indeed, at least three needless deaths?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It would appear that the member has attempted to prejudge the outcome of an independent inquiry; I will not do that. The policy of a maximum of 6 months on a waiting list remains in place. I share the member’s concern that in some district health board areas people are waiting for longer than that. That is not acceptable to this Government.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The specific question was—and this is important for accountability—who is responsible for honouring that promise. The Minister has accepted that in other places, too, the promise has not been kept. Well, whose fault is it?

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister did actually address that part of the question.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Minister has answered that part, could you share with the House who is responsible?

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but the Minister has responded to the question.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister explain why in some weeks more cardiac operations at Wellington Hospital are cancelled than are actually done; and is this the first-class health service that Helen Clark, ironically, promised in the House yesterday?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is the responsibility of the district health boards to manage individual clinical services. However, the Government takes a very strong interest in the overall performance of the district health boards, and I have already signalled that I am not satisfied with the performance in this regard.

Hon Tony Ryall: What would the Minister say to the family of the late Mrs Beverley O’Neill of Napier, a victim of this Government’s hospital waiting list, and whose son said of his mother: “Mum was of the old school. She believed in the system … You work, you pay your taxes for all the right reasons. And the one time she needed the system”— I say to the Prime Minister —“it let her down.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would say to that family what I would say to any family who has lost a loved one through any such circumstance, and that is that the hearts of all members of this House go out to them. It is not acceptable to this Government if people die preventable deaths while waiting for surgery. But, again, I would caution the member not to leap to conclusions before receiving the results of an independent, rigorous inquiry.

Heather Roy: In light of the Minister’s statement to the House on 7 November last year that he is “running this show”, does he accept any responsibility for these needless deaths, does the Government stand by its solemn promise that every patient who is given certainty will receive surgery within 6 months, and can he give a categorical assurance that under his watch no New Zealander will die because he or she has had to wait longer than the 6-month minimum that his Government has said it is committed to?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It would make as much sense to define a successful ministry as being a situation where nobody dies as it would be to describe a Capital and Coast District Health Board hospital as a killer hospital.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just out of interest, was that answer addressing the question?

Madam SPEAKER: I think it did, but I can understand why some members found it a little subtle. Would the Minister please amplify it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No Minister can prevent people from dying of disease—eighteen thousand people died of cardiac disease in New Zealand in the last 3 years. That member does not serve herself or this House well by denigrating the efforts of clinicians doing their best to prevent deaths.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister see any irony in that, after 8½ years in office, this Labour Government is not prepared to accept the fact that, despite it pouring billions of dollars into the health service, waiting lists for heart surgery at Wellington Hospital have trebled, and fewer people are getting operations; and will the Minister tell the House how many more heart patients will die while on the waiting list at Wellington Hospital, while his report is being prepared?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Regrettably, it may be that the member did not hear my answer to an earlier supplementary question, when I confirmed to him that the Capital and Coast District Health Board was not funding-constrained in respect of its cardiac waiting list. The Government has provided the funds. We are working with the Capital and Coast District Health Board to remove the bottlenecks.

Asbestos—Government Assistance to Local Authorities

9. Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for the Environment: What financial commitment will the Government make to local and regional authorities to clean up sites contaminated by asbestos, including the site of the former freezing works and hospital in Pātea?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): Although, as the member is aware, it is primarily the responsibility of the regional council, the Government has already committed about 60 percent of the funding required to investigate contaminants on the Pātea site—just over $64,000. I have also indicated that the Government is open to sharing the costs of the glue or rubber sealant that will almost certainly be the interim solution for the Pātea site. We will need the results of the investigation and accurate cost estimates for Pātea to ascertain where this site fits vis-à-vis other sites that are contaminated around New Zealand, before final decisions can be made about the level and timing of funding from the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund.

Hon Tariana Turia: What progress, if any, has been made on establishing a register of all affected Pātea residents, in order to ensure that appropriate monitoring and health surveillance reports can be established for the future?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The first step is to establish what was spread around the town at the time. To date, the reports of testing show that both in the dust in the houses and in the air, asbestos has not been found. We have to be very careful about panicking people who live in the town by suggesting that they have been contaminated, when in fact it could well be that we have been exceptionally lucky and asbestos was not spread around.

Hon Tariana Turia: Why was the owner, Noel McColl, not made to clean up the freezing works site’s rubble and soil, which were affected by asbestos and pentachlorophenol contamination, when the site has long been recognised as being potentially hazardous to public health for the past 27 years; and will we wait for another fire at the hospital site before we see any action?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The first part of the question should be addressed to the responsible authority, which is the regional council. I thank both Jill Pettis and the much reduced member Chester Borrows for their support of the people of Pātea and for their communications with my office on the subject.

Hon Tariana Turia: What is the Minister’s response to local claims that district authorities have failed in their responsibility to restore a cleaner, safer environment, have minimised the seriousness of the situation, and could be accused of negligence in allowing the residents to return home before formal tests were carried out by hygienists?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There will always be debate around the timing of these issues, but when a series of tests from the dust on the houses not only in Pātea but in a community that is downwind does not show asbestos, then I think it would be stretching it a bit to criticise the authorities for letting people return to their homes.

Question time interrupted.

Points of Order

Seating in Chamber—National Members

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek clarification on something a colleague of mine has pointed out to me. It is do with the seating in this Chamber. Given the National Party’s new-found love of Māori I want to know why Georgina te Heuheu is not on the front bench but rather is left on the third row, though she is eminently qualified to be on the front bench and comes from an eminent Māori family. How can that be explained?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Question time resumed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Violence—Manurewa Electorate

10. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the former Minister of Police the Hon George Hawkins that the recent violence in his electorate is the worst in 25 years; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: The Minister has every sympathy for the views of the member the Hon George Hawkins. She is concerned about any community facing an outbreak of violent crime. Violent crime in New Zealand and internationally has been increasing over the past 25 years. However, homicides in New Zealand have fluctuated over the past decade: in 1997 there were 151, and in 2006 there were 98.

Simon Power: How can the Minister of Justice claim that the recent spate of murders is the product of the sun and the moon, when at the same point in the year there had been five murders in 2006 and 11 in 2007, but there have been 14 so far this year, and that means that, even when population increases are taken into account, violent offences have increased by 22 percent since Labour took office?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Minister of Justice, Annette King, made the comments that the member refers to in answer to a questioner whom she believed was seeking the views of others. The comments do not represent the Minister’s views; they represent the views of others trying to seek a rational understanding of, or a sensible cause for, the recent events in South Auckland. The Minister of Police knows full well that the motivation for individual crimes varies according to the circumstances, and she would certainly not seek to trivialise the seriousness of such issues.

Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any reports on increases in reported violent crime?

Hon RICK BARKER: Only today the New Zealand Herald reported that non-governmental organisations were advising that the Government’s attitude and behaviour change campaign around family violence is having an effect, and that agencies are seeing quite significant self-referral numbers coming through. This increase in reportage is very good for victims. It is not good for the crime statistics, because they will show an increase, but it is good for society, because the perpetrators of these violent crimes will be called to account.

Simon Power: How will the public view the Minister’s statement yesterday that “… 2008 will be the year in which victims’ rights are properly addressed.” as anything other than an admission that victims’ rights have not been properly addressed for the previous 8 years of this Labour-led Government; and why should they think anything has changed, when yesterday the Prime Minister proposed a victims’ charter and compensation scheme—something she first proposed in 1994, 14 years ago?

Hon RICK BARKER: The situation for victims has changed markedly. This Government introduced a new package of rights for victims, including the right to be heard at a trial. Under National, prisoners were automatically entitled to parole after serving two-thirds of their term; today they are not entitled to parole until they can prove they are not a threat to society, and many are held for their full term. Under National, people in prison for murder were entitled to parole after serving 10 years; under Labour, the courts can set minimum periods, and people have to do 14, 20, or 33 years before they can apply for parole. Under National, people had to have done two serious crimes before they were eligible for a sentence of preventative detention; under Labour, the first crime can make a person eligible for that. We have been much tougher on crime.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that two pieces of victims’ legislation have been passed in recent New Zealand history—the 1987 Victims of Offences Act, and the 2002 Victims’ Rights Act—that both were passed under Labour Governments, and that National has never passed legislation protecting or promoting victims’ rights?

Hon RICK BARKER: I can absolutely confirm that information put forward to the House by Mr Goff.

Simon Power: Why should appointing a group of “highly qualified and eminent people” to meet regularly with justice sector Ministers make them any more responsive to public concerns about crime, when the youth offending Ministers group did not meet for 3 years, and the crime reduction Ministers group has not met for 5 years—and is Sir Geoffrey Palmer not busy enough?

Hon RICK BARKER: This Government has done a great deal for crime prevention. For example, let us contrast it with the National Government. Under National, police staff were being cut in favour of a computer; under Labour, more police are on the beat. Let us have a look at South Auckland. In 2006-07, there were 49 more sworn staff and 30 extra non-sworn staff. In 2007-08, there were 28 extra sworn staff and 11 extra non-sworn staff. In addition to that, $10 million has been allocated to improve outcomes for young people in South Auckland. We are putting money into this issue, and we are going to do our best to fix it.

Madam SPEAKER: Keep the noise level down, please.

Simon Power: What does the Minister of Justice say to voters who believed Labour’s pledge card promise in 1999 to “Crack down on … youth crime.”, when much of the random violence over the summer has involved youth offenders, and when violent crime by youth offenders has increased by 47 percent since her Government took office?

Hon RICK BARKER: This Government has put more police on the beat; it has not cut their numbers as National did. It has poured more money into preventing youth crime and youth offending. We have legislation to strengthen our resources to deal with youth crime. This Government has a programme and we are doing our best to make sure it happens. I say that the opposite is true for National—it has no answers whatsoever.

Simon Power: What does the Minister of Justice say to voters who believed Labour’s pledge card promise in 2002 to provide “More support for proven programmes to cut youth offending.”, when, after 3 years, the $12 million reducing youth offending programme failed to reduce reoffending, and when the youth offending teams have been found to show “a lack of shared understanding” about their purpose and “a lack of clarity about how aims should be achieved.”?

Hon RICK BARKER: Youth offending teams were set up in the early 2000s in an effort to draw together local people with local ideas to deal with youth offending. In some areas they have worked really well. In other areas they have not worked quite so well. It is a very good initiative—

Hon Member: Name one.

Hon Member: Hamilton.

Hon RICK BARKER: A member says “Hamilton”; Hamilton’s has worked very well. This Government has poured more money into the police, and we are cracking down on crime, and we are not going to shirk our responsibilities for it, either.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What sort of message is sent to victims in this country when a political leader is happily hongi-ing with someone who is a beneficiary of the Bail Act in that he is out on bail although he faces very serious charges?

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure the Minister actually has any responsibility for that particular action. [Interruption] I am sorry, no.

Simon Power: I seek to leave to table a page from the Manukau Courier that states: “Last weekend’s violence is the worst Manurewa has seen in 25 years, its MP”—George Hawkins—“says.”

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very rare that I ever question your ruling, but in this case the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice, who I think is responsible for the Bail Act.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just repeat what he said.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Madam Speaker, you ruled out the previous question. My colleague Rick Barker is answering this question, but, of course, he is answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice. The question referred to the Bail Act, and my understanding is that the Minister of Justice is responsible for the Bail Act.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, in that respect, yes, there is ministerial responsibility, but there is not the actual act of doing it. Would the Minister, then, please respond to the Rt Hon Winston Peters in so far as the question related to the Bail Act.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Could we have the question again?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think we can all remember the question.

Hon RICK BARKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out very clearly the contradiction of someone saying that he was going to be tough on crime, then being very familiar—hongi-ing—with someone who was out on bail. I think the public will make their own decisions about that. I just advise the member of what my grandmother said: “Show me who your friends are, and I’ll show you who you are.”

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to ask the House whether people who are innocent until they have appeared before the court and been found guilty should be impugned in this House.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Simon Power: I seek the leave of the House to put the same leave that I put previously, which was to table this page from the Manukau Courier, which states: “Last weekend’s violence is the worst Manurewa has seen in 25 years, its MP says.” That MP is George Hawkins.

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

Housing—Affordability

11. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to make housing more affordable?

Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing): Yesterday the Prime Minister outlined an ambitious programme to tackle housing affordability. Critical to it are, first, the development of additional large-scale building projects similar to the Hobsonville and Tāmaki projects; second, the identification of Crown land for developments; third, the plans to extend the role of the third sector in housing provision; and, fourth, the shared equity scheme, the details of which will be unveiled in July.

Lynne Pillay: What examples of housing developments are already under way?

Hon MARYAN STREET: There are several developments under way, designed to build mixed communities. These include the developments in Papakura and Weymouth, which are expected to deliver 650 houses; the recently announced revitalisation of Tāmaki, which is expected to add an extra 3,000 new houses; and Hobsonville—which, incidentally, Mr John Key is on the record as opposing—which will bring in another 3,000 houses.

Lynne Pillay: What alternative initiatives has she seen to alleviate the housing affordability problem?

Hon MARYAN STREET: I have seen the same tired old simplistic suggestions from the National Party that we should scrap the Resource Management Act, remove all building compliance, allow urban sprawl, and sell State houses. The Labour-led Government understands the issues and, unlike National, we do have a comprehensive plan of action to tackle the problem. I challenge the other side to be slightly more ambitious.

Madam SPEAKER: It is becoming impossible for me to hear. Members will be asked to leave the House if this level of interjection continues.

Phil Heatley: Was the chairman of Housing New Zealand Corporation telling the truth at a select committee this morning when he said that the 500-odd affordable homes to be built at Hobsonville—not the shared equity ones, but the cheaper first-home-buyer houses—will cost around $350,000 and will require a household income of $70,000 per annum to pay off; if so, how in the world does this flagship policy help low to middle income earners?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Again, Mr Heatley takes a very simplistic view of the solutions to what is a very complex problem. In the end, we will announce the details of a shared equity proposal, which will, in fact, target new building and may be applied, and will assist average, low, and modest income households to achieve their first home.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked very specifically whether the Minister would concur with Pat Snedden’s statement that these first-home-buyer homes will cost $350,000 and those first-home buyers will have to be earning $70,000 a year. Does she concur with Pat Snedden, the chairman of Housing New Zealand Corporation, that people will have to be earning that sort of money for these first-home-buyer homes?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, you cannot ask for a yes or no answer. The Minister did, in fact, address the question.

Building—Consent Process

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Who does he hold responsible for the current problems in the building consent process that, according to the Prime Minister yesterday, are “adding unreasonably to the costs of building a house”?

Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: There are several parties involved in the building consent process, and the Government is actively working with councils through accreditation to improve systems, reduce delays, and help to deliver a better service to consent applicants.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: When the Wellington City Council noted that “A typical house plan 4 years ago was three A3 size plans and 30 … pages”, and that now builders are required to file 12 A3 size plans and up to 300 pages, why did the Minister in November dismiss those concerns, saying that the building consent process was going “swimmingly well”; what has changed between November and now for the Government to change its mind?

Hon MARYAN STREET: It may be worth going back a little bit to answer this question adequately. In fact, the Building Act 1991 was a product of a failed system that allowed a number of homeowners to be absolutely penalised for inadequate quality and professionalism in the building sector. The leaky home owners are the people I would invite that member to talk to if he disagrees with the establishment of the Building Act as it currently exists.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government be reviewing its decision in 2002 to change the law on development levies, which has seen the cost per section go from $8,000 to $24,000, and its decision in 2005 to treble the building levy, both of which have contributed to the record fall in homeownership and the crisis in home affordability; if not, why not?

Hon MARYAN STREET: If the solution to housing affordability was as simple as that, then we might consider doing that. However, the issue is much more complex than simply the building consent processes alone, building costs alone, or the interest rates prevailing at the moment alone. It is a complex question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why was it credible for the Prime Minister to tell the Parliament yesterday that the Government will begin by “simplifying the design and building consent processes”, when the Government’s own Building Act 2004 has 19 sections, which are yet to take effect, that will require a person, when lodging a building consent, to list in detail the up to 13 different licensed building practitioners involved in the building project; can she explain how that will simplify the building consent process?

Hon MARYAN STREET: It is entirely credible to say that. If we are looking at ways of standardising plans and standardising approved designs that meet the requirements of the Building Act, then that is something that can be done, and it is something that we are advancing with speed in order to address those issues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is John Key not right in describing the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—[Interruption] Is John Key not right in describing—[Interruption] Madam Speaker, you would probably have thrown me out well before this time for that.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask for order. Members will be asked to leave the Chamber. Would the member please proceed with his question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is John Key not right in describing the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday as “vacuous” when her own Government has been responsible for adding to the very cost of building that she now complains of, when the Government has not been able to provide any detail of how it will either simplify or reduce the costs of designing homes and consenting to their construction, and when its own legislation, both that currently before the House and past legislation, is set to substantially add to the already $30,000 of unnecessary costs identified by the Registered Master Builders Federation?

Hon MARYAN STREET: No, Mr Key is not right. The purpose of the Building Act is to ensure that the quality of homes that New Zealanders get, and should expect, is maintained. There are ways that we can ensure that affordable houses are made to designs that comply with the provisions of the Building Act, and that meet all the requirements of a first home buyer for a modest, sound, sustainable, quality house.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 12 February.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Tourism): I have 1 minute left and one message for this House today, which is that we should never, ever trust a Tory. In the next 9 months we will see those Tories go up and down this country making a lot of statements. They cannot make policy. We have not seen one policy from them, just a lot of statements.

Let us look at the Tories’ history. They said they would take off the surcharge; they increased it. They said they would help New Zealanders; they cut benefits. They said they would be business friendly; they opposed tax reductions.

We now have a Tory party that does not know what it stands for or who, in fact, it stands for. They said they would absolutely oppose interest-free student loans; now they are OK. They said climate change is a hoax; now they say they firmly believe in it. According to John Key, the Kyoto Protocol was a failure of a document; now the Tories are saying they support it. They said KiwiSaver was fundamentally flawed.

We can never trust a Tory. John Key is all hat and no horse.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe. Twenty years ago, on 13 February 1988, 1,000 people gathered at Raglan for a day of thanksgiving. It was a celebration of the day, 10 years prior, on which 17 Māori protestors were arrested for trespass at the Raglan golf course. That was the day on which Eva Rickard stood strong, arguing for the return of their whenua, as the people of Tainui Āwhiro. Eva had a vision; not just a picture of what could be but a call to us all to become something much more than we were. It was a challenge to better ourselves, daring us to have faith to believe in ourselves. It is that call that I have returned to as we herald the start of a very significant year in the lives of tangata whenua. The call for justice, for resolution, and for prosperity has been a call that we as tangata whenua have known mai rā anō.

We in the Māori Party know first and foremost that our presence here in Parliament is just another part of the huge journey that tangata whenua have been on. It is a journey that will ensure our survival as a people here in Aotearoa, for there is nowhere else on this planet that we as tangata whenua can ever call home. It is a home we have cared for, for over a millennium; a home we have shared for nearly 200 years, with others. Our journey is about our survival—the survival of our language, the survival of our customs, and the survival of our world view, which we will happily share with others. It is a view of the world that we will invite others to share with us as we always have, despite history showing that from time to time it has been to our cost. In that journey we celebrate the growing confidence that we as tangata whenua have now in ourselves. The greatest goal for our party is to promote the survival of our people.

The Māori Party is a movement that will not settle for second best. We believe that if transformation is required, then we must pick up the wero, the challenge, and deliver. And we do indeed believe that transformation is required to ensure that we invest in exactly those families who are feeling stretched, and who are overburdened with the challenge of each day. Although we applaud the commitment to funding two community organisations to support families and children, we would also like to see clear policy investment in uplifting incomes for those who are the most vulnerable in our community, te pani me te rawa kore.

The Māori Party believes that true leadership recognises the necessity of change and looks for a common vision that makes changes possible. The greatest challenge facing our future must be to pick up on the priorities and preferences of the people, rather than simply pandering to the pet projects of politicians. I say to us all that the greatest opportunity we have is now to truly act as a Treaty partner in politics. We must not talk partnership, then treat tangata whenua as the advisers—a mere stakeholder group on the margins. Let us look to the innovation of the indigenous mind for solutions.

Last week an Otago University study described the rich and enthusiastic way in which Māori mothers appeared to talk to their children as being a significant cultural difference in establishing a strong foundation for child development. It made me think about other cultural strengths that are too frequently overlooked—the commitment to the revival and renaissance of tangata whenuatanga, which has given life to kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, kura-a-iwi, whare kura, whare wānanga, kapahaka, Māori entertainers in all fields, and tangata whenua artists, writers, and craftspeople. This all keeps alive our cultural heritage.

The sense of collective care and responsibility is demonstrated daily by tangata whenua health services and social service providers. The entrepreneurial spirit is embedded in tangata whenua broadcasting, businesses, farmers, fisheries, and organic growers, all of which contributes hugely to the economy. Our right to be, to survive and thrive as tangata whenua, means that we necessarily have the mandate to support all our people—our young, our rangatahi, the dispossessed and alienated, and those whose views find disfavour with some. We are the voice of the voiceless, and we are always firmly focused on the pounding heartbeat of our nation—the young and the old. So, too, as part of the journey for self-determination, we take on the battle against hunger, disease, homelessness, and illiteracy, for the collective good of all.

We seek to push past the pragmatic or the probable, and search also for a vision of what is possible. In doing so, I want to share one or two ideas that people have shared with us that may just make the difference. What is possible is the creation of a simpler, indirect tax system that addresses double taxation, such as existing excised, taxed items. If tax was removed from food—the GST—it would have both immediate nutritional and economic impact for low-income families. It might also be an idea to look at the removal of tax from savings. Meagre though those savings might be for our people, why should their earnings and savings have the interest earned taxed again?

Other possibilities to enhance healthy living might include trialling bariatric surgery—also known as lap-band surgery—to reduce weight, while at the same time addressing the challenges of diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnoea, and other conditions. The long-term health benefits are huge, plus there are long-term savings to the taxpayer. This House does not have the premium on good ideas. The ideas I have talked of are but a few of a huge pool of opportunities available to us, if we would only listen and care.

It is time to call on a vision for change—the power of the people. Eva Rickard lived by a vision for change, which was about the restoration of their land being directly related to the restoration of their people. We know from our own experience in the Treaty settlement business that an apology with inadequate compensation is merely an exercise in pragmatism, rather than nation-building or justice.

Nation-building must be our theme for our future. As a nation we have never heard any Government in this country say sorry to all of the tangata whenua for past atrocities and past injustices. It is a lot easier to say sorry to the Chinese, and to say sorry to the Samoans, but we cannot say sorry to the nations of this country, the tangata whenua. We realise that past administrations, the legacy of Executive Councils since 1840, have failed to achieve the unity anticipated in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Justice delayed is justice denied. The impact of decades of disconnection and dislocation have scarred the soul of our people. We in the Māori Party remain confident that at some point the unity we are seeking will be achieved, and we will never allow those rifts and dissensions between peoples to occur again, because most of it is caused by political actions and behaviour.

What we know from looking at the way in which our people are leading many organisations—the ones I referred to earlier—is that many of these organisations are also inclusive of others who also call this country home. Common unity can happen, it will happen, and it is time it happened.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I rise to support the motion of no confidence put down by our leader, John Key, because Labour has failed to make significant improvements where things matter, because it lacks ambition for New Zealand, because it is tired and bereft of ideas, and because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power. One had only to listen to its two leading politicians today to know that.

Helen Clark quoted approvingly in the House here, in trying to defend the indefensible number of New Zealanders who have headed off to Australia, a study that basically stated that we are losing only blue-collar people and getting bright people with degrees. So that is OK. That is Helen Clark’s view of her core supporters, and that is why they are deserting her. She is not worried that people who do not have university qualifications are leaving New Zealand and going to Australia.

National members are worried those people are leaving. We are worried that every single decision the Government has made in relation to housing has made New Zealanders’ houses less affordable. We are worried that every single decision this Government has made in respect of Government spending has pushed up New Zealanders’ interest rates. That is another reason why they are leaving to go to Australia.

But if one had thought that that cavalier disregard—in fact, contempt—for the Labour blue-collar voter was not enough, then one should have heard Dr Cullen in a select committee. He said that if we give people tax cuts then they will have an Oliver Twist mentality—they will come back wanting more. That is what he said. Dr Cullen was talking about the people of New Zealand. They are a bunch of poor orphans who should be grateful for the gruel he has given them, and the reason he has not given them any more gruel in their begging bowl is because they would then want even more. That is what he said in a select committee—the Oliver Twist mentality of the New Zealand taxpayer.

Chris Tremain: It’s all their own money.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, that is the thing, is it not? At least in Dickens’ novel the poorhouse made the gruel. In this case, Dr Cullen took the gruel off them in the first place by the bucketful, then gave it back with a teaspoon, and then has nothing but contempt for them because they want some more. Well, I tell Dr Cullen that the reason they want some more is because they need it.

Chris Tremain: It’s theirs.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is theirs—that is important, but, more important, it is because they need it. Those hard-working New Zealand working families are facing the second-highest interest rates in the developed world. They are facing high and rising inflation and a cruel burden of overtaxation, which they never expected from a Labour Government.

If people earn $39,000 in New Zealand, they pay 33c in the dollar when they do another hour of overtime—on $39,000. If they earn $60,000, they are part of the rich. Those people might happen to be a senior police constable, a middle-level management teacher—

Chris Tremain: A wharfie?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —a wharfie, or a shearer who sweats 8 hours a day for the pay—

Chris Tremain: A boilermaker?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Boilermakers have sort of disappeared, but they might be a welder. Those people are considered to be super-rich. In Dr Cullen’s world of Oliver Twist those people will want more gruel they do not deserve. In Helen Clark’s world they are some of those dumb New Zealanders we are better off without because they do not have a university degree like she has. That is why those people—

Hon Tony Ryall: Her attitude is “Oh, you’re just a tradesman.”

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is right; they are just tradesmen. Helen Clark does not care if someone who is just a tradesman goes to Australia when we get a doctor from the UK or an engineer from Iran. Helen Clark does not care. I think she should get out there and tell the people of Invercargill that—although there is no point in her going to Invercargill. Labour’s plans for the Southern Institute of Technology are to make it part of the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology. It is the hub and spoke model, which is why Labour will never win that seat again in my lifetime.

Those people want a change because they have seen a Labour Party that is increasingly focused on its own needs and not on their needs. What did the Labour Government spend all its political capital on last year? It was the Electoral Finance Act, to make sure that in election year people could not criticise the Government, which is exactly what is happening. All the politicians—well, certainly those on this side of the House—are spending a lot of time trying to understand how to deal with and comply with a whole set of new, complex rules that have a chilling effect on public opinion and political activity. That is what Labour spent all of last year on.

Then this year Labour members have turned up and said they are now worried about housing affordability. Every decision they have made about housing in the last 8 years has made it more expensive. This year they are talking about sustainability. Every decision they have made in the last 8 years has pushed up carbon emission levels, not down. Helen Clark, according to the publicity of the last 8 years, was in charge of all that. But, according to the publicity this year, she was not even here. She must have been a permanent appointment to the UN, or she must have spent the whole of her time at the socialist international latte coffee mornings with Tony Blair and never had anything to do with running the country.

Of course, that was not the case. She was here, she oversaw it all, and she will have to answer the questions that those people she so despises—those dumb people who are going to Australia; those lost orphans who want the gruel that Dr Cullen wants to hand out—will ask. She will have to say why we are paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world. One reason is that the Government has been on a spending binge on a bloated bureaucracy that every New Zealander now knows serves the interests of the Government, not the interests of New Zealanders.

Why is the wages gap between us and Australia getting bigger? I had a look at the regional wages, by state in Australia and in New Zealand. We come below Tasmania. Our wages are lower than those in Tasmania, and the Government is proud of it. We heard Helen Clark today. She does not care; the dumb people are leaving and it will fix itself. If those people go to Tasmania then they will be better off than if they live here. It is that simple.

Why is one in five Kiwi kids still leaving school with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills, under a Government that prides itself on knowing about education and has spent billions on it? Then Helen Clark turns up in an election year and says that too many kids are leaving school without skills. Where has she been for 8 long years and how will she explain that to the parents of those kids, who trusted her when they voted for her? Why, when the Government has poured billions into the health system, is it not doing any better? In the House today we heard Tony Ryall tell more tragic stories. Why, in particular, has violent crime continued to soar? Labour’s explanation is that it is the solar eclipse and lunar tides.

Hon Tony Ryall: The sun and the moon!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is right; the sun and the moon are the explanation. Please send Annette King everywhere there is a problem. That member is meant to be Labour’s most competent Minister—what a debacle! That is why New Zealanders are demanding change, because Labour does not care about the things most New Zealanders care about. Labour members care about themselves. They spend their time and money shoring up their own political position; they bully the Civil Service to try to back them on it, and we saw a series of scandals about that last year; and they lack the leadership for the next step in New Zealand.

People now know that a growing economy delivers benefits. The economy grew despite Labour, not because of it, and now people have a sense of the potential in this country and they know that the answer to that potential is not the damp, dark, visionless leadership of Helen Clark. It is easy to give away money; it is easy. The Government has had more money than it knows what to do with. It is easy to give it away, and people take it because that is the gruel they have been given. Of course, they are not going to want to hand it back. But New Zealanders now have the confidence to build a much better future, lift their income, and have much better lives, not lives punctuated by the occasional gift of gruel from Dr Cullen. That is why New Zealanders want to change the Government, change the leadership, and follow those who have some ambition for this country, not those who are mean-minded gruel-givers, who are contemptuous of ordinary New Zealanders.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): When a former member of Parliament, Deborah Coddington, left, she puzzled me with her statement about why she was leaving. She said: “I’m leaving Parliament because I don’t hate enough.” After listening to the previous speaker, I say: “Deborah, you can come back because Bill English has got enough for both of you, and lots to spare.” He is so angry and so bitter. Deborah could come back and just sit next to him and she would feel fine. The irony of Bill English’s speech and the audacity of that member to talk about the “value of tradesmen” in our country, when he sat here as Minister of Finance and scrapped apprenticeships in our country, and said they were so useless and that we were better off to bring people in from overseas rather than train them ourselves.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders refer to members deliberately misleading the House. The member will know that National passed the Industry Training Act, which Labour actually voted for, and it was simply a change in the form of apprenticeships. It did not abolish them, so the member cannot mislead the House in such a deliberate way, particularly when her party voted for the legislation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. That was not a point of order, and the member knows that he would have to raise that as a point of privilege. It is a point of debate.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Not only is it not a point of order but it is not even a point of debate, because we know what happened to the apprenticeships scheme under that member when he was Minister of Finance. I know that our Government introduced the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, and we now have 14,000 apprentices because of our commitment to the value of tradesmen, who are trained in our country rather than being brought in from overseas, as that member did when he was Minister of Finance.

Another incredible statement by the member was that we need higher wages, just like his leader said. That member was Minister of Finance during the 9 years of the National Government when the minimum wage went from $6.12 for an adult to $7.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Over 9 years!

Hon RUTH DYSON: That increase of just 87.5c was not in 1 year, or in 2 years, but over 9 years. That is what that member as Minister, and his Government, did for the most vulnerable members of our community—those people on the minimum wage. Every year since we were elected to lead the Government in 1999 we have increased the minimum wage, and have we had one single statement of support from the National Party?

Hon Members: No.

Hon RUTH DYSON: There has not been one single statement in support of increasing the minimum wage so that this year adults will get $12 an hour. We know they should get more. Our commitment is to continue to improve their lot, rather than see the return of the bad old days that Bill English, as Minister of Finance, oversaw, signing out the papers that meant the most vulnerable members in our community, the people who often work the hardest, were stuck on $7 an hour.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement in this debate. It is actually a privilege to be a member of Parliament, and I have to say that very few choose to leave this position voluntarily. I want to make a brief acknowledgment of one of our parliamentary colleagues who has made that decision and announced it today—Katherine Rich. Although Katherine is a member of a very different party from mine, I can honestly say that I have enjoyed working with her over several years, particularly on issues in relation to supporting families. She is a passionate woman, and she has been very courageous in sticking with her principles. She has done that not just on easy issues but on very difficult issues, like the repeal of the parental defence of assaulting one’s own child. She stood on her principles in opposition to bulk funding. She stood on her principles in refusing to join the populists in beneficiary-bashing, and she stood on her principles in backing school zoning. That principled approach is one that for her, as a member of a party that was moving in the opposite direction on all of those points, must have been a lot harder than the alternative approach that her colleagues took. Katherine has earned respect from many parties around the House as a result of those stands. Life in this great institution, addictive though it is, we all know is hard on our families, and particularly on young children—and Katherine has two. I want to wish her three things. I want to, first of all, wish her more time with her family in the future, I want to wish her good health, and I want to wish her challenges in the next stage of her life that will use her talents and her passion better than they may have been used in this place.

Labour, through the Prime Minister, yesterday presented a strong vision so that we can secure the best possible living standards, not just for some New Zealanders but for every New Zealander. We have big policies to roll out and progress this year, because we want to achieve long-term change so that every family, every young person, and every older person can enjoy a secure and better life. We should never be satisfied with the status quo for our citizens. Regardless of how much we improve things we can always improve them even more. We want our nation to be sustainable, to be prosperous, to be secure in our identity as New Zealanders, to be proud of our own country rather than running it down at every opportunity, as the leader and deputy leader of the National Party do, and to be proud of the achievements of our fellow citizens. Our plan to deliver that has substance.

Often in Parliament we have robust, solid debate, but that has been less so over the last few years, I have noticed. I want to refer to a comment that Colin Espiner made in that great newspaper the Christchurch Press, delivered in Christchurch on a regular basis. He noted today that the Prime Minister has a formal role in presenting her address to Parliament: she actually delivers her speech to leaders of the various parties, several hours before the Prime Minister’s statement is made. But it was clear yesterday, as Colin Espiner noted, that John Key had not even bothered to read it. He had no engagement on the policy, no engagement on the issues and challenges that face our country, and thought he could get away with that shallow approach. Well, it might have been good when he had been the leader for 5 minutes but, as I am sure Bill English is increasingly aware of and excited about, it will not last for long. The public of New Zealand want and expect—and actually deserve—much better than that.

Labour offers our country strong and proven leadership. We have a record of delivering on our promises, and we have new initiatives that will build on what we have achieved for our country. Yesterday, one of the major announcements by the Prime Minister was the roll-out of our Pathways to Partnership programme—a new model of central government working with our community organisations, a new model that will deliver the best outcomes for our children and our families. It is based on working together to deliver the support that our families may need from time to time. The basis of that new model is full funding for contracted essential services with our community organisations. It has an automatic annual cost adjustment, it has funding for forecast volume increases, and it has funding for workforce development and capability improvements. It has funding to support collaboration, to support those community organisations working together, and it moves in total to outcomes-focused contracts. This was a very large investment of money—$446 million over 4 years. That support, that investment, is certainly welcomed and certainly deserved.

Some of the comments I have here I would like to record for the House. Liz Kinley of Jigsaw Incorporated said: “In 20 years time we will look back at the 12 of February 2008 and say this announcement was a watershed day for the government, community organisations and children and families in New Zealand. It is a powerfully delivered message from the Government about the value of the work our social services carry out at a local level, often unnoticed by many of us until we need them. It demonstrates the importance of protecting and sustaining them as an integral part of our social network.” That is what Liz Kinley of Jigsaw said about it. It is recognition by our Government of the importance not only of the work that our community organisations do but of the importance of genuine partnership between central government, local government, and those community organisations. Paul Baigent of Plunket said: “This is a great result for families and children in New Zealand.” Jeff Sanders from Relationship Services said that the Government has recognised the significant role that the non-governmental organisation sector plays, and has agreed to fund these key organisations in a sustainable way. This was a very significant announcement, not just in terms of the amount of money but because of the commitment to ensure that these organisations can operate in genuine partnership with our Government to deliver the services that make a difference to families—to help them early, to help in a way that will build their resilience so that they can go on to contribute significantly, perhaps even—I tell Mr English—through Labour’s Modern Apprenticeships scheme, so they can become the valued tradespeople that Labour supports and Labour delivers.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to acknowledge the remarks made by that member in respect of the departure of Katherine Rich. I thought the member might take the opportunity to prove her sincerity by apologising for abusive remarks she made about Katherine Rich in a select committee some years ago, when I think she called her a tart, a slag, or something like that. So would she like to apologise for that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that that is not a point of order.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): I also acknowledge the comments the Hon Ruth Dyson made about Katherine Rich. I hope they were given sincerely, because this Labour Party opposite has failed to make any significant improvement in the areas of importance to ordinary New Zealanders. I want to talk about ordinary New Zealanders because the Prime Minister does not want to talk about ordinary New Zealanders. She sneeringly referred to tradespeople and blue-collar workers in the House today; she did not care that they were going to Australia, because they were being replaced by people with university degrees.

Hon Bill English: Like her.

Hon TONY RYALL: Like her! She wants a country of people like her, and not of people who can do our plumbing, our electrical wiring, or our building, or get our patios sorted out. She wants a country of people like her, who are so out of touch with where this country is and where this country could be.

And what do members think of Ruth Dyson talking about Labour’s “record of delivery”? Let us look at Labour’s record of delivery. This Labour Government is a Government that has delivered the largest wage gap between Australia and New Zealand, which sees Australians being paid a third more than New Zealanders. This Government took interest rates from 4.5 percent to 8.5 percent, and anybody looking to roll his or her mortgage over is probably looking at rates of up to 10 percent this year, in the way things are going. Under this Government violent crime has gone through the roof. It has delivered that, and that is because of the sun and the moon. The Labour Party thought that “dial 111 and scream” was a feature of the 2005 general election, but people will not believe what they will see with the sun and the moon being responsible for crime in New Zealand. This is the Government’s record of delivery: one in five children are leaving our schools without the literacy and numeracy skills needed to read a fire extinguisher.

That is what has come out from this Government, because this Labour Party lacks ambition. It is tired, it is bereft, and it is focusing on its own agenda instead of on the things that matter to the ordinary people of this country. This party opposite is neglecting the very people who put it into office; this party is allowing our country to lose all the opportunities that the economic golden weather of the previous years should have delivered to it.

Instead, we on this side of the House have a party that is focusing on the real issues facing New Zealand. We are going to be positive, we have great expectations for this country, and we have a plan of action that will lift the sights and performance of this country. We will provide better living conditions, a better life for New Zealanders, and a better life for their families by implementing an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts. We will say to hard-working New Zealanders that they can keep more of their pay and have greater incentive to work ahead. National will be a Government that invests in the infrastructure needed to get our productivity moving—in broadband, and in partnerships with the private sector where they really matter. We will be investing in research and development, and we will be trimming the resource management costs that are such a burden to New Zealanders.

I cannot believe the gall of the Prime Minister and the Government in talking about what they will do for first home owners in this country. This Government opposite has made it harder and harder for young people to buy their own homes. Interest rates are up, the costs of building one’s home are up, and Resource Management Act building consent costs are up. These members have made it harder for ordinary New Zealanders to get ahead, not easier, and none of them believe what they have to say.

More important, a John Key - led Government will focus on the quality of spending in our public services, because there has to be a new Government in the future that focuses on performance and not on building bureaucracy. How can it be that in the Bay of Plenty region alone, in the last 8 years the district health board there has employed 176 new managers and administrators but only 27 new doctors? How can it be that in Rotorua, with one of the country’s smallest district health boards, 77 new managers and administrators have been employed in the last 8 years and only 20 new doctors? How can it be that we have a health system that has been employing more bureaucrats than doctors over the last 8 years? It just does not make sense.

And how can it be that billions of dollars are being put into the public health service, yet the heart surgery waiting list at Wellington Hospital has trebled? The number of people waiting more than 6 months has gone up astronomically in the last year. How can it be that in many weeks there are more cancelled operations than there are actual operations for heart surgery at Wellington Hospital? How can that be? How can it be that billions have gone in and we are not getting the improved service that New Zealanders would want from the public health service?

We are getting a lot more bureaucrats and bureaucracy in our health system, but none of the extra service. Fewer people are getting elective surgery, fewer people are getting to see a hospital specialist, and people are waiting longer and longer to get care in our public hospitals. Helen Clark says that she will not tolerate poor performance in our public hospitals. Well, what has she been doing for the last 8 years?

Let us look at crime. Annette King is so bumbling. There is only one person who is more bumbling in this Government than Annette King, and it is Michael Cullen. He is the man who, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, told Parliament this morning that one cannot give New Zealanders tax cuts because they will get the Oliver Twist mentality and ask for more gruel. But here is what he did not tell the select committee: who dishes out the gruel? It is Mr Bumble. It is “Mr Bumble” himself, the Minister of Finance. Mr Bumble—who, incidentally, was the beadle—was the guy who dished out the gruel for Oliver Twist, and as soon as he had given more, he had to go off and tell Mr Limpkins, the chairman of the guardian board. It just sums up that Government bench incredibly, does it not? It sums up that bench incredibly—“Mr Bumble”, the beadle, and “Ms Limpkins”, the chair of the guardian board. They are denying New Zealanders the opportunity to keep more of their pay and more of their hard-earned income in tax cuts.

But let us look at crime. I have had my arguments with George Hawkins, but I have to tell members that I agree with him completely. Crime in Manurewa is the highest it has been in 25 years. The level of crime in South Auckland is absolutely unbelievable—absolutely incredible. Do members want to know who the victims of crime are in Manurewa? They are ordinary, hard-working family people, the sorts of people who Helen Clark sneers at. They are ordinary, hard-working, family people in Manurewa, trying to get ahead. Graffiti is out of control, violent crime is out of control, and kids are scared to go to school without their parents taking them, and what does the Government say? It says: “Oh, it is the sun and the moon.” That is what Annette King said. She said that this crime wave across the country is the responsibility of the sun and the moon. That is from the woman who defeated the Government on the trans-Tasman therapeutic goods legislation. With her inept handling of that she actually gave the Government the cleanest MMP defeat a Government has had in the history of this country’s new electoral system. And those members say that she is a safe pair of hands!

Hon Bill English: Don’t forget the Electoral Finance Act.

Hon TONY RYALL: She ran the Electoral Finance Act, and that showed a really safe pair of hands. Goodness knows what one would describe David Cunliffe as, if Annette King is a safe pair of hands.

John Key is right on the money when he says that tackling youth crime, sentences for those who deserve them, and a smart use of criminal justice resources will get those kids under control and make our communities safer. John Key offers New Zealand the positive values that New Zealanders want. He is a man who has come from a pretty hard background, from a strapped background, and from a family that did not have a lot of money and found it difficult to make ends meet. But he worked hard, he got ahead, he lived the Kiwi dream, and now he is offering himself as Prime Minister of New Zealand. I would celebrate his success.

Hon Bill English: They don’t. They hate him.

Hon TONY RYALL: They call him a working-class scab. That is the mentality of those members, but New Zealanders admire John Key, a man who came from such a harsh background to be the success he is today. Through his hard work and his vision, this country has the opportunity to have a future that we can only dream about under this Labour Government. This man will reward hard work and will value New Zealanders.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development): Who knows what that speech was all about? It was scatological, it was Messianic, and it was completely free of fact. It was a great work of New Zealand fiction, except it was not a great work, at all. Those members on the Opposition side of the House just make it up. They get up, they start with their research unit notes, and they just head off into hyperspace, making it up as they go along.

Let me alight just on one topic: the comparison between New Zealand and Australia, because clearly it is a theme in the National Party’s research unit. I invite those members to rewrite their research as follows. In the last 8 years the gap between New Zealand and Australia has not widened. The years prior to that, the 1990s, the 1980s, and to some extent the 1970s, were when it did widen. It widened particularly in the 1990s, and we can get some idea of why it widened in the 1990s by paying attention to the following policies. New Zealand had an Employment Contracts Act that was designed to drive down wages and Australia did not. It had a more moderate approach to employment relations. New Zealand had no increase in the minimum wage, as my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned in her speech. Over 9 years it increased by only 87c. In the 9 years of this Government, it has increased by $5. That is the difference between a Government that wants to lift wages and a Government that does not.

Over in Australia right through the 1990s there was economic development policy at the state and federal level, even to the point where people wondered whether they had too much economic development policy, and in the 1990s in this country we had none. We had Trade New Zealand, we had the BIZinfo number, we had the Technology for Business Growth programme with a few million dollars in it, and that was it. That was it. There was no New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, and no collaboration with the social partners, the Council of Trade Unions, or with Business New Zealand. That happened only under this Government; in Australia it is a matter of continuum. Here we stopped doing all that. When we start adding those facts together, we start to understand why Australia leapt ahead during the 1990s, and right now the gap is getting no bigger.

I will make some comments about Katherine Rich, because she comes from Dunedin, because she has been my opponent in the last three elections, and because I know her and her family somewhat. I have known her parents for 30 years. I respect her decision, but I am sad to see her go. I am genuinely sad to see her go. I would say to her publicly that on the three occasions we have shared the platform on the hustings, not once have we had reason to fight in any personal way; not once. We have contested strongly and we will continue to contest strongly—I do not imagine she will leave public life in its entirety—but it has always been a thoroughly civil contest, and I am sad to see her go. I never wanted her to be a Minister, because she would have been a Minister in a National Government, but had she ever been a Minister, she would have been a good one. Of that I am sure. She would have been a good Minister.

I want to record my public respect for her on a number of issues, but the one that comes to mind with me more than all of the others was her position on solo parents 2 or 3 years ago, when she stood up against her leader of the time and had to do so publicly. Although she is a younger member of the National Party caucus, she actually reminds me much more of National’s older values. She reminds me a lot more of McKinnon, Bolger, or Jack Marshall. I know that those are all “old men”, but in a sense Katherine Rich epitomised those values much more than, I think, anyone else I know of in the National Party. I wish her well. I promise her that I will represent her interests, because she is one of my constituents, and that will not be too difficult because our base values are nowhere near as far apart as they are between me and much of the remainder of the National Party caucus. I think that she has been a voice of moderation. I think she is a modern person—both modern and moderate. So those are my remarks.

The National Party is a loser. The National Party is a big loser here, because Katherine Rich offered some counterbalance to the stuff that is not modern and moderate in the National Party. If one was to look along its front bench and ask whether one thought Nick Smith was a modern, a moderate, or a balanced sort of person, or whether we have compassionate conservatives sitting there on the front bench, then I think one would have to acknowledge that the National Party is now seriously imbalanced. It was partially imbalanced, it will now become seriously imbalanced, and as far as the replacements are concerned, all I would say is that Merv Wellington is now looking like an intellectual giant. That is all I would say about that. There is not a lot of depth in National when one looks at the minor reshuffle it has had. We need not bother mentioning names. The long and short of it is that Katherine Rich’s talents are being missed for that reason.

Yesterday, when the Prime Minister opened the batting in this House with her speech, pointing out where her Government is headed this year, it was a speech packed with content, either in the general or in the detail—it was packed. There was 30 minutes of it—it was packed. It described a Government that knows where it is going, knows how to get there, and that has momentum. But the Leader of the Opposition leapt to his feet—and it has happened again in the House this afternoon—and used the word “vacuous”. Let us explore that. “Vacuous”, he said. Helen Clark gave action on housing, and on changes to the funding of non-governmental organisations. She offered more progress towards sustainable development. She announced new initiatives in criminal justice. She foreshadowed announcements—or at least developments—in research and development, in the innovation area, and in broadband. That was on top of her education announcements of a couple of weeks prior.

John Key got up and said that the speech was vacuous. John Key had had that speech for 5 hours—he got it at 10 o’clock in the morning, he got to his feet at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and I do not think he had read it. I do not think he had read it. He said the Prime Minister’s statement was vacuous. Actually, when one looks at John Key and what followed from his speech, one sees that it was a self-description. If one wants to know anything that was vacuous about yesterday afternoon’s proceedings, it was Mr Key’s speech. It was a remarkably empty speech. He had had the Prime Minister’s speech for 5 hours to formulate a response, a rebuttal, a repositioning, or something, and he did none of those. He had only one-liners. They were carefully written jokes—actually, they were tragically overwritten jokes. God knows what Britney Spears has to do with the Waterview bypass! But we got all of that from John Key, and he had 5 hours to prepare something better.

John Key had no vision, no substance—no alternatives, not even in the general. Let us just say he did not have to announce anything specifically—it was not required. But he did not give a direction of travel; he just gave a speech that was better suited to some after-dinner event and not well suited to opening the Parliament of this country for this year. It will not do. This gentleman is putting his name in for Prime Minister later this year—not in 5 years’ time but later this year. He has not told us what he stands for, except that he can hold a bellyful of dead rats. That is all we know about John Key. He is too preoccupied with trying to imitate this Government to make up anything of his own. When he tries, it does not work.

He tells us that he will do boot camps. That is interesting, because yesterday the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, at a meeting in Queenstown, spoke of the issue of serious offenders amongst our youth, and said of boot camps that turning serious offenders lives around was not as simple as setting up boot camps. He said: “We had them—they were called corrective training. They came out fitter, stronger, faster but still burglars. Reoffending was around 96%.” Judge Becroft said the best solution to youth crime was to give children the best possible start in life, from birth to the age of seven.

Who opposes 20 hours’ free early childhood education? Who is completely underwhelmed by the preschool check for children’s health and children’s behaviour? Who has said that they think the best way to deal with young people who have gone off the rails is to put them into a boot camp? It is known to fail. This gentleman, Mr Key, does not know what he stands for, and there is a one-liner in politics: “If one does not know what one stands for, don’t stand.” This is the guy who went to Waitangi a week ago today and was caught hugging a guy who is up for a serious offence. Mr Key got tricked. He is just new. He is new, he is not ready, and he will not be Prime Minister at the end of this year.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): We have just heard from Labour’s chief strategist. This man was in charge of the Kyoto Protocol. He turned the $500 million credit that we were promised into a $1 billion debit. So he has done a good job. That member has talked to us today about all of the achievements of the Labour Government, which are not many. As Minister of Energy what did he do? I do not know. We are facing an energy crisis at the moment. We are telling people to prepare for brown outs. We are telling them that we are all hoping and praying for rain.

When that member was the Minister of Transport he could not even give Helen her tunnel.

Hon Member: Is that right?

JUDITH COLLINS: It is true; she could not even get her tunnel. When he was the Minister of Fisheries he mucked up the whole Maori Fisheries Act. What happened when he was the Minister of Health? Everyone was sick and he got sacked. He has been replaced by David Cunliffe, and that says it all. David Cunliffe is running the show now and everything will be great. When the member was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology—which I think he still is—what did we have? We had a brain drain in sciences. And tertiary education? Well, we now have universities saying they are in a crisis of funding. So that is the record of that Minister, Labour’s chief strategist.

I support the motion of John Key that this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark-led Government because it has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders, because it lacks ambition, because it is tired and bereft of ideas, because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power, and because under its lead our country has become a story of lost opportunities. I represent some of the ordinary people in New Zealand—a lot of the ordinary people in South Auckland, who do not want to be told by Helen Clark that if people do not have a university degree, they are not worth much and might as well give up. That is what she says. She says that they might as well go off to Australia.

Helen Clark would rather have yet another person with a university degree than she would a plumber or tradesman. I would say to Helen Clark that she should think about what sort of civilised country it would be without tradesmen. I ask her to just think about that. I say that she should try to have a civilised country without plumbers, electricians, mechanics, and the people who do the work—those who clean the floors and who work in the hospitals. Helen Clark should try to have a country like that, with a whole stack of people sitting around in academia, gazing at their navels. She should just think about that. [Interruption] I am sorry for the previous member for Whanganui, who lost that seat to my colleague Chester Borrows so badly.

Christopher Finlayson: Yes, badly.

JUDITH COLLINS: She has never got over it. I am sorry for her that she has lost touch with ordinary Kiwis. I will tell her what ordinary Kiwis want to talk about. They do not want to talk about Helen Clark’s UN-sponsored trips around the world. They want to talk about why the Labour Government is more interested in its own survival than in ordinary New Zealanders who care.

Kiwis want to know why a $2.5 billion tunnel is going under Helen Clark’s electorate, when right now, on State Highway 2 at Maramarua, we have Kiwis going through an utter death trap on the most unsafe highway in the country. Why does this Government care more about Helen Clark’s tunnel in Waterview than it does about the Kiwis who are killed almost every week on State Highway 2 at Maramarua? Why is that? The reason is that this Labour Government is interested only in its own survival.

Labour Government members have absolutely squandered New Zealand’s economic inheritance. They have allowed us to squander the best times that we could have had if only they had taken advantage of the fact that we have had good commodity prices and a dollar that would actually work for us. We had a lot of things going for us, and Labour has squandered them.

That is why the Salvation Army this week brought out a report on social services. The report pointed out that in the last 10 years social services spending—taxpayer money—has gone from $23 billion a year to $39 billion a year. That is a massive increase in 10 years. The Salvation Army said that the result of the Government’s spending had “contributed very little to our social progress” and that, in fact, the gap between rich and poor had got larger. That is what the Salvation Army said.

When we look at the Government today and at Ruth Dyson standing up and crowing that the Government would give the social services sector some more money, we see that she forgot to say that for the last 9 years the Government has sat down and put all its money into bureaucracy. It has bled dry people in the social services sector like the Salvation Army. It has bled them dry. The Government has got them to do all these projects for it, it has underfunded them, underpaid them, and added more bureaucracy.

I say to those members opposite who do not want to come out door-knocking in Papakura—I certainly want to, and I do—that people in Papakura are not fooled by this nonsense from Labour. They know that the crime rate has gone up in South Auckland. We live and work in South Auckland. George Hawkins was absolutely spot on when he said that Manurewa has the highest crime rate in 25 years. He is right. This Government thinks that it should put a whole lot of extra money into the sort of nonsense that it does—talkfests, social policy statements, and rubbish like that—instead of actually getting shoes on kids’ feet, and getting kids into school and keeping them there.

Let us look at another issue. Why is it that after 8 years under Labour—almost 9 years—we have the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? Why would that be?

Christopher Finlayson: Why?

JUDITH COLLINS: I do not know. Why have they doubled? Why have they gone from 4.5 percent to 8.5 percent? Why is that, after 8—almost 9—years of a Labour Government? People who have mortgages care about this. People who are in debt care about it. Why has beneficiary debt gone from $300 million to $760 million under this Government? Why has that happened? Why are more poor people poorer under this Government? Why is that? Why have all those social indicators got worse?

The Government really hates it when we talk about Australia. Why under Labour are more people—800 people a week; 800 ordinary Kiwis every week—now leaving and moving permanently to Australia? Why is that? I think this Government should just accept that it might as well not have a Minister of Immigration; it should have a “Minister of Emigration”, because so many people are leaving this country. That is exactly what is happening. They are becoming political and economic refugees.

Why under Labour can we get a tax cut only in election year? Gee, that would have nothing to do with Labour wanting to be re-elected again. What happened to the last tax cut? Oh, I know; that went as soon as the election was over.

Why can our ordinary hard-working Kiwis not afford to buy their house? Why is that? It is because every single housing policy the Government puts out puts up the cost of housing for ordinary Kiwis. Every single time the Government plays around with planning law and resource management law it puts up the price of houses for ordinary Kiwis.

Why is the Government’s answer to youth crime—I should actually say “street crime”, because some of it is led by 30-year-olds in South Auckland—that it was really hot and that the sun and moon were not in alignment properly? Why is that the answer to people who actually have to live with it? I would ask those Government members who are supposed to represent those people—the very ordinary Kiwis—why they care so little. I tell them that the people who suffer most from violent crime in this country are the people without choices. Those people cannot ever just say they will sell up and move. Those people do not get choices. They are the ones who suffer. Those Labour Government members dismiss those poor victims and the people who have to put up with graffiti every day of their lives.

By the way, why does the Labour Government not support George Hawkins’ Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill? Why is that? It is because George Hawkins is telling it right; graffiti is absolutely part of crime.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Because it fixes it only in Manukau; it doesn’t fix it in Manurewa.

JUDITH COLLINS: Mrs Chadwick sits there and says it is all about Manukau.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s a nonsense.

JUDITH COLLINS: And she called it a nonsense. I tell her that the people in Manukau will learn that the Labour Government thinks they are just a nonsense when they want to stop graffiti in Manukau. I represent the Papakura people, as well. I tell the member that we want to see the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill go through. We want to see it go through, we want it to be successful, and then we want to help get it to the rest of the country where people want it. We want it in Papakura, but we are not like those members opposite; we do not sit around and say: “Because we have not got it, they should not have it.” No, we want that legislation to be a success and we want to see it come into Papakura, because people should be safe in their own homes.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): It is not for me to talk about my personal preferences but I quite like that member. I quite like Judith Collins. But I have to tell members that I have read The Hollow Men and Bill English said she had been promoted beyond her level of capacity. I thought that was rather harsh—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They can’t say that of you.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, they cannot say that of me. But every time the member speaks, I think, sadly, that Bill English was right, and he obviously knows the member better than I do.

I want to talk about things that affect exporters, because it is exporters that put the dollars in New Zealand’s pockets and largely set the standard of living we enjoy as citizens. It is no secret that New Zealand First is concerned about the US89c dollar and that we believe that changes should be made to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that would have the Governor of the Reserve Bank taken to account for the effect that a high interest rate and high dollars would have on our exporters. But, sadly, I did not hear any of that in the speeches yesterday, either from the Government or from the National Party.

We all know, and again it has been written about recently, that the leader of the National Party, John Key, took positions—I think that is what they call them—against the New Zealand dollar when he was a financial trader. There were certainly adverse effects on the New Zealand dollar. He did that because he was told to, he has said. I hope nobody tells him to do anything else that affects the New Zealand economy. I would not be holding that up as a proud moment if I were him or if I were a member of the National Party, because nobody who aspires to be the leader of this country should at any time in their history have adversely affected the New Zealand economy.

More especially, I will address the issue of the proposed listing of Fonterra, the New Zealand dairy company that is doing particularly well at the present time. It is doing well in spite of the fact that the meat industry is not doing too well—the sheep and wool industries. The reason Fonterra is doing well is in large part because it is organised. It has a cooperative structure, it has a single marketing focus and has worked hard on that, and it has been prepared to share the benefits and costs over many years. Farmers have invested heavily into Fonterra and heavily into its marketing. Sadly, I did not hear the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition speak about that, either.

When I have spoken about this issue before, I have had some people—some unbelievers—ask me what it has to do with me. There are lots of reasons actually, but there are two in the main. Firstly, if the structure of that company is to be changed it needs an Act to be passed in this Parliament to do so. That is the first reason.

Secondly, I want to talk about something farmers know about but a lot of other people do not. To progress this issue, Fonterra needs several votes, and it needs to attain 75 percent approval on each one. What is not understood by people outside farming is that a vote in Fonterra is based on a kilogram produced; it is not a vote by 75 percent of 11,000 farmers. I am concerned that we will have a few farmers with huge herds, who individually own 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 cows—most of whom are sitting on their backside in the cities and are called, in my old-fashioned terms, “Queen Street farmers”—deciding this vote. I want to make sure that the average family farm has an opportunity to have its say. It would be a travesty if this vote, which would lead to the loss of the company, was decided by people who are not actively involved in the industry, as are those on family farms. I will talk more about this issue this year, but I will cede to my colleague Ron Mark at this point.

RON MARK (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I will raise an issue that has been debated heavily. I wonder whether people have noticed that New Zealand First has just let the two old-hat parties talk their heads off on crime. We have certainly noted with interest the words that have come out of the mouths of particularly John Key and National Party members in the last few weeks. We have heard a lot of words about the problems of youth crime and the way that political parties, in particular the National Party, are going to deal with these problems.

What concerns us is that it is election year. We have heard all these words before in other election years and they are just that—only words. Take John Key’s words, for example: “Don’t look to us for hand-wringing about the importance of the so-called social bonds on offer through criminal gangs”. That is what John Key said. So what do we make of these words spoken by Judith Collins on national television, on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson, where she said: “Kids get involved in gangs because they are looking for fathers; they are looking for someone who cares about them; they are looking for someone who actually gives them some structure in their lives and is not romanticising it. Basically, the gang is a new home.” One of those statements was from a tough guy, and the other statement was from someone who stood in the House just a few minutes ago and tried to portray a tough guy image as well. But, in actual fact, there is a huge contradiction and that is the dilemma that the voting public and the media have to deal with. There are words and more words, there is no consistency, and there are absolute flip-flops and hypocrisy coming out of the mouths of people who want the public to vote for them.

New Zealanders do not need words; they need action. They need action now and I do not mean the kind of action shown in the photograph I am holding up. This photograph of John Key and Tame Iti shows a number of things. First I have to tell Mark Sainsbury of Television One, when he has got over his nice little lovey-dovey documentary about Tame Iti, that this is the man who, on national television, smashed a taiaha over the head of another man whilst he was being interviewed. What does John Key think of him? He thinks he is a good mate. This is a man who has a whole range of criminal convictions behind him, including misuse, improper use, and illegal use of firearms. What does John Key think of him? He thinks he is a good chap to cosy up to. What is the message that John Key is sending the wider public, when the public know that this man faces a raft of serious allegations, when this man knew the men who were making such statements as “It’s good to kill a Pākehā.”? What sort of message is that, I ask Mr John Key? I tell Mr John Key that it is totally inconsistent with his tough message on law and order.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are ongoing court cases and it appears that Mr Mark is trying to bring information from people involved in some way in those court cases—rightly or wrongly, accurately or not—into this debate. It is right against the Standing Orders to say that somebody who knew Mr Iti—and so on.

RON MARK: Speaking to the point of order, I say in response that every word I have just uttered is already in the media. The words pertain to old charges—old convictions—that have been well publicised and are well known. They have no impact on the current charges—in fact we do not even know what charges he is currently facing—and they have been well canvassed in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I caution the member to be careful about things that are before the court.

RON MARK: That is the point. New Zealand is sick and tired of seeing certain parties coming to the election hustings on the back of big law and order policies, and of certain other people hiding these criminals, these gangsters, and their thugs behind their skirts like the Māori Party seems intent on doing these days, backed up by Mr Locke and the Greens. Mr Key talks about putting those people in the army. Well, hello! In 1996 New Zealand First negotiated into the coalition agreement with National the expanded use of the Limited Service Volunteers, and who opposed that at every turn?

New Zealand First has a very clear message to this House and to the public. We have had enough of gangs, and our view has been consistent over 13 years. We believe there is enough law now for the police, with the right priority directives from the Government, to get to work tonight and start locking up people. We in New Zealand First do not care how full the prisons are; we want gangsters—be they young gangsters, or young thugs bashing people with baseball bats—off our streets. We believe people have a right to that degree of safety that they have been consistently promised. New Zealand First means to launch an all-out war on gangs, lawlessness, crime, and young thugs and we will do it one way or another. But we will do it because we will have the backing of the public who know the hollow rhetoric that they hear from one side of the House and the insipid weakness that they see on the other. Make no bones about it; gangs have something to fear here.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): Through you, Madam Assistant Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking fellow members of the House for the support given to me and my family late last year with regard to the death of my son. I would also like to wish Brian Donnelly all the best in his new job in a most beautiful part of the world. I know he is very well suited to the appointment, and I say Labour wishes him well.

In debating the Prime Minister’s statement, I want to look at two or three very key issues that she spoke mostly about. The first is housing affordability. It has been heard in the House in the last couple of days that this Government—and I was very proud to be the Minister of Housing when we first became the Government—has actually added 7,500 more State houses back into Housing New Zealand Corporation’s stock, to go towards replacing the 13,000 houses that were sold in the 1990s. We now see that 3,000 New Zealanders have taken advantage of Welcome Home Loans and have been able to buy their first home, and with KiwiSaver under way, in not too many years’ time we will have people receiving substantial Government assistance for the deposit they will need in order to buy their first home.

We have also implemented policies around Government land. When I was the Minister of Housing, Hobsonville was a piece of land that we were able to purchase from the defence forces to be used in the future for housing. The Leader of the Opposition, the local member for that area, described that as economic vandalism, although I did hear him this morning—I think—say that we had been too slow in getting that housing project under way. John Key is so ignorant about his own electorate that he is not aware that the land at Hobsonville is in a rural area at the moment and it requires the regional council to shift the urban limits before anybody—rich or poor—can build on it.

This Government wants to have a mix of housing at Hobsonville. We do not want to repeat the Ōtara,Māngere, and Porirua experiments of the past by putting all the people there into low-cost rental housing. We want affordable housing for people to buy, we want affordable housing for people to rent, and we will have some housing on the open market, so that people can live in a mixed community with different socio-economic groups, which is what good urban planning is about, and where there are schools and businesses—and there is a very good industry developing there in terms of boatbuilding, etc. That is what this Government is about when it talks about affordable housing.

In my area of Auckland, in Tāmaki, the Minister of Housing announced last week a further move in terms of our already-started development. We are very proud of the fact that Talbot Park has been completed and is housing lots of people who would not otherwise be housed. In that part of Tāmaki, some million-dollar houses up on the hill are sitting on land that used to be occupied by State housing. We hear a lot from the National Party members about that. The National Government sold those properties. The properties are not occupied by people who need affordable housing; along the streets of Glendowie that once had State housing, people will not buy a house for under a million bucks. Those houses used to be occupied by State house tenants, but the National Party does not believe that they should have a right to live in those parts of Auckland. The National Government turfed them out and put them down on to the flat lands of Glen Innes, putting them into horrible infill housing that is a disgusting mess even though it is only a few years old.

That is the difference between that lot over there in Opposition and this Government. We will rebuild the Tāmaki part of Auckland, again, with affordable housing for people to buy, with the number of State houses that we have there but houses of better quality, and we will charge those people income-related rents, not market rents. Market rents were the prevailing philosophy of the National Party back in the 1990s and will be again in the future, because at the moment the National members are pretending that it is all the same for them as it is for Labour when it comes to housing. I do not believe them, nor does a single State house tenant who was a tenant in the 1990s—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They bought their houses.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Tenants did not buy their houses, I say to Dr Smith. He should go and find one of those people in Mount Pleasant Road—or whatever it is called now—in Glendowie, who was a State house tenant. I know National might have sold some houses to its own members—one of them, I thought, bought nine State houses in Porirua, from memory—but I do not think many tenants got to buy them. In fact, tenants were coming to me, as the newly sworn in Minister of Housing, and saying they had never had a chance to buy their homes. Dr Smith should go to Auckland Central and try to find in the Ponsonby area a State house that was sold to a tenant. Those ex - State houses now sit at well above $1 million in value. They are featured on housing programmes about how to renovate old State houses, and they are extremely expensive.

The difference between National and Labour is that we really know what we are talking about with regard to affordable housing. What National members are saying is that they will sell off the best State houses to their mates and will chuck State house tenants out, like they did last time National was in Government, or they will charge tenants a market rent.

On the other major point in the Prime Minister’s statement, I say the $446 million that is going to social service providers in New Zealand is absolutely brilliant. I represent South Auckland. I was born in and have grown up in the area, and I know it well. We had—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Lolly scramble!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: That member calls it a lolly scramble. I say he should go and tell that to the Women’s Refuge. He should go and tell the people in South Auckland who are delivering family violence programmes that it is a lolly scramble—a lolly scramble for people who work at the coalface with the most difficult parts of society. Dr Nick Smith says it is a lolly scramble to pay people what their work is worth. Those people, who are the social workers and the youth workers in South Auckland—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re vote buying!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: That member says it is vote buying. In my community of Ōtāhuhu, just over a year or two ago three young people were killed—and Nick Smith says this issue is about vote buying.

Our community took up the challenge. With the assistance of the Government, we put three youth workers into Ōtāhuhu. We made sure that every school had a social worker and a nurse. We made sure that there were more police, and they are working smarter and working with the community. They are taking young people off the streets who are breaching their bail, and who, if they were left there, would be involved in some sort of crime—and usually violent crime. The young man who was shot and the man who was dragged under a car were good, hard-working New Zealanders. I knew the young man who was dragged under the car. He was working two jobs, had several children, and had been to school with my children.

If that is what vote buying is all about, I am for it. The people who work in those communities need the support of this Government and of the taxpayer. That is what we are doing with $446 million over the next 4 years. The Women’s Refuge people, who pick up the pieces for, mostly, women and children who have escaped the family home to get away from the violence, are ones who are going to receive that assistance.

In my community, on Friday afternoon in Ōtāhuhu—and I just use Ōtāhuhu as an example, because this type of work is going on in Ōtara, Māngere, Papatoetoe, Manurewa, and other parts of South Auckland—we will have a family fun day in Sturges Park. It has been organised by the community, with the help of all the people that this Government is funding. We will have alternatives for young people being developed in that community, with the YMCA, the schools, and the churches running programmes, and we will have the community backed by Government agencies and Government spending, so we do not have a repeat of those sorts of deaths on our streets. That is what this Government talked about in the Prime Minister’s statement—and the Opposition described it as vacuous. It is vacuous to go into communities and stop that violence—to give young people an alternative to joining gangs! The National members described that as vacuous. I would have thought that was a very strange term to throw at it.

Lastly, I want to talk about the wages gap. On 1 April the minimum wage goes up to $12 an hour. Every commercial cleaner in this country—the people who clean our offices, the people who clean all these buildings in Wellington, and the people who clean shopping centres—will go from $11.30 an hour, which is their current pay rate, to $12 an hour. Does the National Party support that?

Hon Members: No!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Absolutely not. The National members are always opposed to the minimum wage going up. That is why the National Government left it frozen for most of the 1990s. We have put it up from $7 an hour to $12 an hour in the time we have been in Government. That is action—$12, not $7. Who is really interested in the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand—us or them? The National members would have opposed that increase in the minimum wage and would never have made it. They are like their mates in the aged-care industry, who took the Government to court in order to stop having to pay aged-care workers—some of the lowest-paid and most hard-working people in this country—an extra dollar an hour. The Government had funded them for it—we put it in the Budget last year—and the National members voted against it. They would have supported their mates in the aged-care industry, because they are big business, not paying that additional $1 an hour to the people who will look after them when they are in a rest home. When Nick Smith is in a rest home, he will expect to be looked after by those people, but he will not support them getting a decent wage.

So it is just nonsense to say that this Government is not concerned about wages and the wage gap. We do something about it; the Opposition actually opposes that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I support the motion of John Key that this House should have no confidence in this Clark-led Government, because it has failed to make significant improvements in those issues that are of real importance to New Zealanders. It lacks ambition, it is tired, it is bereft of ideas, and it has lost touch with the ordinary people who put it in power. The Prime Minister’s speech focused on three areas: housing, social policy, and sustainability. Let me go through each of those areas, because in each we have had state of the nation reports that judge things by record, not rhetoric. In January we had a demographer’s report on housing affordability. That report showed—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A demographer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Two Tories.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask Mr Mallard why it is that New Zealand has the second-ighest interest rates in the developed world under this Labour Government. I ask Mr Mallard why it is that when Labour came into Government the average New Zealander, on the average wage, and buying the average house spent 40 percent of their income on servicing a mortgage, and today that figure is 90 percent. I ask Mr Mallard why it is that the census data under this Labour Government shows the biggest drop in homeownership under any Government since the first census asked that question in 1893. Let me repeat that again. This Government, according to our own census data, has the worst record on home affordability of any Government since the 1890s. We have across the way Lynne Pillay shaking her head. Does she not believe the census figures?

Lynne Pillay: We’re fixing things!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, she says Labour is fixing things! I say to Lynne Pillay that Labour has had 8 years, and its record after 8 years is the worst record on home affordability of any Government in over a century, and I say its time is up.

Let us go to the issue of social policy. This is the headline in the Press, where the Salvation Army produced a state of the nation report on the issue of social policy. It gives the Government a very poor record indeed. Let me tell members what the Salvation Army said about the Government. It said there has been a 24 percent increase in referrals to Child, Youth and Family. It said there has been a 28 percent increase in serious crime. It said the prison population has gone up by 36 percent. After 8 years of a Labour Government, this damning Salvation Army report shows that it has failed in the area of social policy.

The area I really want to turn the record on this Government is in respect of sustainability. In last year’s Prime Minister’s speech Helen Clark chanted the word “sustainability” 39 times like some Hare Krishna. Well, let us look at the record of sustainability since that speech so loaded with rhetoric by the Prime Minister. If we look at New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol deficit, we will see that in 2002 the Government told the people of New Zealand that Kyoto meant we would make hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Last year the Government admitted that our Kyoto liability would be $420 million. That is what it said last year—$420 million. What does it say now? Our Kyoto figures have blown out from $400 million to $967 million! I am just pleased the Prime Minister did not say “sustainability” 90 times or the figure might have trebled. In every area of emissions we have seen huge growth. If we look, for instance, at the core data collected by the United Nations, we see that New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions grew by more in 2007 than in any year on record—any year on record! If we look at the issue of electricity, we see that under this Government we have trebled the amount of electricity that is produced from coal. At the same time that the Government declined to grant consent for the Dobson power station on the West Coast, our renewable energy station, do members know what this carbon-free Government did? It built a new oil-fired power station that today is running at absolutely full bore. As Gerry Brownlee revealed today, the Government’s own Electricity Commission is looking at importing 100 diesel generators in containers to keep the lights on while the Prime Minister chants carbon neutrality and sustainability. It does not stack.

If we look at the really good practical issue on conservation and the environment that is forestry, we see that every single year since records began New Zealand planted 30,000 hectares of additional forests—from 1951 until 2004. Every single year since 2004 New Zealand has been losing forests; last year it was referred to by the media as a chainsaw massacre. So in the very year in which the Prime Minister chanted sustainability 39 times this country lost 7 million trees. We cut down 7 million more trees than we planted—the worst year ever. Then we had the state of the environment report. That report came out—and there has been controversy over a bit of doctoring that has gone on within the Ministry for the Environment—but even it shows more serious deterioration in water quality in the last period of this Government than ever in New Zealand history. Water quality is getting worse at a faster rate than at any time in New Zealand history. I say to members opposite: 8 years of record emissions, record forestry losses, record loss of biodiversity, record deterioration in water quality, and it wants to get re-elected on sustainability! Make our day.

I will put some questions to members opposite around the issues that are of real importance to New Zealanders. Why, after 8 years of a Labour Government, are New Zealanders paying the second-highest interest rate in the world? I was appalled to hear Steve Chadwick, the MP for Rotorua, saying that she did not care. She did not care about people paying mortgages. Well that is a difference between people on this side of the House and the Labour side. National wants to know why it is that for 8 years under this Government it put taxes up, stacked away $45 billion of surpluses, and why it is only in election year that it is prepared to give a tax cut. I ask Jill Pettis why it is that after 8 years of a Labour Government we have one-quarter of our kids coming out of schools unable to do basic literacy and numeracy. Why is it that violent crime—as George Hawkins said—is the worst in 25 years? Why is it, after 8 years of a Labour Government, crime is at its worst level in 25 years? Why is it, after pouring billions of dollars into the health system we are not getting any more operations, and, critically important for my Nelson constituents who get their heart surgery in Wellington, why are the waiting lists three times longer than what they were in 1990?

On all the important issues, the issues that matter to ordinary New Zealanders, this Government, after 8 years, has a track record of failure. It has a record of failure on social policy, as so clearly identified in that state of the nation report from the Salvation Army, and it has an appalling record on housing—the worst record of any Government in the history of New Zealand—where the cost of housing in real terms has more than doubled. The Government’s record on sustainability—on all the important things such as climate change, water quality, forestry, and biodiversity—is one of failure.

The truth is that for this Government its time is up. It is interested only in laws that will protect its own butt. It has forgotten about caring for the people of New Zealand, and that is why this year people will be looking to John Key to write the next chapter in the New Zealand story, because a John Key leadership will be focused on the issues that matter to ordinary New Zealanders rather than the self-preservation that is the sole focus of this sick, tired Labour Government.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): I want to place on the record for the people who are listening to the radio rather than watching this on television, especially the people of Nelson, that that was Dr Nick Smith, the MP for Nelson. I think it is really important that people are aware of who made that speech. I know that when Parliament is on television the names appear at the bottom of the screen, and people in Nelson will be aware, if they are watching TV, that that was Nick Smith. But for people listening to the radio, I want to reiterate that that was the case.

I think that that sort of speech is one of the reasons that Maryan Street, at the end of this year, will be the MP for Nelson. I think if one had listened to the final part of the Nick Smith’s speech, one would have heard an appeal to John Key to give him a higher place on the list. I think that is what he was on about. I cannot use the expression I am thinking of in relation to the sort of approach he was taking to John Key, but it was getting very, very close and personal. I think we could see that member greasing up to his leader in an attempt to get a higher place on the list because Maryan Street is going to be the MP for Nelson.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be happy to take a bet with the member on my success in Nelson—for the best bottle of wine.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member should sit down.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The next point I would like to make, though, is a positive comment about a National Party member, and that is Katherine Rich. In fact, I have a positive comment about a couple of National Party members. I want to congratulate Mr Tremain on his promotion to the position of junior whip. It is an honourable position, one that I have held myself, and one learns quite a lot, and that is good. But Katherine Rich, I think, is someone who is not just a softer face for the National Party, though she is certainly that, but is, as far as many on this side of the House are concerned, a person who has an intellect and a person who has integrity. She showed that on a number of occasions, especially in the way she stood up to Don Brash during the period when she was the Opposition spokesperson on welfare. She is someone who will be sorely missed on that side of the House, and I think Parliament will be poorer as a result of her not being a National Party list MP, because of the influence she has. I think it is important to put that on the record.

I now turn to the question of Mr Key and his speech, and ask him why he did not, at any stage, tell this House what his conversations were with Tame Iti. What deals did they do when he was so up close and personal with Tame Iti? He was face to face with Tame Iti. They had a close embrace. I just want to ask him how that fits with his views on law and order. How can he, when he knows someone is facing very, very serious charges under the Arms Act—and that is a matter of public record—put himself in a position where he is seen to endorse the mana of that individual by greeting him in the way he did? I cannot believe that any responsible politician in New Zealand would endorse Tame Iti in the way that John Key did at Waitangi. It was absolutely wrong, and I think it shows—and I have to be very careful with my words here—that he lacks what is necessary to be a strong leader who is prepared to stand up for his principles and stand up for what is right for New Zealand. That is what he showed us when he put himself in the position where he endorsed Tame Iti in that way. Should we have been surprised? Probably not, because earlier that day he was seen hand in hand—

Hon Member: How do you greet him?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If I saw Tame Iti in that situation, I would walk the other way. There is no obligation to cuddle up to Tame Iti in the way that John Key did. There is no obligation under any sort of culture to endorse Tame Iti in the way John Key did, and any decent leader would have had the backbone to turn round, go the other way, and not greet Tame Iti, in those circumstances. Anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of marae protocol knows that, in the end, the greeting does not have to be given. People do not have to be welcomed and they do not have to be endorsed. It is a matter of integrity, and John Key should have shown more of it in that particular circumstance.

Chris Tremain: Whatever.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Does the member want more?

Chris Tremain: I said “Whatever.”

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, I will go back to the point that I was going to make, which is that I was not very surprised, because earlier in the day he had been seen hand in hand not with someone who was on bail but with someone with very, very serious convictions in the child abuse area—something that he knew. He was hand in hand with that woman, again endorsing her in a way that I think is very, very inappropriate.

So he was hand in hand with one and face to face with another, and we ask what sort of leadership that shows for New Zealand. A leader is someone who is meant to stand up for New Zealand internationally, and stand up for what is right and proper for New Zealand. How can he aspire to be in Government? How can he aspire to be the Prime Minister? How can someone who falls at the first hurdle be expected, for example, not to send troops to Iraq? If someone cannot show strength when there is a very easy decision to make, how could that person show strength under international pressure in the way that New Zealand Prime Ministers have been required to do?

Many of our Prime Ministers have shown that strength over the years, and I now give credit to Jim Bolger. Jim Bolger came under tremendous pressure on the nuclear question, and he stood up. There was a bit of a waver every now and again—and there was a big waver from Don McKinnon during the time of the previous National administration—but he showed that he had the backbone to stand up for what was right. Jim Bolger had that backbone. Sometimes it is the little tests. Tame Iti was a little test that shows what sort of person some people are. John Key is someone who should be able to stand up for what is right.

There have been in the Prime Minister’s speech some major announcements around the funding boost for community-based organisations. I think that the media in New Zealand have missed the importance of that, and it will be something that creeps out over a period of time. The quality of social services that come from community-based organisations will be substantially enhanced as a result of their being able to focus on the work they are contracted for rather than having to fundraise for the balance.

The Schools Plus idea is something that is absolutely brilliant. We all know that training is an issue and that people need to develop skills. The question of affordable housing is on the mind of every MP who works for his or her constituents and looks at the gap to get that deposit and have an affordable mortgage. It is something that is very, very hard. The reason for this is that starter houses are more extensive and more expensive than they were when many of us were first involved in buying houses. Increasing the supply at that moderate end of the market for first-home buyers, getting that step up and getting them into a house, is something that I am sure all of us think is very, very important.

We had a contrast in the debate yesterday. We had a stateswoman, someone who was a national and international giant, and on the other side we had the pigmy who could not stand up to Tame Iti.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise to support the motion of my leader, John Key, who moved yesterday that this House has no confidence in the current Government. I support the motion because this current Government has run out of puff and out of ideas, and now we find that its members are too tired to show up.

When we listened to the Prime Minister—whom the previous speaker endorsed as a statesperson and an international giant—speak yesterday, the hugely overwhelming thing to our side of the House was watching what those members of the Government were doing. They were staring at the floor and trying desperately hard to stay awake, and that was what was recorded by the media when they had their say the next day in the morning papers. They found, and they commented themselves, of their own unprompted volition, that there was no enthusiasm from the other side of the House until members were dragged reluctantly to their feet at the end of the Prime Minister’s statement. When one looks at the content of the speech, one sees a whole lot of tired old drivel. We have heard it before, and, what do we know, we are hearing it again.

The point my friend Simon Power made earlier was that the first time the Prime Minister announced her victims’ charter was in a South Auckland Rotary club in 1994. This international giant—this stateswoman—has taken 14 years to do anything about an idea she had in 1994.

Chris Auchinvole: It takes time.

CHESTER BORROWS: Good ideas take time, apparently. However, we cannot swallow that she has victims at the front of her mind in respect of Labour policy on the judicial process, and it has taken her 14 years to get around to putting into practice an idea of a victims’ charter. That is why when she says she is so in touch, the public do not believe her. That is why when she says she is caring and that she understands, the public do not believe her.

It is no surprise. Labour has no recollection of the past. It certainly cannot go back pre-1990. It was interesting today to notice in question time in the House that when she was asked a question around problems existing in today’s society, she went back—and that will be her theme this year, and good on her—to the “mother of all Budgets”, as they labelled Ruth Richardson’s 1991 Budget announcement. She went straight back to there. New Zealand’s problems today are all sheeted back to the “mother of all Budgets”, which was delivered in 1991. I find that hugely ironic. But then I would say that would I not, because my memory goes back to 1990; it goes back to pre-1990.

It is really interesting to look at some of those faces on the other side of the House and find out where they were in 1990, because 1991 was the first Budget delivered by the incoming National Government. Let us remember that it was Labour that delivered the 1990 Budget the year before. All of a sudden, things have gone quiet on the other side of the House. Everyone is looking down, reading, and trying to remember just where they were in 1990. Well, it is really interesting to have a look at just who was where in 1990. We know that Helen Clark was there—she was in Cabinet. She was the Minister of Health for those 3 years and managed to close 29 hospitals. What do you know, the 30th hospital, Pātea Hospital, was closed on 5 December 1990. It was run down, it was earmarked for closure, and it was going to close anyway—and there you go.

But, no, that was not it. Hang on! Michael Cullen was there. Michael Cullen was the then Associate Minister of Finance, as I recall. What was the story there? He was associate to whom? David Caygill. Who was he? He was the Minister of Finance in 1990. He was the guy who went into that 1990 election and promised for the first time in 15 years to deliver a Budget surplus if he got in. It was going to be a $0.8 billion surplus that year and extend out to $2.5 billion over the next year. What happened? The day after the election, Jim Bolger—and of course Mr Mallard has just applauded him as being a man of integrity—was hooked in by the Labour Government and said: “We are in the poo. You are going to have to bail out the BNZ for a start. You are not going to be able to deliver on any of your policies.” Labour had to admit there was no dough—it had all gone.

Every one of those people sitting over there, including my good friend Jill Pettis, who stood in 1990, stood up and defended the lie that a Budget surplus was coming. They kept their heads down for the next 3 years, because they knew they had absolutely and emphatically lied to the public. It was no surprise to any of us the day after the election when we found out that the promises we had heard going in to that election could not be kept. I am pleased to say that I was a beneficiary of one of the promises that were kept, which was 900 extra cops.

Looking back on that tower, the result of that election campaign caned the National Party. It caned the National Party because of those promises that could not be kept because Labour lied. The members are all still there. On the other side of the House there are four former presidents of the Labour Party. Every one of them was either president during the 1984-90 Labour Government or operating at a higher level within the Labour Party, so they knew what was going on. The brown stuff that hit the fan after the 1990 election is splattered all over them, too. They were behind the fraud. They were there and, like it or not, they are being forced to remember.

I have not been here a long time—maybe coming up to 2½ years—and I have never, ever heard anyone from the Labour Party reflect on the fact that Labour was in Government before 1990. So when we have Helen Clark standing up and sheeting home the recent homicides in South Auckland in January of this year to the 1991 Budget, she should have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to put up her hand and say: “That 1991 Budget was a direct result of the lies we told in the 1990 campaign.” We cannot get over it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may not use “lies” in respect of a party or members in the House.

CHESTER BORROWS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Helen Clark cannot get past the fact that promises were made in the 1990 Budget, and that running into the 1990 campaign Labour said there was money in the bank that was not in the bank.

When she claims that the 1991 Budget put up by the National Party was to blame, along with the moon and the position of the sun, for deaths in South Auckland this year, she has to remember that there is blood on her hands. She has a lot of other things to remember, too. She has to answer a lot of questions that have been put to her in the course of the debate on her statement in this current Parliament, but we will never hear the answers.

I look forward to seeing her response to the flip-flops made by her Government in respect of changes in policy. We have just heard about some of them. We have just heard about the funding for youth programmes dealing with young people and young offenders. It was only after National announced late last year that they would be fully funded that, what do we know, Labour has also decided they will be fully funded. I have a sheet with about 20 such programmes on it. I look forward to seeing their release over the next few days and to references to them this election year.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I am very proud to speak in this debate. Firstly, I want to say how proud I am of the initiatives announced by our Prime Minister yesterday that really build on many of Labour’s great policies. They are things like fair labour laws. We all know that they were opposed by the National Party, as were the increases to the minimum wage and 4 weeks’ holiday. When that policy came in it was opposed by the National Party, but we now see some flip-flops happening. National had vehemently opposed it but it now supports it.

Apprenticeships were opposed by the National Party. It was National that scrapped the Apprenticeship Act in 1991. [Interruption] Chris Auchinvole is saying “No, no, no.” He would not have a clue. The Act was scrapped in 1991 when National came into Government. Mr Auchinvole should look at Hansard. The policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education per week is another great policy that was, again, opposed by National. There have also been increases to superannuation and the introduction of KiwiSaver. National is now trying to murmur support for KiwiSaver. We are also providing assistance with homeownership. I wonder what National’s position will be on employer contributions. What will National members do about that? How will they keep with their employer constituency and try to be all things to all people?

National opposed income-related rents. It has done another flip-flop on interest-free loans. National members were going to fight it to the death but now they are saying it is not such a bad policy. Working for Families is putting real money into the pockets of Kiwi parents, but, again, that was opposed by the National Party. Better health and safety laws were opposed by the National Party. Cheaper doctor visits were opposed by the National Party. National members pretend in this House that they care about workers, about families, and about superannuitants. What a liberty!

I heard Phil Goff talk in this House yesterday about some very interesting statistics. We hear National members bang on all the time with their rhetoric about how much higher the wages in Aussie are. Yes, but when did New Zealand wage rates drop the most? It was under the Employment Contracts Act and a National Government that wages dropped. The differential grew by 50 percent under a National Government. Why? As I said, the Employment Contracts Act attempted to deal to unions, collective organisations, the rights of workers, and the rights of the individual. They tried, during that time, to cut our holiday entitlement to 2 weeks a year. Fortunately, workers in this country rallied enough that National was not successful in that plan. We have seen them deal to all that, like the issue of single mothers. Members on this side of the House, and members in many others parties, know that that lot just cannot be trusted. Their “we care” act is hollow. It is as hollow as The Hollow Men and a few, and fast-diminishing, hollow women on that side of the House.

Our new announcements and initiatives are fantastic, and they are aimed at providing more opportunity for our families, and more opportunity through the urban house projects, such as Hobsonville. Who is the MP for the area? John Key is the member. Affordable homes will be built. Who vehemently opposed affordable homes in that area? John Key did. He does not want affordable homes in his area; he wants gated communities of elite homes. He does not want middle-income or State houses in his area. He opposed affordable homes. With the initiatives in KiwiSaver, we know that for many Kiwis homeownership will not be a dream; it will be a reality.

I cannot go on without talking about the boost in funding for the organisations that care for our children, our young people, and which announcement has been so well received. I want to acknowledge in this House all those organisations that advocate, so successfully, for more funding and promote anti-violence messages in our communities. They are doing a great job, and they can do so much more with this funding boost.

I want just to repeat a couple of things they have said: “For possibly the first time in our history the New Zealand Government has committed to effectively and tangibly recognising the critical role the community sector plays.”

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: That wouldn’t happen under National.

LYNNE PILLAY: That is right; it would not happen under National. They have also said that this announcement was “a watershed day for our Government, community organisations, and the children and families in New Zealand.” They have said that under the new regime Women’s Refuge looks forward to getting 100 percent funding for the great existing services the organisation provides. I think that is fantastic.

I want also to thank this Labour Government for picking up, and running with, the key recommendations from the very hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee. What a great select committee that is. Incidentally—

Shane Ardern: Who chairs that committee?

LYNNE PILLAY: I do, as fate would have it. The Government has picked up, and run with, all of the key recommendations—the charter of victims’ rights, independent victims’ advocates, an 0800 helpline to grow the service and give assistance to victims, a national office for victims’ rights, and an investigation into compensation for victims of crime. I think that is fantastic, and I want to thank my colleagues. I thank Ann Hartley and Charles Chauvel, and Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party. Certainly, for half the time, I have to acknowledge Hone Harawira, who actually worked very hard and was very happy to show support for, and accompany, the select committee’s visit to Australia to look at those initiatives and ideas. All of these recommendations came from Victoria, Australia. Whilst we were there, Victoria acknowledged the help and support it had received from New Zealand in terms of looking at restorative justice programmes.

Those initiatives were picked up because the select committee went to Australia and exchanged knowledge, ideas, and skills. Can we thank the National Party members for their contribution to these great ideas that are now in place? No, we cannot, and we cannot even acknowledge their contribution in this House because they did not go to Australia. They hijacked the trip; they spat the dummy over the trip. Why did they spit the dummy? [Interruption] Perhaps they were too lazy. That may be one reason. But the committee was also looking at electoral law and the National members were running scared. They did not want to look at other countries whose electoral law was reformed, where there was more accountability, and where the problems that were encountered with the Exclusive Brethren and third parties were discussed and addressed. No, they ran scared. They did not want to be part of that visit by the select committee. So victims in New Zealand missed out on a contribution from the National members, because they were too self-centred, too self-interested in the funding they receive from third parties—from pretty dodgy sources—to look at the issues for victims of crime in this country.

I am proud of this Government, and I am proud of my colleagues and the support parties that have worked so hard to ensure that these initiatives are in place. I look forward to getting out on the beat, talking to those organisations and victims’ organisations, and saying: “You can thank the Labour Party members and the Green Party members for this, but not the National Party members.”

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): Kia orana tātou katoa. First, may I thank you, Madam Speaker, and the Leader of the House, and the whips and musterers of all parties for the effort made—in trying circumstances, I might add—to accommodate my valedictory speech. My initial plans had me not returning to Parliament in 2008, but I missed you fellows so much I just had to come back for 1 more week to say farewell.

Last year a newspaper described me as “the accidental politician”. It was a very apt description, in fact. In 1993 I had never belonged to a political party, nor attended a political meeting, and I thought that MPs were extraordinary human beings, one of which I was not. Then one Sunday morning I received a strange phone call from someone I understood to be a dyed-in-the-wool National Party member, who said: “We would like you to stand for New Zealand First.”

My first reaction was to ask for New Zealand First’s policies, to which he responded: “Oh, we haven’t got any policies—yet.” I thought: “Jeez, that’s a great start!”. But he said the party had established itself on 15 fundamental principles, and when I read these I realised they were the same principles upon which our nation had built itself from the 1930s. Roger Douglas and his acolytes in the 1980s had sought to diametrically transform the basic principles of our nation from those of collective responsibility to those of brutal individualism. The National Government of the early 1990s had advanced that agenda, even more rabidly, and I was not happy at the direction our nation was going, particularly in the field of education. I thought: “I’m being given the opportunity for 6 weeks of my life to stand up and possibly be listened to and if I don’t take this opportunity, I should forever hold my peace.” So I agreed to stand, and the first political meeting I ever attended was the launch of my own campaign.

The rest is history, and in the first MMP election in 1996, having been defeated in the constituency vote by John Banks by 381 votes, I was elected into Parliament as a list MP for New Zealand First. Members of that caucus were immediately thrown in the deep end, having to confront the critical challenge of deciding the composition of the next Government. Here I would like to set the historical record straight, as a primary historical source, on a serious error created by the speculations of the chattering classes, and by media commentators interviewing their own word processors, and that is the belief that Winston Peters always intended to go with National. On the first day that our caucus met after the election, Winston outlined seven possible courses of action. However, he stressed at the time that he would not be making the decision; it would be made by caucus and the council.

After a protracted period of negotiations, the first 3 weeks or so of which were taken up by just working out how the process was to move forward, extensive agreements had been drawn up with both Labour and National. When caucus and council met on 10 December 1996 we knew that an ultimate decision had to be made on that day. We therefore worked through the two complete packages, portfolio by portfolio. There was an enormous amount of information to digest, and at the end of this procedure one of the council members said to Winston: “This is just too hard. Will you please tell us which way you think we should go?”. Winston replied: “No, I will not. I have always said that this decision will be made by the caucus and the council, and if I was to give my preference, I believe I would unduly influence that decision.” To this very day I have no idea at all as to which way Winston Peters preferred New Zealand First to go on that momentous occasion in 1996.

History, of course, will also record that as a peculiarity of that first MMP Government, a number of us newcomers to Parliament received ministerial warrants long before we made our maiden speeches. To illustrate my greenness, I tell members that in the days following the establishment of the executive we were all in the Cabinet room and Don McKinnon was going on about oral questions. In my naivety I asked “What are oral questions?”, and wondered why there were so many quizzical expressions on the faces of the National Ministers.

The fact that I did not make a complete hash of the job can be attributed to three factors. First there was Wyatt Creech, with whom I was able to quickly build a constructive relationship based on trust, and as a result significant progress was able to be made in education during the period of the National – New Zealand First coalition. The second was a wonderful senior private secretary by the name of David Tunnicliffe, whose vast experience was the natural antidote to my inexperience. Thirdly, I operated under what I called the World War One principle: “When there are lots of bloody snipers out there, keep your head down real low!”.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on both sides of the coalition did not operate under such a principle and the coalition fell apart, leaving me with yet another challenging decision. I happened to be on Tarawa in Kiribati with Don McKinnon when the news came through, and over the next few days as we made our way back to New Zealand I mulled over my options, including seeking the National nomination for the vacated seat of Whangarei.

But in the end I asked myself one critical question: how did I get in here? The answer was that I had been voted in by New Zealanders who believed in the principles and policies of New Zealand First. Those people had a right to expect that I maintained the vote for New Zealand First in the House. I had to either resign or stay with New Zealand First. At the time the people had confronted a whole swathe of politicians—not just under the MMP Government but in the preceding two Parliaments—who had jumped parties. I figured that if this were to continue, the New Zealand people would lose confidence in their democratic processes, and we well know what horrors were wrought when the German people lost faith in their democracy under the Weimar Republic. So I had no choice, and if there is a decision of which I am proud, it is that one. I thought I would be condemning myself to parliamentary oblivion, but I have never regretted that decision for one moment. And, thanks to 32 extremely astute voters in Tauranga in 1999, I managed to hang on in here.

In 2002 I was extremely surprised and very honoured to be offered the chair of the Education and Science Committee. There was no political imperative by the Government at the time to make such an offer. However, from my perspective it has been the work within the select committee that has given me my greatest satisfaction in the last two Parliaments. Our select committees are agents of Parliament, not of Government, and have a critical role in the scrutiny of proposed legislation and the actions of the executive and the departments that serve the Ministers. Not only do select committees play an important accountability role but it is my contention that they are the locus of participatory democracy in our system.

I have always insisted that members of select committees have a responsibility to engage in searching and rigorous questioning of officials and Ministers. I well remember Simon Power giving a classic example of how it should be done. But, equally, I have also insisted that submitters should always be treated with courtesy and dignity. It does us no good as parliamentarians to engage or indulge in rude, abusive, and obnoxious behaviour. Indeed, it does nothing more than bring Parliament into disrepute.

To me, the key to chairing a select committee is about managing the culture of the committee, and it has been my good fortune to have worked over the last 5 years with an Education and Science Committee that has been extremely cooperative and constructive. I wish to take the opportunity to thank all members during that time for the manner in which they approached their roles. They have certainly made my task that much easier, and that much more gratifying. I take this opportunity also to honour the memory of the late Helen Duncan, who served that committee so faithfully and with so much commitment to education.

One might ask, if this place is so good, why I would want to move on. I left the Cook Islands 27 years ago, having taught there for 4 years, having represented the Cook Islands at rugby union, having assisted in developing a new college at Titikaveka, having introduced rugby league to the islands and, most important, having added two adopted children—and their families, I might add—to our own. At the time of our departure my wife Linda and my eldest daughter were distraught; they had established friendships that have endured a lifetime. My daughter cried all the way back to New Zealand. But I knew the place was too small for me to grow. However, I made the pledge then, and have often reaffirmed that pledge, that if ever I had the opportunity, I would return, in the latter years of my working life, back to the Cook Islands. I always thought it would be in the field of education, but as a result of that fateful phone call in 1993, it was to be in a different field, and it just so happened at this point in time that all the stars were in line.

To protect my integrity I need to say that when I was ambushed by a TV3 reporter in October last year, the question he asked was this: “Is there any truth to the rumour that you are the new High Commissioner to the Cook Islands?”. That reporter has never made public the question he asked. I answered him honestly. Indeed, the very first time I could have answered that question in the affirmative was yesterday, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs formally announced the appointment and I signed my contract with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. At that time, in October, I had no more than registered an interest in the position.

I will miss this place. I will particularly miss the cross-party opportunities to represent New Zealand interests, both onshore and offshore. I have been privileged to have had many memorable opportunities to represent “New Zealand Inc.” overseas. Probably the least salubrious but one of the most enjoyable offshore representations was in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria. For security reasons we were under strict instructions not to leave our hotel. That was all right; our hotel had a beautiful pool. The trouble was that it did not work. We simply had to entertain ourselves. Fortunately, I was accompanied by two wonderful characters, Darren Hughes and Shane Ardern, and two great members of the Clerk’s office, who turned what could have been an incredibly boring week into a delight.

I cannot tell the story here of when Darren Hughes and myself visited the arts and crafts store across the road, but I can provide an embellished version following this speech. Suffice to say that this was truly a case of the old bull having to take the young bull into his care.

One evening Shane and I decided to have some cow’s head stew. As I made ready to tuck in, Shane said: “This is just gristle.” A quick check showed that mine was the same, so we decided to survey the pot. We stirred it up, only to find the cow’s teeth still floating around in the mixture. I do not think that either Shane or I had dinner that night.

The worst time was when I broke my leg in two places playing for the parliamentary rugby team at Miramar. The Minister of Health was on the sideline but she could not get me any medical attention, not even an ambulance. For a moment there I thought she was going to ask to examine my teeth. An even greater indignity was caused by my so-called colleague from the far north, John Carter, who, when questioned by a reporter, said: “He hasn’t broken his leg. He couldn’t have broken anything; he wasn’t moving fast enough.” That is the same John Carter who in this House made a spoonerism out of the expression “cunning stunt”.

My first day in this House was, according to experienced observers, one of the ugliest they had ever witnessed. New Zealand First had made a decision to form a Government with National, and the venom that was spat across the House by the Labour Opposition was veritably tangible. Jack Elder came to me and said: “Isn’t this wonderful? I love this.”, and I had to say to him that I thought it was absolutely horrible.

The reason I found the verbal abuse so offensive was that I had just spent 6 years as a principal, trying to establish a school culture of non-violence. To achieve that we had focused as much upon achieving an environment free from verbal violence as physical violence, and I asked myself at the time how schools could achieve their objectives of getting through a message of non-violence when every evening students observed their nation’s leaders indulging in some of the worst excesses of verbal violence. I understand the adversarial history of the Westminster parliamentary system, but it is a whole different ball game from when speeches were heard only by those within the four walls of Parliament, now that such speeches are beamed directly into the living rooms of our nation.

I am not talking about the use of wit; I am talking about the use of mindless, ad hominem attacks in the absence of any cogent argument. I am talking about the barracking and the yelling of inanities across the House, the jeers and the put-downs. In my first week in Parliament I swore I would not indulge in such behaviour. With rare exceptions I have maintained that standard, yet I still believe I have been able to make my mark. Only the MPs, with the support of the press gallery, can forge the cultural change that is needed for the good of our nation, and it is my parting plea that cross-party consideration is given to how this could be achieved.

It is customary at this point to run through a list of thanks. I will subsume all such groups and individuals by thanking everybody who has provided me with essential support during my time here. However, I would be remiss not to single out my caucus colleagues, particularly the real tight five from 1999 to 2002, and the magnificent seven of this last Parliament. It gives me enormous satisfaction to look back over the policy and budgetary achievements that New Zealand First has been able to achieve from the position of a minor party, from the removal of the hated surtax through to the foreshore and seabed legislation—which for the first time gave statutory mechanisms for the registration of customary rights while simultaneously protecting the birthright of all New Zealanders of access to the sea—through to the additional 1,000 sworn police officers in the term of this last Parliament.

I would argue that since 1999 New Zealand First has developed the most unified and publicly cohesive team of all the caucuses in Parliament, with the possible exception of the Progressive party. I will be eternally grateful to the unyielding and non-compromising stand taken alongside myself by my colleague Doug Woolerton over the section 59 legislation. However, I am equally grateful to my other caucus colleagues who steadfastly defended my right—and not just on this occasion—to exercise my conscience without recrimination.

But most of all I wish to pay tribute to all the MPs from all parties on both sides of this House, because I was right all along. The MPs who serve our nation are an extraordinary lot. They are extremely dedicated, unbelievably hard-working, and they and their families make enormous sacrifices simply to advance policies for New Zealanders that each MP clearly believes is in the best interests of the people. By their very nature MPs are a colourful and interesting group. I will miss the vibrancy of this place enormously, and it has been a privilege to serve with such a wonderful group of people.

When I came here in 1996 I went into an office on the 13th floor of Bowen House. I then went to the Beehive, then to the main Parliament building, and when we returned in 1999 I went to an office on the 15th floor of Bowen House, where I have been ever since. So no one can say I have not made advancement in my 11 years here—I have moved up two floors in Bowen House.

I finish with one very serious plea to all of those who are here today and those who will have the privilege to enter this House in the future: protect, nurture, sustain, and grow that most precious flower in this Garden of Eden that we call New Zealand. I refer to our democracy, that most precious possession jointly owned by all New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity, and farewell to all.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): Could I just commence this address by acknowledging my Northland colleague Brian Donnelly, and on behalf of Phil Heatley and myself, as Northland MPs, I would say “Thank you” to Brian for the way in which we have worked together as people representing Northland. We are a bit unique in Northland—

Hon Member: “Different” is the word.

JOHN CARTER: —well, different or unique; we will not get cunning about it, let me tell members—in that down here in the House we may well have a shot at each other and reflect our political views, but in Northland we work as a team. Brian has certainly been part of that team, along with the other members of Parliament from Northland. So I thank Brian for all he has done. We all have his name and address in Rarotonga, and I suspect that there will be a whole flow of people coming over looking for accommodation from time to time.

In making a contribution to this debate I will start by saying that I support the motion that was moved by the National Party leader, John Key.

Hon Darren Hughes: Read it out.

JOHN CARTER: I will do that, just in case the member has forgotten, because it would have slipped from the memory of people like Darren Hughes, as they have such a short retention. Mr Key moved: “That this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government because it has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders, because it lacks ambition, because it is tired and bereft of ideas, because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power, and because under its lead our country has become a story of lost opportunities.”

As time has gone on, Labour has concentrated more and more on its own survival, and less and less on the issues that matter to the people who put it there. Labour has squandered New Zealand’s economic inheritance by failing to build strong foundations for the future. Here are some questions that Kiwis really want answers to and, unfortunately, they are not getting them. Why, after 8 years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger? Why, under Labour, do we get a tax cut only in election year, when we really needed it years ago?

In fact, we reflect back to 3 years ago when we were offered the “chewing gum” tax cut that never happened anyway. Why cannot our hard-working kids afford to buy their own houses? Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? It is even worse in Northland, of course. We have the statistic where 56 percent of young, male Māori in Northland will leave school this year without being able to read and write properly. That is an absolute disgrace.

Why, when Labour claims it aspires to New Zealand being carbon neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate? Why has the health system not improved when billions of dollars extra have been poured into it? Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar, and why is Labour unable to do anything about it? Those are some questions that New Zealanders ask the Prime Minister. They ask: “Why? Why? Why?”. Sadly, there is no answer other than, of course, electing a National Government. That is the answer. National will focus on the real issues facing New Zealanders; we will not fixate on the old tired political debates of 20 and 30 years ago.

I mean, how silly is it when we talk about something that might have happened in 1990, or whenever it was. For goodness’ sake, we are worried about tomorrow. The people of this country are worried about tomorrow. They want to know what the incoming Government and the members of Parliament will be doing, not what happened in the past. Unlike Labour, we understand why Kiwis are demanding change. They are demanding change because they think it is time for a Government that says no to mediocrity and expects more for New Zealand.

National will lift wages by driving economic growth. We will create safer communities. Our very good colleague who spoke before me has made comments about that many times. Chester Borrows has made many comments on how we will be doing that. We will ensure our education system delivers real opportunities to young people. We will give Kiwis confidence in the Public Service. We will build a more confident New Zealand with a proud sense of nationhood. Those are some of the things that are goals the National Party, when elected, will bring to this nation.

One of the areas the Prime Minister spoke on was housing affordability. I will focus on that for a minute or two. It astounds me that the Prime Minister and her caucus will not accept that they are actually responsible for some of the problems we have in housing. One of the reasons why there is so much compliance and cost in the housing sector is that the Government has passed 68 pieces of legislation, shifting responsibility from central government to local government. That has caused huge costs in local government.

One of the areas in which the Government has caused rules and regulations to be created is the housing area. The Department of Building and Housing in 1999 had 31 ½ equivalent people working in it. Today it has 385 people working in it. Of course, local government has had to respond to that. The people in the building sector in local government have to read all of these rules and regulations and apply them. So the bureaucracy in local government has expanded by 25 percent over the last 9 years.

Let me give members an example of what I mean. Recently, Leoni, my wife—and for those members who do not know, we recently got married, in January—and I decided we would extend the deck. This is the sort of stupidity that one has to go through. We decided that we would extend the deck on our house in Waipapakauri. We applied for a building permit. It was not a big extension—it was a 3-metre extension, about 30 square metres in all. We applied for the extension. One of the posts, which the deck was going to sit on, happened to be over 1½ metres high—it was 1.8 metres high. So we had to go and get an engineering design for the whole of the deck extension. That added another couple of thousand dollars in costs. The job itself was a deck and a retaining wall—we had to do some maintenance around the retaining wall—and would cost $16,000. The building costs and all the engineering costs, etc., were in excess of $2,000 to $3,000—just to get a $16,000 job done. The pole, as I said, stood out of the ground by 1.8 metres—others were less—but the posts had to go into the ground 2½ metres and be concreted in. I have to tell members, if a tsunami hits us up at Waipapakauri beach, I will go and stand on the deck, because it sure as hell is not going to move anywhere!

Actually, we got the building permit quite quickly—in about 3 weeks—to the credit of the Far North District Council. It took 3 days to get the job done, and then we had to get the building inspector to sign it off. The inspector came to sign it off. He looked around and said: “This looks very well constructed.” He congratulated the builders and all that stuff, and he looked at the retaining wall and that was all OK. I was down building a set of steps. About 20 minutes later he came back and said that he could not issue us a certificate of compliance. These are the silly rules, which I will tell members about, that we have to comply with. I asked him: “Why ever not? What’s wrong with the deck?”. He said nothing was wrong with the deck. I asked him what was wrong with the retaining wall. He said: “No, that’s perfect.” So I asked him why he could not issue a certificate of compliance. He replied: “You haven’t got smoke alarms in your house.” What the hell smoke alarms in the house have to do with getting one’s deck extension I have no idea.

As it happened, we did have smoke alarms in the house and we were able to tell him that we could have the code of compliance issued, so it is—I understand—in the process of being issued. But the stupidity of some of the silly rules we have to comply with is the reason why housing costs have gone up out of all proportion. Quite honestly, one of the things we will do when we become the Government is ensure that there is less compliance and less cost as a consequence, less bureaucracy, and that people in this country who deserve to have their first or second home will be given that opportunity.

We can, if we have the will, take a lot of the cost out of these sorts of areas by just applying a bit of common sense to them, quite honestly. We can take cost out by removing some of the red tape, removing some of the compliance, and asking the building industry, which is crying out for it, to actually take responsibility back for the buildings and constructions it makes. Builders want to do it, and we want them to do it. The only people who are in the road and stopping us doing it are the members of the Labour Government, who for some reason want to carry on having hands-on control. It does not work, it adds cost, and, quite honestly, it is the reason why people will change the Government, come the next election.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour): I will take a moment to acknowledge the Hon Brian Donnelly, who has just given his valedictory speech tonight, and wish him well in his future career. Mr Donnelly and I do not share just a birth date—5 November, which means we have both probably heard every fireworks joke going—but we share a dedication to education issues, children’s rights, regional development, industry training, and an affection for the Pacific. Mr Donnelly has been a firm and principled contributor in this House, and a very good select committee chair. I know that my good friend the late Helen Duncan MP, who very much enjoyed the Education and Science Committee with Mr Donnelly in the chair, would also have wished to wish him well in pursuing something else that is dear to his heart.

It is a privilege to speak today in this debate. I would like to contrast the Prime Minister’s substantial, positive, and visionary statement of yesterday with the negativity, hate speech, dearth of ideas, and absolute drivel of the responses from the Tories that we have heard. I suppose I could ask what more we could expect from a party that seems quite comfortable with a billboard in my electorate of Invercargill featuring Mr Mugabe.

I particularly draw the contrast between the Prime Minister’s programme of change, which was about the delivery of new and substantial policies for developing New Zealand’s potential and stepping up to the challenges because it is the right thing to do, and what I will quote from Mr Colin Espiner about the National leader. Colin Espiner said: “Key failed to rise to the occasion yesterday … he failed to deliver. There was no substance, and little in the way of new ideas or a vision for the country.” The Prime Minister “gave the public more to chew over than anything Key had to say.” Is that not exactly right? Does it not fit exactly with the previous history of the National Party and its leader, jumping from insubstantial cloud to insubstantial cloud?

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

LESLEY SOPER: Before the dinner break I left Mr John Key jumping from insubstantial cloud to insubstantial cloud, with no new ideas or even a hint of policy—unless, of course, it is announcing that the Tories will adopt yet another of Labour’s good ideas or a regurgitation of all the old failed National policies. Have members heard that National will sell State assets and State houses again and bring back market rents, remove the cap from doctors’ fees and student fees, bring back schools’ bulk funding, go back to its Draconian Employment Contracts Act, and privatise anything that moves? Members should read the lips of those on the other side of the House, because it is what they plan to do.

On the other hand, Labour moves forward with the next steps from the Prime Minister’s statement. They are positive next steps that are based on having led the New Zealand economy through the longest run of economic growth since World War II, based on record low unemployment for years. Unemployment is currently 3.4 percent nationwide and only 1.6 percent in the Southland region and in my city of Invercargill. I repeat, unemployment there is only 1.6 percent. One just about breaches privacy now by knowing the names of everyone on the unemployment benefit in my city.

Those next steps include reminding the National Party that up until now that has meant 2.2 million New Zealanders in paid work, which is 377,000 more jobs since 1999, 126 new jobs every day since the Labour Government came in. Those next steps include a major funding boost for community-based organisations and essential services like parenting programmes, budgeting services, family violence programmes, victim services, and women’s refuges—a total of $446 million over 4 years. As the Plunket chief executive officer said yesterday, that is a great result for families and children in New Zealand. Yes, it is.

What else? There will be major investment from Labour in infrastructure and sustainability. There is the Schools Plus initiative, so that our schools of the future really will be the gateway to the range of education and training opportunities—be they Young Apprenticeships or tertiary courses. There is major ongoing investment in work-based training, which has already seen us double the numbers in industry training. There are the B4 School checks. There will be a victims’ rights charter and a plan to increase the supply of affordable housing, which once again demonstrates that Labour has always been the party that houses the people—unlike National, which sold 13,000 State houses in the 1990s. Labour has added 7,500 State houses, issued 3,200 Welcome Home Loans, and actually cares enough to focus on increasing the supply of affordable homes, not on planning how to sell the State house stock again.

In response to all this positive policy, what do we see the National Party doing yesterday, today, and this year? We see it trying to rewrite history and flip-flopping. I will tell members a story about Tory attempts to rewrite history. Recently, Mr Eric Roy and I were speaking at a public meeting of the Invercargill City Council. Mr Roy claimed that National supported industry training. He was reminded that the last time his party was in Government it had destroyed apprenticeship training. “No,” said Mr Roy, “we only changed the name of the Act.” I did not have to say much in response. The businessmen at that Invercargill City Council table very roundly explained what they had experienced in the 1990s under a National Government and how it was the destruction of the apprenticeship system, to the disservice of their businesses. I am proud—and those business people all knew—that we now have had 14,411 Modern Apprentices since the year 2000, and $49 million per annum in Modern Apprenticeship funding, which was zero under the National Government.

That is just one of National’s attempts to rewrite history. Members should look at Mr Key’s flip-flops on Iraq, climate change, and student loans. They should wait for the Key flip-flop to come on KiwiSaver and Working for Families. I ask whether any member of the public is fooled by those flip-flops from a leader and from a National Party that even votes against the business tax cuts it says it believes in.

Behind the caterwauling that has been coming from the other side of the House, what do we hear? Let us listen. We hear the National Party trying to cover up the ringing of the hospital tills that it will be bringing back, and the splash of their flip-flops. The thing about flip-flops is that if one does not have a spine, one cannot break it doing a flip-flop. Unfortunately for my cousin Katherine Rich, she did have a spine. I join with my colleagues today in acknowledging that. Even though we disagreed on much policy, my cousin Katherine Rich usually showed her good genes by displaying a spine and standing by her principles. I am not looking forward to the further flip-flops from National that Katherine’s decision today will lead to. Her party is not one that is friendly to women politicians, but she did a good job in difficult circumstances and carried the women’s flag in the National Party. I wish her well in her future. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

TIM GROSER (National): I rise to support John Key’s no-confidence motion. In justifying the no-confidence motion I wish to focus on several words within it, particularly the words “tired and bereft of ideas”. It has been quite a nice summer, except for those unfortunate citizens who have been caught up in certain parts of rural New Zealand suffering from the drought. For those of us who have not had to experience that personally, I think we would have to say that it has been a very pleasant summer.

One of the pleasant things about the last 8 weeks is that we have been spared being told how grateful we should be for having a Labour Government in place and that this is as good as it will ever get. But today we were told it will get better because all those dullard blue-collar workers are going to Australia. So it will improve further. For 8 weeks we have been spared the normal Labour Party view.

I will say this about the Government: it is nothing if not consistent. It is consistent, fundamentally, because of the point I opened with: after 8½ years it is totally bereft of new ideas. Watching this Government is a little like watching a soap opera. With most soap operas—even good soap operas—one has to watch quite attentively at the beginning to pick up on the rhythm, themes, and underlying plot, but after a while one can actually tune in about once every 2 months without any loss of comprehension about what has gone on in the process. We have a Government that is like a soap opera that, frankly, needs to be turned off. Yes, there are bewildering character changes, but that does not change very much. In the last 8 years there has been a massive number of new Ministers.

We have talked about the issue of housing in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. By our calculations, this is the 10th Minister of Housing in the life of this Government. There is probably more prospect of peace breaking out in the Middle East during the life of this parliamentary session than of Maryan Street, our latest and 10th Minister of Housing, getting on top of the issue of housing affordability, but we wish her luck. We certainly hope she will do a little better than her nine predecessors.

I will get back to the plot. Labour members have absolutely nothing new to say. What they say involves constantly repackaging existing proposals, some of which have been out there since the dawn of time. Yesterday the Prime Minister set some stellar records here. As our justice spokesperson pointed out in a press statement today, the Prime Minister proposed a charter of victims’ rights back in 1994—14 years ago.

This Government is obviously responding to the political reality that there is deep concern out there in the New Zealand community about the issue of violence and about the lack of balance for victims’ rights. So once again we get the regurgitated proposal that the Government will fix it. But we come back to the question that John Key put down, and it is the central question: why would anyone in this country believe that a Government that has had 8½ years to address these problems can now be entrusted with the confidence of New Zealanders to solve the problems it has evaded for 8½ years? That, on issue after issue, is the central question facing the New Zealand electorate.

I come back to housing. The grateful nation was told by the Prime Minister that there will be a shared equity scheme. That is great; we will have a shared equity scheme. The only problem is, we think—I do not want to be categorical about this—that this is the 12th time we have been offered a shared equity scheme. It is like a political version of the children’s game pass the parcel, except that every time one Minister gets shoved out and a new Minister—in this case, the Minister for Building and Construction—gets put in, instead of unwrapping the parcel, the Minister is asked to put some new packaging around it, put a nice new political bow around it, and pass it on. There is nothing inside the box, but eventually the Minister will pass the box on to his or her successor, who will go through the same old ritual again.

From time to time we have to recognise that a new idea may actually be required to fix a political problem—to scratch a political itch. I am not going to blow National’s research at this point, but the National Party is accumulating a large list of ideas that we have seen taken over in exactly those political circumstances. I will give members just one example tonight. It is, of course, the concept of turbocharging the voluntary sector.

We had a situation in which the Government up to 2007—I am talking now about John Key’s first state of the nation speech 12 months ago—had consistently ignored the fact that there was a growing underclass and that the Government’s delivery mechanisms were not producing the goods. One spectacular example of this is the fact that 54 percent of Māori boys, after years in the compulsory education system, are emerging with no qualifications whatsoever. So National put on the table a policy of turbocharging the voluntary sector, and 12 months later out it pops in the Prime Minister’s voice.

I was intrigued by the previous Labour speaker who spoke about the rewriting of history. It reminded me of an old concept that was said about the royal house of the Bourbons, who were said, according to historical legend, to imagine the past and remember the future. I really think that describes the underlying attitude of this Government—this political soap opera, if you will. In its most extreme form there is Mr Anderton. In its most extreme form it involves an imaginary version of New Zealand’s economic history over the last 15 years—and it does not even meet the test of chronology—but we all know that from about 1991 the following things happened.

First, the rate of economic growth in New Zealand tripled. In the last 3 years of the 1990s, the rate of labour productivity growth averaged 3.5 percent. That is a stellar rate. That is productivity, not economic growth. Economic growth in 1999 was 4.3 percent. Labour productivity growth—[Interruption] They do not want to hear the facts. They are still imaging the past and remembering the future—that is the reality. They do not want to hear the facts, because the facts get in the way of the fictional vacuum that those members have built around themselves. But the facts are that in those last 3 years of the 1990s the rate of growth of labour productivity averaged 3.5 percent. If we were able, as a country, to sustain that rate of productivity growth, wages in this country would indeed catch up with Australia’s, and the growth rates would indeed catch up with those in the top half of the OECD within about a decade and a half.

Had this Government understood that there was so much wind in the sails of the New Zealand economy and if it had actually kept the process moving forward, this country would be moving places and taking its rightful place back inside the top half of the OECD, and we would not be losing 75,000 New Zealanders to add to the approximately one million New Zealanders in the diaspora—the greatest diaspora of the developed world—that we are suffering from today. We would not be suffering from the fact that 80 percent—four out of five—of the New Zealanders who are leaving are under the age of 40. They are the people on whose shoulders the future of this country should have depended. Had Labour members not imagined the past and started to remember the future they would have understood the historical responsibility to carry on that process instead of going back to soft-core populist policies that have undercut that amazing potential for growth. That is, in fact, the reality, and people do realise that.

Let me now pass to the other side of that phrase—the “remembering the future” side. The Prime Minister announced yesterday that New Zealand is recognised as a leading nation in stepping up to the sustainability challenge. That is a very intriguing proposition. We know that the United Nations Environment Programme has even given her an award. Actually, what this really tells us is more about the United Nations framework, which has an enormous capacity and preference for rhetoric over substance.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you, Madam Speaker, and I hesitate to do so. The situation also happened yesterday. The list MP who comes from the south—I forget what her name is—constantly moves to other parts of the Chamber so that she can fill the room with her vacuousness, and her interjections during the tail end of Mr Groser’s speech were really most unfortunate. I think she should be told that if she wants to interject she should go right to the back of the Chamber where she belongs, and she can continue to yell and scream.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is entitled to sit in the seat she was sitting in, and I say to the member that there have been considerable interjections from both sides of the House during the last two or three speeches.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I begin my remarks tonight by joining with Lesley Soper and John Carter in paying tribute to Brian Donnelly. Unlike members opposite, who clearly want to be disorderly while I pay tribute to a departing member, I would like to do so in a respectful way.

It is not always the case that political appointees to diplomatic positions are the best people for the job, but here it is clearly the case that an excellent appointment has been made. As we heard in Brian Donnelly’s valedictory speech, he has lived in the Cook Islands, he has Cook Island family members, and he is intimately familiar with the customs, the language, and the mores of the Cook Islands.

I take a personal interest in the Cook Islands because of my Tahitian parentage. The Cook Islands and Tahiti essentially share populations. It was only an accident of colonialism that they ended up being two different jurisdictions, and the people are basically the same. As Brian Donnelly knows, there are many ties of kinship between both sets of islands.

But the Pacific is changing. I was reminded of this quite graphically when I visited family in Tahiti over the recess. I was there with my partner in time to witness the first round of the territorial elections that had been called there by President Sarkozy shortly after he won office. Parties very much in favour of a continued union with France won the majority of seats in the assembly there. Regrettably, it has been very difficult to find media coverage in New Zealand about what has gone on in those elections, the last round of which occurred just last weekend. This is notwithstanding the fact that the elections represent a fairly radical shift in the balance of power toward a non-indigenous power in the Pacific—that is, France—which has clearly consolidated its hold in Tahiti.

I think Brian Donnelly will know from his experience of the Pacific that other non-indigenous powers are very actively seeking to exercise influence in the region. They are seeking resources such as fisheries, and they are seeking to wield political power influence—for example, in the fight for recognition between China and Taiwan—and in my view we are seeing a level of instability and great power competition in the Pacific that we have not seen since colonial times.

I think Brian Donnelly is an excellent representative for New Zealand to the Cook Islands, part of the wider realm of New Zealand during this time of instability, because he understands the Pacific and he understands the country to which he is being posted. The Prime Minister said in her speech that we are debating tonight that we project our values through our foreign and defence policies, and that 2008 will be another high-tempo year. Brian Donnelly’s appointment is evidence of that sort of foreign policy in action, and I wish him well. Kia orana, Brian.

I mention another departure announced today that will also diminish this House, that of Katherine Rich. I hope that the House will allow me to pay a short tribute to her. On the record that she has established for herself on policy matters, she shows that she is a true liberal. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the stances she has taken on a number of issues where she has dared to stand apart from the position of the majority of her party. I think in particular of her consistent support for the repeal of section 59 throughout that debate. In fact, she was the only member on that side of the House who consistently championed that cause publicly, and that was an extremely brave thing to do. I quote from something she said in July 2007, cited in the Listener: “Frankly, I would not have been able to look at myself in the mirror if I’d voted against it, because I have been working on that issue consistently since 2001.” The House needs more people with that sort of courage.

She also refused to engage in the vilification of beneficiaries. Again, unfortunately, that made her somewhat unique in her party. This is what she said in August 2002: “I’m not your DPB-bashing sort of person. … Most of the people I meet on the DPB are pretty motivated people who have the same dreams and aspirations as the rest of us. Beneficiary bashing is a most unsatisfactory practice. It doesn’t really take you anywhere.” That was in the Sunday Star-Times on 25 August 2002, and is in drastic contrast with what John Key said in the Sunday Star-Times the same day: “We’ve seen enormous growth in the number of people on the DPB, and where people have been, for want of a better term, breeding for a business. And I think that’s not really in the long-term interests of those people, the children or the state.”

I also place on record my personal appreciation to Katherine Rich for the fact that she was one of only three members of her party who voted in favour of the third reading of the Civil Union Act, along with Clem Simich and Pansy Wong, who also deserve a tribute for that support. I have here a copy of an advertisement that ran in the newspapers at the time in support of the Civil Union Bill, and I am very proud to say that my name and that of my partner appear as endorsing that advertisement. The names of other members of this Parliament also appear, but, apart from Katherine Rich, there no members of the National Party in evidence.

I admire Katherine Rich, not just because I agree with the policy positions she has taken, but because she has had the courage to stand up for what she believes in, despite what must have been enormous pressure. I wish her well, and I look forward to working with her between now and the election. As I have said, Parliament will be the poorer for her departure. So will the National Party caucus, frankly, because it loses its most brave and, in my view, consistent liberal. More than anyone on that side of the House she has supported policies that, in the words of the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, contributed to building a fairer, more inclusive New Zealand. She will be missed.

I have mentioned the Prime Minister’s speech on a couple of occasions, first in the context of foreign affairs and secondly in respect of policies of social inclusion. Like my colleague Lynne Pillay, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I would like to concentrate on the announcements about victims’ rights. They were contained in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday and also in a press release by Annette King in a partial response to the inquiry into victims’ rights conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee last year. That committee carried out the inquiry in cooperation, in particular, with the Greens and Nandor Tanczos, and also with the support of Hone Harawira. As Lynne Pillay said, we benefited greatly from the experience of being able to see what happened in a sister jurisdiction, Victoria, concerning the rights of victims of crime. It was a very satisfying experience, and it was very sad that National Party members boycotted that trip and deprived themselves of the opportunity to see what we saw, because I think the evidence shows that that inquiry into the rights of victims of crime was a very, very good use of parliamentary time.

I will just summarise the key aspects of the announcements made by the Prime Minister and Annette King. First, there will be the development of a victims’ charter and the funding of a national 0800 victim helpline and a website for victims—

Sandra Goudie: Are you promising the sun or the moon?

CHARLES CHAUVEL: I think that is great stuff, and I am sad that Mrs Goudie does not, because there is more. There will be additional funding to the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups to build the capability of front-line service coordinators, and the Law Commission will be asked to look at the question of compensation for victims of crime.

The reaction to these announcements has been excellent. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has welcomed the recommendations of the victims’ rights inquiry, and yesterday Victim Support applauded the announcement by Annette King that victims will have improved access to information and services through a range of initiatives. I just want to add my voice to those that have supported these steps, because they demonstrate that this Labour-led Government is the one that will put in place meaningful steps to ensure the dignity of victims of crime, rather than just engaging in the vengeful rhetoric of the National Party and its fellow travellers.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I support the motion of John Key, which moves this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government. It has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders because it lacks ambition, because it is tired, and because it is bereft of ideas. Only tonight, on national TV, it was fantastic to see what Labour claimed was a new idea: its affordable house scheme, about which the TV show pointed out that each of these affordable houses would cost $300,000 and have to be backed up by a salary of at least $70,000. I understand that this was the fourth time that this particular initiative had been announced. This sad Labour Government has lost touch with the people who put it into power, and under its lead our country has become a story of lost opportunities. Labour has squandered New Zealander’s economic inheritance by failing to build strong foundations for the future.

I will dwell for just a little while on an area that I think is of huge importance—and apparently so does the Prime Minister—and that is the area where there has been an absolute failure to build on the infrastructure in science, research and development, and technology. Last year, the Government commissioned a report in this area. The report noted that up and down the country the infrastructure in science had run down over a period of 8 and 9 years to the tune that it would need about $400 million in order to be able to get it to where it was some 8 or 9 years earlier.

What really is of great concern, and has vividly impressed itself on my mind, is the Prime Minister, Helen Clark’s, Speech from the Throne in 2005, when she said that science and innovation were critical to driving New Zealand’s economy. In the very next Budget, where did the new money go? The amount of $2.5 billion went into programmes that would only cement in intergenerational welfare dependency—$2.5 billion into that area—and only $17 million into science, and research and development, which is the area that Prime Minister Clark said was critical to driving New Zealand’s economy. So what is the real record of Labour over the last 8 to 9 years in science, and research and development? I guess we can see it through the measurement that is agreed on by the OECD: investment, as a percentage of GDP, has diminished steadily from 1998 down to 2008, where it falls at about 0.54 percent, well below the OECD average. In fact, the advice to the incoming Minister of Research, Science and Technology in 2007 stated that the current agreement with the Minister of Finance is “well short of the level required to move towards the Government’s agreed target of the OECD average.” So it is well below the amount required to move even towards the Government’s agreed target.

It is also important to consider what has happened to the governance in the area of research and development under Labour, and we can look only at the Crown research institutes, which are one of the Government’s major investments. Here a report was done—an assessment—of the Crown research institutes between 1992, when they were formed under National, and 2002. It showed an increase in equity, over the years when National was the custodian, of 106 percent, but over the last 5 years there has basically been no growth in equity in some of our major science institutions. This is something that has gone absolutely wrong under this Labour Government. So when Helen Clark, in her 9th year of Government, says she plans major initiatives in research and development that will—as she said yesterday—drive our economy, it certainly has a very, very hollow ring about it. After all, she walked away from the Catching the Knowledge Wave talks back in 2001 and 2002. The Prime Minister has basically presided over the area of research and development, in which New Zealand has wound down—an area that she calls critical. In fact, her rhetoric is absolutely diametrically opposed to her record.

There are many questions Kiwis really want answers to. One question is why, after 8 years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? There is no doubt that when Labour came into Government interest rates were in the order of 4.3 percent; now they have almost doubled to 8.3 percent. That is affecting hundreds and thousands of ordinary New Zealanders, and it will get worse over the next few months. If one also looks at economic growth, another parameter that is of vital importance, one sees that when Labour came into office in 1999 economic growth was 4.6 percent; it has now dwindled down to between 2 and 3 percent. This explains the reason why, under Labour, the gap between our wages and the wages in Australia and other parts of the world has grown bigger and bigger, and why we see those 35,000 New Zealanders go across the Ditch every year. But perhaps even more concerning than that figure is the fact that 10 times as many New Zealand graduates leave New Zealand permanently to live overseas than Australian graduates leave Australia. That must be of great worry, and that is the legacy of this Labour Government.

One of the other questions on the mind of so many New Zealanders is why the health system has not improved, when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it. I remember vividly Annette King in 1998 saying that a waiting list of 89,000 was criminal. She said that to Bill English. She said that a waiting list of 89,000 was criminal. Well, today the waiting list stands at about 150,000, and that is after Labour has culled tens of thousands of individuals off that waiting list. It is a national disgrace. Today thousands of people with ordinary, simple conditions such as hernias, haemorrhoids, varicose veins, and gall bladders cannot get treatment any more. They do not even get on the waiting lists. The difficulty is that when one hears about the records from Christchurch Hospital, one finds that a person with an acute gall bladder condition will come in, and that person will be turned around, given some pain relief and antibiotics. The patient gets worse to a critical stage, when he or she will come in once again. Then the morbidity is twice as bad, the recovery period is twice as long, and, of course, the cost to New Zealand and the health service is much more significant.

There is no doubt that, unlike Labour, National understands why Kiwis are demanding change. They are demanding change because they think it is time for a Government that says no to mediocrity and expects more for New Zealand. Certainly this includes the youth guarantee scheme that John Key announced a few weeks ago that ensures that our education system will deliver real opportunity to young people. Only on Friday I had a young 15-year-old come into my Pukekohe office who had got on a very prestigious course in motor sports. He was 15 years old. He had been told that if he did the course he would get a job and more opportunities in higher education. But he could not go to that job because he was 10 weeks short of 16. The letter came back from the Ministry of Education saying: “No, you can’t go.” It is a disgrace, and it is a disgrace that National will fix.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): That was a rather sad attempt from the member from one of the South Auckland electorates to make a case for the rather juvenile motion the Leader of the Opposition has moved. I too will start my contribution to this debate by congratulating Brian Donnelly on his major contribution to this House. He came in in 1996 and, unlike the National Party, he has always understood the role of minor parties both in creating and helping to create coalitions and in getting the work of this place done.

Brian has been a distinguished chair of the Education and Science Committee. His advocacy for his home in Whangarei in the north has been exemplary. He has also, to my certain knowledge, done a great deal across this House and across New Zealand in the areas of arts, culture, and heritage. I wish him extremely well as he goes to represent this country in the Cook Islands.

Indeed, I also join with a number of my colleagues in saying how much I will miss Katherine Rich. Katherine has continued the tradition that grew in the 1970s and 1980s of women across this Parliament getting together on issues that matter to New Zealand women. I have to say that I am not entirely surprised that Katherine Rich is leaving Parliament. When I looked up John Key’s view on women in this place, the only comment I could find was in the Press on 9 June 2007 when he said: “We don’t have enough women in our caucus, so we’ve had to start cross-dressing.”

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Which ones are cross-dressed?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Well, I shall leave it to the imagination of members to wonder which of the male National MPs are cross-dressers. I have to say that Katherine has stood up for the principle that there are issues that transcend party politics for women in this country. I say well done to her. She has been a decent and collegial member of Parliament in this House, and I believe she has served women in New Zealand well. I for one will miss her.

I am very proud to stand to support the Prime Minister’s statement. It was a great speech from a Prime Minister who I believe will go down in New Zealand history as being the greatest Prime Minister we have had for many, many years. Given the strong Labour tradition in Auckland Central, many of my older constituents compare her very favourably to Peter Fraser, whose establishment of the United Nations and whose advocacy for education, health, and an independent stance for New Zealand worldwide, and for a brave and constructive programme of economic development for New Zealand products and ideas, showed him to be an exemplary Prime Minister. I believe that Helen Clark has transcended even his record.

The Prime Minister told a great story yesterday of a Government that is at work and that has real achievements, real policies, real programmes, and real plans for the future. This Government does not believe it has any moratorium on ideas. We work on policies with coalition partners from the Progressive party to New Zealand First to United Future and, indeed, to the Greens. If the National Party ever brought out any policy ideas we would even be prepared to talk to its members, but, of course, all we have had is sneering, carping, whingeing, whining, and moaning.

I want to know why National is not putting up any policies. Well, we know why. Either National does not know what it stands for or it has a hidden agenda. In one way or another, we in New Zealand are paying. Do New Zealanders remember Jim Bolger advocating for the “decent society” in 1990? In 1990 he said he would lead a Government whereby education would not be a charge against the economy but an investment, and what did National do? It created winner and loser schools that failed 50 percent of New Zealand’s children, with no come-back. It put in fees at universities, and then what did it do? It charged older people going back to university, put in massive fees that excluded most of my then constituents from going to university, and destroyed apprenticeships.

I am proud of the record of this Government in education, health, welfare, job creation, housing, and all of the other areas that affect my constituents on a daily basis. I am really proud as the member of Parliament for Auckland Central to say that housing has always been a major issue for us. Indeed, there are so many new houses in the central business district that I am losing a major suburb in Auckland Central—Point Chevalier—which is going back to the Mt Albert electorate. Housing is a huge issue, but so is public space. Obviously, it is an issue the Government is working on with local authorities, because we believe that we need good communities, good environments, and good societies, and we are prepared to support local government and the third sector—the voluntary sector—in creating those good communities and good environments.

I am particularly proud about what we have done in transport in Auckland. I say to the House that I have prepared a chart looking at Government investment in Auckland land transport, where we go from well under $200 million in 1995-96 to, 10 years later, very nearly a billion dollars going directly into Auckland. I can go through those projects, because no projects whatever were being done in the central city—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: This doesn’t look like Maurice’s chart; this looks real.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: It is real. It is actually about real money that is being spent in Auckland. In 1999 there was one project. It was called the Albany to Pūhoi realignment, and it opened up the North Shore motorway as far as Ōrewa. So what did that do?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It ended in a panic, didn’t it?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: It indeed ended in a panic, but in a very expensive panic that was used by some of the friends of the National Government. What happened was that where they were building a house with one bedroom, they put in two car-parks. Where they had two bedrooms, they put in three car-parks, and so on. This Government said it would work across Auckland, as New Zealand’s major international city, to build the infrastructure that the National Government had entirely failed to do anything about. The National Government had capped public transport spending and refused to build any of the infrastructure we needed.

So what has the Labour Government done since 1999? We have finished the Grafton Gully project, so we have access from both the western motorway and the southern-northern motorway to the ports. We have finished the Puhinui interchange, which is a major part of State Highway 20. We have finished the upper Harbour Bridge at Greenhithe and the Greenhithe link. We have finally, 30 years later, finished the central motorway junction, so that for the first time, coming from the North Shore, people can go to the west instead of having to come through the suburban streets of Ponsonby and Herne Bay or through the central business district to get to the motorway. We have finished the Esmonde Road interchange. We have put tunnels in the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 motorway up to Pūhoi, so that it does not destroy the environment. That extension will be finished next year.

We have finished—hallelujah—the North Shore busway, which we were told could not happen. They said it could not work. We have seen that busway being delivered on time and on budget, and what we will now see is the people of the North Shore, for the first time, having a decent public transport link system. We are getting on well with the extension of State Highway 20 at Mount Roskill. We have started work on the Manukau extension and, indeed, on the doubling of the Māngere Bridge. We have finished the Waiōuru Peninsula links. We have done so much work across Auckland that we can now say that we are well on the way to keeping pace with Auckland’s development.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Actually, the complaint we get now is that there are too many roadworks.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Indeed! The main complaint I get in my office is that we have too many roadworks going on. I say on behalf of my constituents that we have transformed Auckland and will continue to do so, as a community, an environment, and an economy. We are putting in the basic infrastructure for the growth that New Zealand needs.

Plunket tells me that Grey Lynn is now the area in New Zealand with the highest birth rate. I ask all of those moaning minnies across the Chamber what Plunket said about the announcement yesterday. It said: “This is a great result for families and children in New Zealand … This investment will make it easier for agencies to join forces to deliver better support and services to families and children.” So Plunket said it is a great result, as did Relationship Services, Barnardos, Jigsaw Inc., Victim Support and, across the board, all of those wonderful non-governmental agencies that are so important to New Zealand’s well-being.

I find that every week in my electorate office—[Interruption] Those members are obviously not electorate MPs. Men and women are coming into my electorate office, often with small children, and saying: “This is a Working for Families baby. We had this child because we could afford to have a child.” Members opposite do not care about New Zealand. The 20 hours’ free childcare for children over the age of 3 means that New Zealanders can get the work-life balance they need. That is what this Government is doing—providing work-life balance, a good economy, and a good community—and we will go on doing it.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): I rise to support the Prime Minister’s statement. I have listened with great interest to some of the things said this evening, particularly by our colleagues on the other side from the Tory party—or the National Party, as it is called in New Zealand. What was really interesting was that one of the Tories said there is a large list of National Party ideas. I think we could print the ones we have heard so far on the back of a postage stamp. But let us challenge them on that, and say, OK, if there is a large list of National Party ideas about how it proposes, if it ever became the Government, to put policies in place and run the country, let us hear what those policies are. All we are hearing is carping and criticism about what this Labour Government has done to rectify the mess we were left with.

If we look at the reasons why most of us are here as members of Parliament and why we have put ourselves forward to represent the people of our constituencies, or to be list members of Parliament, we see that it is usually because we have some ideals, some vision, and some idea of what we want to see achieved in New Zealand. I came in as a relatively young man. I am a bit less young now, but at 32 years old I came in and there were several things that I thought were of absolute prime importance for New Zealanders. They were the right to work, having affordable, good health-care, having housing provision, having education available to all, having care when one is ill or injured, and having security in old age. They were the gut things that I saw as absolutely vital to any civilised country, and they are the things that Labour has always stood for.

I have had a picture of Norman Kirk on my wall for years, because as a young man—I was 18 when he died—I saw him as a real leader of this country. I am very proud to be part of a Labour Government that has had the leadership we have had from Helen Clark in recent years, focusing on exactly those issues. [Interruption] I say to the noisy interjectors opposite, who are not sitting in their own seats—they complained about that a few minutes ago—that I commend Katherine Rich, and I am genuinely sad to hear that Katherine is leaving Parliament. I believe that deep down in her heart she believes in exactly the same things that I do. I believe that she is a person of integrity who has got to the point of saying “I cannot be with this party any more.” No doubt she will have personal reasons for her decisions, and I wish her every success in whatever she undertakes in the future. It has been a privilege working alongside her on many issues.

It has also been a privilege working alongside Brian Donnelly, who gave his valedictory speech earlier this evening. Brian is also one of those marvellous members of Parliament who has principles, and who has been prepared to stand up and say what is the proper and decent thing to do. We all have occasions when we disagree with our party, and that has happened to me more than once. But one survives them because of the support of one’s colleagues and friends—not only in one’s own party but across the House. To Brian I say very well done, and I am absolutely confident that he will be a wonderful ambassador for our country in his new role as our representative to the Cook Islands.

Now I want to return to the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. Those issues I mentioned before are ones of real importance to New Zealanders. The no-confidence motion we have heard from the current Leader of the Opposition is supposedly about issues of real importance to New Zealanders. The issues I mentioned are the critical issues, and if we look at each of them, we see that Labour has done fantastically well. We had a speech before on the shared equity scheme for housing. We heard some comment on that before. [Interruption] I want National members to go and tell Habitat for Humanity that it has got it wrong. I want National members to tell all the volunteers who work for that wonderful organisation: “Sorry, you guys don’t know what you’re talking about. We do.” That is what National members are saying to them.

Sue Moroney: And to Plunket.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: And to Plunket and every other voluntary organisation in New Zealand. We have a very clear contrast—and it is becoming clearer by the day—between a Government that has clearly set out a programme to address those social issues, and an Opposition that has carped and whinged and cannot believe it is not yet in Government. It thinks that is National’s rightful place. The people of New Zealand have said for three elections in a row: “Sorry, fellas, you are not there yet.” And it is mostly fellas—

Hon Judith Tizard: Apart from the cross-dressers.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: —apart from the cross-dressers. We on this side would love to know whom in the ranks Mr Key was referring to as cross-dressers. Perhaps we could make some good guesses, but let us leave that to one side and look at the issues.

Let us look at what this Government has achieved and where it is going. For example, let us look at the economy. We hear a lot from the National members about how they are the ones who are business people and who know all about the economy, as though no Labour person has ever been involved in business. I have sad news for them: many of us have. We have led the economy through its longest run of economic growth since the Second World War. Our Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister have presided over the best economic situation we can remember. In the 20 years since I was first elected as a member of Parliament—regrettably, I have not served 20 years continuously; unfortunately, I had a small sabbatical—I have spent most of those years, and certainly the first half, trying to find ways to get a critical mass of work to keep the specialists, the engineers, and all the other technical folk in my electorate. What is my problem today? It is getting more of them because we have too much work for those who are there now. Since Labour became the Government we have made the economy grow by a third.

Bob Clarkson: Oh, no way!

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: There are 377,000 more jobs in New Zealand today than there were when we became the Government. Unfortunately for the property developer opposite, whom I have got a bit of time for because he is a likable and enthusiastic man, and who says what about the 77,000 people who are going overseas—blah-blah-blah—I have bad news for his little theory. We are actually getting more skilled people back than are going.

I say to that gentleman that I have two brothers. My two brothers and I each spent a year of our lives overseas, once we had been trained in our trades and were doing our jobs. Why? Because it was damned good experience. It was life-enhancing to have some of those experiences and then come back. The current Leader of the Opposition himself, Mr Key, spent a lot of time overseas. Let us leave that, but let us say that lots of New Zealanders go overseas for experience. They bring back new ideas, new talents, and new ways of looking at our country. They bring their families back to New Zealand and contribute massively to our country. If the National members want to stop that, let them say so clearly. Let us hear their policy on it, instead of their just carping.

Let us look at the things this Government is doing and ask whether they can be improved. Can National come up with better ideas? If it can, let us hear them. We now have the largest number of people participating in paid work that this country has ever had. Wage rates are rising and, what is even better in a way, the total number of beneficiaries is down by almost 140,000 people. That is the total number of beneficiaries whom we inherited from the previous Government. So which is the successful party in running the economy of New Zealand? Is it that lot from the National Tory conservative Opposition who pretend they are ready to be the Government, or is it this party, which has a proven track record of success? It is us.

The other thing that has really changed in the time I have been an MP is this. We heard lots about health before. In the last couple of years I have had a real change in the types of people who come into my electorate office. Ten years ago we used to get person after person with health issues that were not being addressed. We simply do not get them any more.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): I rise to support the motion moved by our leader, John Key: “That this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government because it has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders, because it lacks ambition, because it is tired and bereft of ideas, because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power, and because under its lead our country has become a story of lost opportunities.” We can easily see that Labour has squandered the very best of economic times that this country has seen in many a year, by failing to build strong foundations for the future. It has taken the economic benefits, which came about through no efforts on its behalf but by the blood, sweat, and tears of the reforms of the late 1980s and the 1990s. That is what created the current environment and that, together with good weather, good prices for our commodities worldwide—

Hon Maurice Williamson: And Roger Douglas; give him some credit.

ANNE TOLLEY: Roger Douglas did a little bit; yes, Labour did a bit. We have enjoyed a period of economic boom, and what has this Labour Government done with it? It has spent it. What has it spent it on? Not a lot! As time has gone on it has become more obvious that this Labour Government is more interested in how it stays in power. We saw that with the Electoral Finance Act, which is designed to negate any opposition, any voice raised against the Government. Labour is more concerned about how it stays in power than what happens to the future of this country.

We say to Labour members that they should listen to what people are asking, and listen to the types of questions we get out on the hustings every day. Why after 8 years of a Labour Government are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the world? People are struggling to pay their mortgages, because of these high interest rates—the second-highest in the world. When Labour came to Government the interest rate was 4.25 percent, but now it is 8.25 percent.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Really! That has doubled.

ANNE TOLLEY: The rates have doubled under Labour. Why under this Labour-led Government is the gap between our wages and the wages in Australia and other parts of the world getting larger and larger? I am one of those many, many New Zealanders who have family who are living and working overseas and saying: “Mum, there is no place in the country for me. There’s no way I can come back, because there’s nothing there for me.” People ask why it is that in election year Labour can promise them a tax cut. Labour did it last election year, too. It promised individuals a personal tax cut. Why do we have to wait for election year, when the Government has been sitting on squillions of dollars of surpluses in the in-between years, saying that the country cannot afford tax cuts?

If we look at the education portfolio, which I am delighted to have had handed to me today, we ask why one in five Kiwi kids leaving school have such poor literacy skills that they cannot even read the instructions on a fire extinguisher. What sort of future do those 40,000 kids have? They are leaving school without the skills, the qualifications, needed to get a skilled job. Also, 31,000 children every day are missing from school. This Labour Government is doing absolutely nothing about that. It denies there is a problem. We have had 8 years of waiting for the solutions, and election year, when the Government is behind in the polls, is the only time it takes any interest.

A National Government will focus on the real issues that New Zealanders are asking of the Government. We will not go back and debate tired old political dogma, or philosophical arguments that were laid to rest 20 and 30 years ago. We are past all that; we are looking forward. We are in the 21st century now. I say to Labour: “Get with it!”. Unlike Labour, we know that New Zealanders want change. They do not want to debate those old philosophies all over again. They want a different, forward-looking Government. National will lift wages by driving economic growth, which is something that Labour Party members do not understand. They laugh because they do not even believe that it can happen. We will invest in infrastructure and will give personal tax cuts on an ongoing basis. When we say we will deliver them, we will. We will not just deliver them in election year; we will deliver them on an ongoing basis. We have been saying that for years. We are going to monitor the quality of Government spending, because the issue is not about how much money a Government dumps into something. We have seen that happening in health and education, and we are seeing it again in welfare.

I will refer to the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report, which it published this week. I thought it was great that it came out at the same time as the Prime Minister’s statement. Let me quote from it, just to get it on the record for Labour Government members opposite. “The social outcomes which we as New Zealanders have achieved over the past five years are somewhat mixed and in some areas quite disappointing. More of our children appear to be at risk of harm, more of our young people are engaged in petty crime, there is more violent crime and more people in our jails.” It goes on: “While this social spending is essential it seems to have contributed very little to our social progress. Why should this be the case?”.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Who wrote this?

ANNE TOLLEY: The Salvation Army. This is not the National Party or the Business Roundtable saying this. This is by the Salvation Army. What did the Prime Minister do? Did she talk about quality spending, did she talk about monitoring what is happening to our families and our kids at risk? No, she talked about more money. That is all she talked about. Well, more money will not do it.

I have been on and on at this Labour Government and, in particular, the Minister for Social Development and Employment about the children that the State takes into its care. When the State steps into a family where children are at risk, the State has a responsibility to do better for those children than the families that it is protecting them from. One of the major planks of the Ministry for Social Development and Employment is permanency for children who are taken into State care. I have asked now, for 3 years in a row, what it defines as “permanency”. I have asked how the ministry measures permanency and what outcomes it expects. What do I get as an answer? The ministry does not define “permanence” at all. It does not have a definition of what it is striving to provide for children.

Any parent out there knows that the one thing children require is stability; they do not want to be pushed from pillar to post. They do not want to become like some of these statistics that we read about in the information I get from the Minister—such as the 13-year-old male moved seven times in 1 year. This is a boy who has had a very disturbed childhood. He has probably been abused—mentally, physically, maybe sexually. He is entering puberty, which is a very difficult time of his life. What has the State done to protect that boy? It has taken him out of that dangerous situation, but it has moved him seven times in the year. So once every 2 months that boy packs a bag and goes to another place.

Here we have a 4-year-old boy who was moved seven times in 1 year. Every 2 months that 4-year-old packed up and went to a new home, with new people, and had to cope with that.

Finally, there is a 2-year-old girl who was moved 8 times in a year. That is not good enough. That is not good enough, and those Labour members over there who are part of a Government that does that to the most vulnerable children in this country should hang their heads in shame. And the Prime Minister did not even give those children a mention when she was talking about the social development programme.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnei ōku mihi ki a koe. I stand, along with my colleagues, in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and, like my colleagues, I will also acknowledge the contribution of the Hon Brian Donnelly. I noted two points in his speech this afternoon. The first was how important he felt the select committees were in the role they played in Parliament and, secondly I suppose, was his measure of his contribution for the time he has been in this House. It made me think, during the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, about those same issues—about what measure one has since one has been in here. I recall when I first came into this House as a young man that there were two areas I was particularly focused on. One was the area of labour relations, and in 2002 the area of improving Māori development was an issue for me, as well. So I intend focusing on those two points in my address, in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, this evening.

In our labour relations policies, we replaced the Employment Contracts Act—a nasty piece of legislation, I might add—with legislation that brought back a balance to the bargaining table: good-faith bargaining, a term we hardly heard in the 1990s. Now, under the Employment Relations Act, workers and their families have benefited by getting that extra money in their pay packets. I am referring to recent settlements, particularly those surrounding contract cleaners and hospital workers. Those groups of workers are benefiting by getting their slice of the pie, but we cannot leave it there. We have to ensure that we are monitoring to ensure that their terms and conditions are protected and ongoing. I recall very clearly whether National members supported that change in legislation. Well, did they?

Hon Members: No.

DAVE HEREORA: No, they never did. The extra week’s annual leave, the 4 weeks’ holiday—I noted that most people, particularly in Auckland, had taken that up and spent the entire month of January on leave with their families. I think that that is great. They particularly enjoyed a wonderful summer over the recent festive season, and what a way to enjoy that break by getting an extra week’s holiday with their families. Did National support the increase of the extra week’s holiday? No way, Jose!

The other area was the increase to the minimum wage. It was the largest increase since 1999, and we have increased it eight times in 8 years. We have made wages fairer for young employees with the passing of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. Recently I attended a briefing at a Work and Income office in South Auckland with the Hon Darren Hughes. Officials explained that during their discussions with new applicants for benefits they gave applicants the comparison of what they would receive on a benefit as opposed to what they would receive on a minimum wage. The comparison showed that they would get 35 percent more when they were out there working on a minimum wage. That confirmed for us that the policy of increasing that minimum wage was not only visionary but has proved that, particularly in South Auckland, we have more people taking the option of going to work rather than going on the dole and taking a benefit. So in terms of the increased minimum wage, I ask whether National supported that. No way, Jose!

We introduced paid parental leave for the first time in New Zealand history in 2002. The term was increased from 12 weeks to 14 weeks in 2005, and the leave was extended to self-employed parents in 2006. Members cannot say that National supported that, because I know that they never did. So there lies the record; every positive change to improve workers’ rights and conditions has been opposed by National—every positive change National opposed.

We heard today from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Ruth Dyson, that we have on record the highest number of people employed; 2.2 million people are in work today. I tell folks that that is where it counts. They are all out there working within the community and contributing to a strong economy and better family living and enjoyment. Hey, but it gets better! That means 377,000 more jobs in the economy, contributing to the stability of our nation. And it gets better again—it does, it gets better again. That equates to providing 126 jobs for each day we have been in office. I say again that that is where it counts. Sound policy leads to positive change, and that is visionary. I have to ask the question about what effect that has on Māori. At the end of the day, if we look at the stats in relation to Māori unemployment levels, we find that in December 1999 the level was at 16.6 percent. But in December 2007, last year, it had dropped to 7.7 percent. That is a drop of 54 percent, and I think that that is huge. There has been a huge drop in Māori unemployment of 54 percent, meaning that there are more Māori families enjoying living and being able to provide education, health, and all the things necessary for a sound healthy family.

If we are then to consider other changes within the Māori economy, I want to say that the signing of the heads of agreement, under the Foreshore and Seabed Act, between the Crown and Ngāti Porou is a hugely significant agreement. Other iwi are also in negotiation or exploring the possibilities with the Crown for foreshore and seabed agreements. The Government also has major Māori affairs legislation to progress this year. As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee I can tell members that we are timetabling the draft legislation of the Māori Purposes Bill, the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill, and also the return of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, which transfers the title of what many New Zealanders know affectionately as “the Mount” to local iwi while maintaining the public’s right to enjoy that special place.

In the area of Māori development, as I have said, unemployment levels have dropped to an all-time low. There are fewer Māori on the unemployment benefit. There are fewer than 10,000 on the unemployment benefit for the first time in years. More Māori are attending tertiary education. In 2006 17.9 percent of Māori participated in tertiary education compared to 12.5 percent of Europeans. The Māori asset base is growing. The asset base is now worth an estimated $16.5 billion, an 83 percent increase since 2001. In 2001 the Māori asset base was estimated to be around $9 billion. Māori education is improving under the Labour-led Government. The Ngā Haeata Mātauranga annual report on Māori education for 2006-07 showed that more Māori students are improving their achievement in National Certificate of Educational Achievement levels. Sixty percent of year 11 students were successful in literacy and numeracy credits in 2006 compared with 52 percent in 2005.

We have to ask ourselves something. I witnessed, and saw the news coverage of, the rubbing of shoulders and noses between National Party leader, John Key, and Tame Iti, and also the holding of the hands of the National Party leader and the Māori Party leader, and I am wondering what that is saying. Is that giving a subtle signal that there will be some relationship formed here? Is that what it is saying? No, we have it on record that the National Party leader, if he takes office, will abolish the Māori seats. He will abolish the Māori seats; that is National’s position. I have to say that with Katherine Rich now moving out of Parliament, I would have thought that its Māori representative, Georgina te Heuheu, may have had the opportunity to move on to the front benches. I have thought that she is a very apt MP who does a lot of hard work, and she has been in Parliament long enough to earn, at the very least, a position on that front bench. You know, I am quite disappointed that she has not been given that opportunity. In fact, National has two Māori members. It has an experienced Māori member in the Hon Tau Henare, who has been on the front bench. But it looks as though he did not have a chance for that, as well. So therein lies the record. The National Party’s position on Māori is to abolish the Māori seats. It does not even support its own members.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call between Chris Tremain and Heather Roy of 5 minutes each, with a bell at 4 minutes.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I support the motion of John Key, which moves that this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government—no confidence because it has failed to make a significant improvement in areas of real importance to New Zealanders, it lacks ambition, it is tired and bereft of ideas, under its leadership our country has become a story of lost opportunities, and, lastly, it has lost touch with the people who put it in power.

Before I continue with my speech, I acknowledge the work of Brian Donnelly and Katherine Rich in this House. Both of them have made significant contributions to the work done across the House, and I acknowledge the work they have done—particularly that of Katherine, who came in with me on the economic development team, and who provided a bit of a starting guiding light for me when I first came into this House. So I thank Katherine Rich.

I will focus on the last point that I made, in terms of the Government having lost confidence and having lost touch with New Zealanders. This can be seen no more so than when we look at the two leaders of the Labour Government. In the House today at question time the Prime Minister stood up and said in response to a question about migration statistics that everything was OK because, despite a record migration of Kiwis, we have had a net gain of skills. Minister Duynhoven repeated that claim earlier tonight. But the Prime Minister demonstrated in black and white just how much she has lost touch with the blue-collar workers of this country. She does not care about them; she cares more about importing skills to replace the jobs going out of this country. How in touch is that?

Then we have the Deputy Prime Minister, who told us today in the Finance and Expenditure Committee that hard-working Kiwis who demand ongoing tax cuts have an Oliver Twist mentality. That just shows how much the Minister of Finance is out of touch with hard-working Kiwis. He forgets that the gruel they want a little more of is, in fact, their gruel in the first place. It is their sweat, their hard work, and their tax that they think deserves a better home in their pockets, in their stomachs, and in their bank accounts, not in this Government’s. National understands this; Labour quite clearly does not. National understands that these hard workers, these workers with an Oliver Twist mentality, are struggling out there.

Hard-working Kiwis with an Oliver Twist mentality are struggling after 8 years of Labour to understand why the health system has not improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it. I will focus on health in the rest of my 5-minute speech. Yesterday’s Dominion Post disclosed the heartache felt by a local Napier family. It was felt by Craig O’Neill and his mum, Beverly O’Neill, who, when she called on her time with the health system, was totally failed by it. We have to ask ourselves why hard-working Kiwis have lost faith in this Government, because here was a lady who had put taxes into the health system for her entire life. She went into hospital with heart troubles, she was flown to Wellington, and the system did not deliver for her. Today the Minister of Health said that it was not a funding issue. It was an absolute cock-up, and this lady lost her life.

Last week in Hawke’s Bay we found out that the Minister of Health had allowed the sale proceeds from the hospital on Napier Hill—$20 million in total—to be used to cover the operating deficits of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board since 2005. This was done against clear indications that the sale proceeds were to be used to build two new operating theatres and an in-house psychiatric unit. Yet here we have it, in the annual report, being booked as an accrual against operating revenue to fund the deficit. Hawke’s Bay people have once again lost confidence in this Government. They have lost confidence in this Government, and that is why National has moved a motion of no faith in the Prime Minister’s Government. Thank you.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to support what the previous speaker, Chris Tremain, said. We too support John Key’s motion and have no confidence in this Labour Government.

I am glad the member raised the issue of health, because this Labour Government’s commitment to health care is clear in the Prime Minister’s statement. On page 11 of a 14-page speech we have less than half a page—six bullet points—on health care, when $1 out of every $5 of Government spending goes into health. An extra $5 billion has been poured into health under this Labour Government for no visible gain. Why are there six bullet points? It is because this Government has no idea what to do to resurrect the public health sector.

The story that has emerged over the last couple of months—and with no thanks to the Government—at the Capital and Coast District Health Board is a very good indication of the perilous state our public health system is in. On 13 November last year the Minister of Health, David Cunliffe, received a phone call from the chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. That phone call was made to express the chair’s dismay that the deaths of three Hawke’s Bay patients within the last 3 months were preventable deaths, needless deaths, because the clinicians who treated those patients had been unable to access surgery for them at the Capital and Coast District Health Board, which is supposed to be providing a tertiary service to that area. They had been very badly let down. When patients are dying and a Minister of Health—a “caring” Minister of Health, he calls himself—is notified that this is happening—

Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s running the show.

HEATHER ROY: —yes, he is apparently running the show, but not very well—then a Minister of Health worth his or her salt would immediately instigate a review to find out what had gone wrong. But what did this Minister do? He did nothing.

He received a phone call and he received advice from the Ministry of Health. On 6 December I raised in this House the issue that patients had died because they could not access heart surgery at the Capital and Coast District Health Board. The Minister of Health’s response was to say that he had absolutely no knowledge of what I was talking about and that I should bring the information to him. As a backbench Opposition MP, I do not have the access to information that Mr Cunliffe has, but he claimed he had no knowledge of this matter despite the fact that he had had a phone call and information from the Ministry of Health. He launched a vicious personal attack on me, saying that it was a cynical show to attract media attention. I say shame on the Minister of Health, because as I made Official Information Act requests of various district health boards the facts emerged. The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was brave enough to give me the information to prove to the Minister of Health that this was not a cynical show at all, but the reality. It is the reality not only for the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board but also for the public health service around this country under the Labour Government, which has done nothing to improve health care in 9 long years.

The Minister was of course told that I was making these Official Information Act requests, and on 1 February he put out a press release. It is not available on his website, incidentally; it is available only from Scoop, because it is a shamefaced attempt to rectify a situation that he should have done something about 2½ months earlier. He stated in this release: “It is not acceptable to have patients waiting excessively long periods of time to receive surgery in a specialty such as this so we are taking action to fix it.” He will fix it with a review. Patients die, and we have reviews only when the media and backbench Opposition MPs raise these issues, even though the Minister has known about them for 2½ months and has sat on his hands. So we will have a review, recommendations will be made that will be imposed on the hard-working doctors and nurses at the coalface, who are supposed to keep working in the face of adversity, and nothing will change.

What this country needs is not only a change in Government but also a change in direction. It needs a Government that will not have philosophical blinkers that prevent providers from participating in the process. What this Government has failed to do, and what a change of Government and a change of direction would do, is to provide for New Zealand people the best-quality health care in the best time and at the best cost. New Zealanders deserve nothing less.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State): Tēnā koe kei te Kaihautū. Ngā mihi o te tau hou ki a koe.

[Greetings for you, and for the new year, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I relish the opportunity to take part in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday, but before doing that I will join many of the members of this House in a number of acknowledgments. I certainly acknowledge the valedictory speech made by the Hon Brian Donnelly, who has chosen to go off to the Cook Islands, where he has quite a strong background in terms of his education role there over a number of years. Many of the members who spoke in this House have recalled their experiences of and the contact they have had with Brian over a number of years. I will share some brief moments I want to brag about in terms of this particular member. I think everybody in this House would describe Brian Donnelly as a person with integrity, who certainly has credibility amongst all the parties in this House.

I also thank Brian Donnelly for sharing with the House the discussions and negotiations that took place in 1996 in terms of New Zealand First’s decision to go with the National Government to form a Government, and for sharing the fact that it was not solely the decision of their leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. But I detected from his tone that there was an element of regret with that decision. I do not know whether anybody else in this House picked it up, but I certainly did. Nevertheless, his reputation in this House will certainly be spoken about for a long time to come, and his integrity as a member will be respected.

I also express my sadness at hearing of Katherine Rich’s decision to leave Parliament. She came into Parliament at the same time as I did, in 1999. When we went through the induction process, as new members do, I found her to be a very warm and open person at that time, and to this day I still find her to be the same person. I think there are very few people in this House about whom one could say that the person is still the same person upon leaving Parliament as that person was when he or she came here. I think it is important to say that.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I am.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Certainly, Maurice is, and we hear about it every day. I think it is important, before responding to the Prime Minister’s statement, to make those points clear. As Brian Donnelly pointed out, the members in this House, no matter where they sit, are very hard-working, dedicated people.

I think that Parliament started the right way on the first day back after the Christmas and new year break, with tributes to Sir Edmund Hillary and Hone Tūwhare—two very well-known and popular New Zealanders. Many of the leaders who spoke in the House described Sir Edmund as being the person we all wanted to be. While they were making their speeches, I was thinking how I would have described him. I do not think I could ever have found the words that would honour this great person, but I remember many years ago, my dad gave me a book. It was a very important book. It is called Diary of the Kirk Years, and it was written by Margaret Hayward. I read that book some years ago.

There is a part in the book that refers to the visit to India by Norman Kirk—or Mr K, as Margaret Hayward called him—at a time when he was meeting with the then Prime Minister of India, Mrs Indira Gandhi. At the time he was there, Sir Edmund was passing through India on his way to Kathmandu. Hearing of this, Mrs Gandhi paid tribute to Sir Ed. She described him as the man who stood 6 foot above Everest. What a tribute. What a description of a man. In other words, he was bigger than the mountain. I still remember those words. I will have to go back to dig that book out and look for that line, because I think it is very important that when former overseas leaders, great people, make these statements, we as New Zealanders should be proud of our own people.

After those tributes I now go to the debate. The Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday was very strong and had a very, very strong vision. I have said in this House during previous debates that Election 2008 is about leadership. It is about vision, fortitude, and the commitment to the development of this nation. We heard that in this House yesterday.

A great speech-writer said to me some years ago that the difference between a good speech and a bad speech is 24 hours—in other words, the next day when one gets the feedback from the people who listened to the speech. The feedback from the Prime Minister’s statement has been positive from all the non-governmental organisations and from right across the business sector. It has been described as a speech with a very, very strong vision, and that is what this country is demanding. [Interruption] Well, let me talk about that other speech from the leader of the National Party. It was incredible.

As I said, 24 hours is important—the day after a speech is important. John Key must have had the same feeling this morning as he did on the day following the National Party conference in 2007, where he made so many mistakes in terms of his speech and his statements to the public. I am sure he had a hangover then. Well, he would have had a worse one this morning. For a start, his speech has been described in this way by Colin Espiner: “He failed to rise to the occasion.” That is not a good thing to say about an aspiring Prime Minister. Mr Espiner went on to say: “His speech was entertaining and off the cuff. However, as a potential PM he failed to deliver—no substance, little in any way at all of new ideas. This is not the sort of leader New Zealanders want.” What more can I say?

But I will give one thing to Mr Key: he went to the Waitangi celebrations this year and got a lot of coverage from the media. Did he not do well with the media? But he still got it wrong. Actually, I do not know whether he deliberately gets it wrong or whether his caucus is deliberately giving him bad advice—deliberately giving him bad advice.

I recall Waitangi Day 2007 for John Key. He got in his car at his multimillion-dollar house in Auckland, heading to Waitangi for the first time. But he did not go north; he went south. He got on the motorway and went south. He was in search of the underclass Polynesian people. So he went looking for such a Polynesian person and he found one. What did he do? He said: “I am your saviour. Come to Waitangi with me, and I will tell you how I will save you.” It did not go down well at all with his constituents.

What did John Key do on Waitangi Day 2008? He headed off to Waitangi again. He walked around, shook hands, rubbed noses, and all that sort of stuff. Don Brash went there in his time as National leader, and he left the place with a face full of Northland mud. What did John Key leave with? He left with Tame Iti stuck to his face! What was he thinking of?

The question “What was he thinking of?” has been asked by Chris Trotter, and by Trevor Mallard in the House. What was John Key thinking of? Well, I would ask what the hell Tame Iti was thinking of. What was he thinking of, getting close to the person who would disestablish or abolish the Māori seats, and who would get rid of Māori Television and all the new positive initiatives for Māoridom? Here is the leader of our sovereignty movement, shaking hands and rubbing noses with him. There just seems to be no consistency in the world.

John Key can do whatever he likes, go wherever he wants, and shake hands with whomever he likes. But I would say to Tame Iti that, bro, we do not do that where we come from. We fight the fight and we stand up, because those seats are important to us. Our forefathers—our ancestors, our tīpuna—fought to have those seats protected, and here is Tame Iti rubbing noses with, and stuck to the face of, the very person who would abolish them. I would ask Bob Clarkson what he thinks of that.

There are other things I would love to cover in terms of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House.

Hon Maurice Williamson: You’re gone.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I know I have rubbed a certain member on the other side of the House up the wrong way. Then again, as I have said, very few people leave here the same way they came in, but with that member there are no problems.

During the last term my particular area has been Māori health. I can say honestly that there have been some positive initiatives and some positive gains in the area of Māori health. The Māori health network has grown. The number of contracts being delivered by Māori service providers has grown. The whole sector, in terms of Māori primary health, is in a very, very healthy state.

There is a lot I would like to talk about in Māori health, but I will also touch on Treaty settlements. A significant event happened 2 weeks ago, which was the signing of the Ngāti Porou agreement on their customary foreshore and seabed rights. That vindicated those Māori members who stood in this Chamber and held their ground on very, very important legislation. Now, this Government is giving those rights meaning. Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker.

KATE WILKINSON (National): We have a motion before the House—a very excellent motion—and that is John Key’s motion. I remind those listening what we are actually debating tonight: “That this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark-led Government because it has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders, because it lacks ambition, because it is tired and bereft of ideas, because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power, and because under its lead our country has become a story of lost opportunities.” That is the motion we are debating tonight in the Chamber. It is a very, very serious motion. Then again, very, very serious issues are facing our country that are being ignored and swept under the counter by this Helen Clark - led Government.

We all know that as time has gone on this Helen Clark - led Government has concentrated more and more on its own survival, and less and less on the issues that matter to the people who put it there. The latest example is the Electoral Finance Act. There is no concern whatsoever for freedom of speech. We all know that Labour has squandered New Zealand’s economic inheritance by failing to build strong foundations for the future. This is a squandering Government and it is time that that squandering stopped. We have heard the Prime Minister’s statement. We heard it; it was full of rhetoric and of that word “sustainability”, but there were no new ideas. In fact, there were some ideas that were recycled from way back in 1994—14 years ago. But that is probably no surprise—

Hon Maurice Williamson: How long?

KATE WILKINSON: Fourteen long years—not as long as the 8 long years that we have had to endure under this Helen Clark - led Government.

Given the recycling of old ideas, it is probably no surprise to listeners when they hear that the increase in violent youth offending is a result of the 1991 Budget—and the sun and the moon. The 1991 Budget was years and years ago. I wonder what we can blame on the 1958 Budget or even the 1990 Caygill Budget. It is all very well to learn from the past, but this Government is actually living in the past. There are current, pressing, urgent, important questions out there, questions that Kiwis really want answers to—proper answers, not some suggestion or excuses that blame everything on something that happened 17 years ago. Kiwis are asking why, after 8 long years of a Labour Government, we are paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Do they have an answer to that?

KATE WILKINSON: There is no answer. Why under Labour is the gap between our wages and wages in Australia and other parts of the world getting bigger and bigger? There is no answer. Why under Labour do we get a tax cut only in election year, when we really needed it years ago? There is no answer. Why can hard-working kids not afford to buy their own house? There is silence; there is no answer. Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? There is no answer. The 1991 Budget is the answer to the numeracy and literacy problem in our schools. That is what the Labour-led Government is saying tonight. It is blaming it all on the 1991 Budget—and on the sun and the moon. Kiwis are asking why, when Labour claims it aspires to be carbon neutral, our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate. Why has the health system not improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it? There is no answer. Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and escalate, and why is Labour unable to do anything about it? These are the issues facing New Zealand. These are the questions that New Zealanders want the answers to. These are the issues that this Labour Government is ignoring and pretending do not exist. We say they do exist. We will focus on the real issues facing New Zealand, not on the tired old political debates of 20 and 30 years ago.

Unlike Labour, National understands why Kiwis are demanding change. They are demanding change because they think it is time for a Government that says no to mediocrity and yes to aspiration, and that expects more for New Zealand. National will lift wages by driving economic growth, by investing in infrastructure, by ongoing tax cuts, and by monitoring the quantity and quality of Government spending. National will create safer communities, taking the brave steps that are needed to address this country’s growing crime problem. We will ensure that our education system delivers real opportunities to young people. We will give Kiwis confidence in the Public Service, which they rely on. National is interested in building performance; Labour is intent on building bureaucracy. National will build a more confident, aspirational New Zealand with a proud sense of nationhood. This Helen Clark - led Government seems to think that if it throws money at a problem, then the problem will just go away. More money is not the solution. More money is not the answer. Better spending, better ideas, and better management are the answers.

If one wants an example, we can give example after example. I will look at the courts. The Minister for Courts is often confused about whether he is spending $165 million or $156 million. You know, it is just another $9 million bungle. He spends this money, yet the court delays are no better; they are worse. Court security incidents have increased. Legal aid is a challenge, with people unable to get legal aid lawyers to represent them. Legal aid lawyers are threatening to withdraw their services for several reasons, one of which is the burdening bureaucracy being foisted upon them. People are unable to get proper access to justice.

This Helen Clark - led Government is allowing the courts to become less and less secure. There were 661 security incidents in the courts in 2007, and 484 in 2006. That is an increase of 36.5 percent. That is not value for money. Of those incidents, 208 were classified as serious, which is up 18 percent from the last year, despite the spend of the Minister for Courts. The biggest regional rise was in the southern regions, where the rate went up by 111 percent. That is not good enough. We cannot believe—or be expected to believe—that the Minister takes court security “very seriously” when the number of incidents is increasing and increasing. Labour has promised to review court security and things have got worse. The Minister says it is all OK because in some cases the number of security incidents has decreased. Well, yes, they have—in Huntly there was one fewer security incident in 2007 than there was in 2006. It does not matter that the security incidents in Christchurch have escalated from 9 to 30; there was one fewer incident in Huntly, and therefore it is all OK. It is not OK. This Government has spent more money, maybe, but the problem has got worse. Our court system is under siege, thousands of trials are on hold, median waiting times are nearly 300 days, we have an increasing number of stays of prosecution, victims have to wait longer and longer for justice to be seen, potential criminals walk free without a trial because of our court system, yet the Minister thinks that because he has spent money, it is all OK. National says it is not OK.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I would say that that speech made by Kate Wilkinson would have been very much at home in 1994; in fact, it sounded very much like a recycled 1994 speech, as I recall.

I want to join with some of my colleagues in paying tribute to Brian Donnelly. As a newish member of Parliament I have not had the privilege of working with him, but on a personal note I know Brian from his time living in Maungakaramea where he was the headmaster at a local area school and actually taught my son when he was a little lad. He played cricket with my brother and was close to my family in those ways. I appreciate what he did for my son, who is a fine young man today and, yes, he is going on his overseas travel. I am very confident he will be back because he is a Labour supporter, and he knows that he is doing very well.

Similarly, I have not had the opportunity to work with Katherine Rich, although everything I hear about her makes me believe she is a woman to be treated with much respect. I regret I have not had the opportunity to get to know her better. We have had a couple of really good conversations about shoes, but that is as far as it has gone. But I wish her well, and as a woman I completely understand what she is saying about her family and her priorities. These priorities are hard sometimes, and the choices are hard.

Yesterday our Prime Minister outlined the significant programme of ongoing work for this very busy Government. It builds upon year upon year of the outstanding effort by this Labour-led Government, because we care about real people and we offer real solutions. This Labour-led Government has long-term sustainable strategies for our economy, our society, our environment, our culture, and our way of life. These are strategies that are being driven by strong leadership and sound policies—not sound bites, media stunts, and false promises.

The Prime Minister’s speech laid out a comprehensive programme for 2008, with major funding boosts for community-based organisations. It is fantastic. The member Anne Tolley neglected to mention the Salvation Army’s press release yesterday that said the Government’s plan will deal with the issues that the Salvation Army had raised the day before, and that it was very, very pleased about the funding boost. The programme includes Schools Plus, which is a plan for really pushing forward on education and skills development, a comprehensive plan for housing development and affordable housing, greater rights for victims, before-school checks, a moving forward on sustainability, and an investing in infrastructure. It is a programme of change that will continue to develop New Zealand’s potential and open up opportunities for all.

Labour has delivered while it has been in Government, but we are never arrogant enough to say everything has been done. The challenges of 2008 are different from the challenges of 1999 when Labour was first elected. We understand that, and that is why the work of this Government goes on every day under Helen Clark’s leadership. And it shows. I ask members to look at some of the highlights of 2007. There was a strong and resilient economy, the lowest unemployment in the OECD, the highest participation in the labour force ever, growing wages, cheaper doctors’ and prescription fees, 20 hours’ free education for 3 and 4-year-olds, KiwiSaver—which 400,000 Kiwis have now enrolled in—4 weeks’ annual leave, and so on. And 2008 will be even better.

John Key’s response to the Prime Minister yesterday was a joke. The disappointment on the faces of members of his caucus was plain for all to see. John Key failed to deliver on substance—we are used to that—but he also failed to show any new ideas. I guess we are used to that, too. But what is worse is that it was not even funny. I heard some ridiculous statements, and he keeps saying them. John Key says he is going to raise wages. Well, I want to know how he is going to do that. How will he make that happen? I heard a couple of members tonight offer a solution. They are going to drive the economy. That sounds to me like the old trickle-down theory that we had in the 1990s; they will grow the economy and all the poor people at the bottom will be lucky to get a few crumbs.

Hon Member: Will that work?

DARIEN FENTON: Well, I will want to know. I will want to know whether he will support ongoing minimum wage increases. Will he do something about that? Will he? I ask members to tell us; we would like to know. Will he support a growth in collective bargaining and industry-wide approaches to skills, standards, wages, and capital investment to help improve productivity? Will he do that, or will he make sure that that all goes backwards? Will he line up his big business mates in the aged-care industry and tell them to pass on to workers the money that the Government has funded, instead of waste time taking on the Government in the courts? Will he explain to the member Jonathan Coleman, who has been making very sympathetic noises about the wage levels of disability support workers on the North Shore, that it was National’s attack on those workers that created the problem in the first place, and if it were not for this Government’s increases in funding to the sector and increases in the minimum wage rates, then those workers would very likely still be on the $8.50 an hour they were being paid when Labour came into Government.

I am going to talk about the 1990s, because it is a very sensitive issue on the National side of the House. I can see that it is; it gets National members going, and I cannot resist doing it. I know they cannot cope with the idea that they are responsible for many of the problems that this Government has had to deal with. They are being very, very defensive, and it shows. Let me talk about the “mother of all Budgets”. That was not one Budget; it went on for years and years with real wages dropping, growing gaps between rich and poor, child poverty rates increasing, Third World diseases, overcrowding and lack of housing, families living in tents and caravans, no jobs, and no help when those families needed it.

Today in Australia the Labor Government is saying sorry to the Aboriginal nations for the lost generations, and it has taken 41 Parliaments to do so. But it is a historic moment, with a courageous Labor Government in Australia taking that first step. I keep looking at John Key and his brave new world of adopting Labour policies. I keep looking to him and hoping that he will say sorry and own up to the mistakes that the National Government made in the 1990s, and apologise to the people whose lives were decimated, whose lives today are still affected by the economic crimes committed by the last National Government.

In those years National’s friends had a bonanza. The rich friends of the National Party had a bonanza, but there was a famine for the rest. I have heard National members trying to blame the previous Labour Government of the 1980s for the economic nightmare of the 1990s. Some of us did not like Rogernomics and I will own up to that, and the Labour Party has owned up to it, as well—we own up to our mistakes, unlike the National Party that just wants to say “Forget that; that’s history.” Well, we have to learn from history. I want to see National take some responsibility for the Employment Contracts Act—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Helen Clark was the Deputy Prime Minister under the Rogernomics—

DARIEN FENTON: She was not in the National Government. I ask National to take responsibility for driving real wages down. I ask it to take responsibility for the health reforms—the ridiculous charges in hospitals. I ask it to take responsibility for the blow-out in the gap in the real average earnings between New Zealand and Australia. I ask it to take responsibility.

I say that to National members, but I say it in particular to the National members who still occupy the front and middle benches and who were here during the 1990s. Maurice Williamson was one of those, and what was he? He was the Minister of Transport, and what got done? Nothing! Bill English was the Minister of Health in the health reforms, and the Minister of Finance—hello! Nick Smith was the Minister of Education and various other things. I ask Nick Smith to own up. David Carter and Murray McCully—the Minister of Customs, Minister of Housing, and Minister for ACC—I ask them to own up to the problems that they created. Lockwood Smith was elected in 1984. He was Minister of Education, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Trade, and so on. Dear old Lockwood Smith made a pledge that he will make sure unions never have control of workplaces again. You see, National members cannot help themselves. Members can look at the pledge he made, with that old, anti-union rhetoric. It is on his website.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: He also pledged to not have student fees.

DARIEN FENTON: That is right. Then there are a whole lot more. Poor old Gerry Brownlee was elected in 1996 and is champing at the bit to be a Minister, along with Wayne Mapp and Pansy Wong. There are a whole lot more who came in, in 1990, and they are desperate for power. They are already salivating at the ministerial houses and the ministerial cars, and the fight for positions in the National Party caucus is heating up. The arrogance is breathtaking. But members of the National Party are going to wait a long, long time, because until that party owns up, no one in this country is going to believe a word it says. John Key can swan about the country mouthing soothing platitudes, but it is not going to work with those who remember. And many people remember; I tell the House that those citizens, those voters, have very, very long memories.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I think we have been very privileged tonight, because we have seen Labour on parade—not scintillating, not in step, not in tune. I was particularly interested in the comments of the previous Labour speaker when she said, in words I certainly will remember in the future: “Labour owns up to its mistakes.” Does it?

Tonight, in what is a full House and a crowded gallery, I would like to say that I support the motion of John Key, which moves that this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government, and why is that? The reason is that it has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders, because it lacks ambition, because it is tired and bereft of ideas, because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power, and because, under Labour, our country has become a story of lost opportunities. I think it might be the case, as previous speakers on this side of the House have said, that as time has gone on Labour has concentrated more and more on its own survival and less and less—sadly—on the issues that matter to the people who put those members there. As others may also have said, Labour has squandered New Zealand’s economic inheritance by failing to build strong foundations for the future.

I would like to go from there for a moment and just contemplate that on 7 February we started, in Chinese, in Korean, and in Japanese terms, a new New Year—the lunar new year—the Year of the Rat. I have chosen eight questions because in those countries eight is very much a lucky number, and I will pick up the theme of that number in a moment in looking at some other issues that directly touch this present Government. I believe we can ask eight questions tonight that reflect manifest failings by those who have the privilege, for a short time further, to sit on the Treasury benches.

The first question I ask is, why, after 8 years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? Surely that cannot be right. Here is another question. Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages and the wages in Australia and other countries getting bigger and bigger? Here is a third question. Why, under Labour, do we get a tax cut only in election year when we really needed it years ago? Why are we being treated to this sophistry of tension between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, where one wants tax cuts and the other, for ideological reasons, can scarcely contemplate that possibility?

Here is a fourth question. Why is it that our children, who are determined to achieve, cannot buy their own homes? Why is it that one in five children is leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? Why is it that when Labour claims it aspires to be carbon neutral, our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate? Why is it that the health system has not improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it, and we hear comments from an independent auditor that there is a huge and significant problem in our public health service? Why is it that violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continues to soar, and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?

These are the sorts of challenges that those who sit opposite us should address in the context of the comments the Prime Minister made yesterday, and I ask why they will not. I say that they will not because they cannot face the reality of what has been a wasted stewardship in the last short period. We in New Zealand should be blessed with a Government that is fresh, vigorous, and sustainable, and what do we have? We have a Government that is stale, febrile, and unsustainable. There is nothing in the way of new ideas.

But let me come back to that in just a moment and talk now about an issue that has occupied the time of this House in the last few months in a way that I, as a New Zealander, find truly worrying. What am I talking about? I am talking about the flight of quality people from this country, and also about the refusal of the Government, the reluctance of the Government—perhaps for ideological reasons—to confront that problem.

The numbers are actually quite frightening. In the context of measurement they are hugely sobering. For example, do members know that in November 2007, 75,000 permanent and long-term departures, which were the highest for the decade, occurred? One month on, in December, the record was broken again. In the 12 months to the end of November, 76,000 people left New Zealand. We can ill afford to lose that resource, and what is the response of the Government to that issue? I think it is a deadening silence. I do not see any initiatives that are either in place or planned to deal with that exodus of people.

Among the statistics are some alarming figures. For example, the exodus of New Zealanders to Australia is up almost 70 percent since 2003. It is not just new migrants who are posting out—turning round and leaving—we are seeing the highest number of New Zealand citizens leaving for Australia in a decade. The net outflow to Australia is, in fact, the highest in 19 years.

Some members on that side of the House are shouting out in an ill-mannered fashion as I make these comments, and I am not the slightest bit concerned by that. Where are the ideas? Where is the plan? Do we accept at face value what the Prime Minister would have us accept—that there are some bold new vision statements? Well, it is very interesting.

I will pick up that theme of eight that I offered a moment ago and look at eight illustrations where Labour has snaffled and snatched National Party policy. I do not have enough time to deal with all those, but I will certainly deal with some of them. It may be the case that I ask, and I am sure it will be forthcoming, for leave to continue for a further short period on these very important issues. Let me just take eight examples. I will summarise them pretty quickly.

Let us look first of all at the plan of Labour to remove the cap on charitable donations. Is it a new idea? No; it was announced by National on 27 February 2007, and then announced by the Government in the Budget of 2007. We can take a second example: all payments that reimburse volunteers for actual and reasonable expenses will be tax-free, regardless of the amount of the payment. That was announced by National on 16 May 2007. What happened then? The Government released a discussion document later in time, on 1 November 2007. The third example: a greater emphasis on trades training in schools, giving schools more flexibility to offer their students trade and industry training opportunities. That was announced by National on 18 June 2007, and announced by the Government on 30 January 2008. I take another example: giving the police the ability to issue time-bound, on-the-spot protection orders to protect families. That was announced by National on 1 November 2007. What was the Government’s response? It was a follow-on response. The Government copycatted that announcement in mid-December 2007, with the issue of a discussion document. The fifth example is: committing all fuel tax revenues to the National Land Transport Fund.

Hon Maurice Williamson: That’s a good one.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Mr Williamson will know this; it was National’s 2005 election policy. Labour announced it on 25 July 2007.

This is not a Government with fresh ideas. This is a hopelessly failed Government.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I listened with interest to the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, and I have to say that he is a very positive member of this House—a very positive person. I think in his heart of hearts he was probably quite sad that he had to deliver perhaps a somewhat negative, pessimistic view of a country that I know in his heart of hearts he really loves. I know in his heart of hearts he will acknowledge that New Zealand is a wonderful place, a wonderful country, and we in this country are doing so well. I think in their heart of hearts some of the more loyal, patriotic members of the Opposition give their contributions with a very heavy heart. In their heart of hearts they know, of course, how wonderfully this nation is doing, and in their heart of hearts it is very sad that they seem to have to sell down this country.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge two events that have happened in the last 24 hours, and certainly the valedictory earlier today of the Hon Brian Donnelly. I want to, along with others, pay great tribute to his wonderful contribution to this Parliament. He is a man of real integrity. I was listening to an interview on Morning Report between the Rt Hon Winston Peters and a journalist—I think it was Sean Plunket. Sean Plunket was implying that the Cook Islands appointment was something of a “job for the boys”. With respect to the well-respected Morning Report reporter Sean Plunket I have to say that I totally disagree with that.

In fact, a few years ago I went on an official visit to the Cook Islands and Samoa with the Hon Phil Goff who was then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Brian Donnelly. Marie Hasler, from west Auckland, along with other members, also went with us. The story is great and is simply this: I had not fully appreciated the Hon Brian Donnelly’s connection to the Cook Islands until I went there. Basically people in the Cook Islands were saying: “Who are these other people with Brian Donnelly?” With no disrespect to my good friend and colleague the Hon Phil Goff the person who had the highest profile at any event and the person they were literally flocking around was Brian Donnelly.

I did not realise it, but Brian Donnelly and the Cook Islands are interrelated and synonymous, and it was certainly a privilege to go to the smaller island of Mitiaro where one of his adopted children came from. It was an absolute welcome; it was an incredible homecoming. I think this is a case where, in point of fact, a person such as Brian Donnelly will make an excellent contribution for this country, and it is no soft touch; we all know that all Pacific Island nations—the whole region—demand a renewed focus from this country. I also want to say, for example, that we had another very successful so-called political appointment in terms of the Hon Sandra Lee to Niue. These appointments do not underestimate the strategic importance of these particular island nations to our country, small as they may be, and the need for us to have a renewed, clear focus. Personally, I think the Hon Brian Donnelly will do very well.

The other person I want to pay tribute to, and many people have paid tribute to her today, is Katherine Rich. She can be truly proud of the contribution she has made to this Parliament in the years she has been here. I appreciate that it is probably easy for me to say this, because on some of the positions she took, clearly I personally agreed with her so it is easier to pay tribute to her strong moral compass, her courage, and her integrity—I accept that. In saying that, I respect the moral compass and integrity of those who take an opposing point of view. What I admired the most was that when she was very clearly isolated amongst some of her colleagues on a particular issue, she stood respectfully and steadfastly to that point of view, and she quietly held to it and lasted the distance. I am not criticising her other colleagues who sincerely held other views.

I think Katherine Rich will be a loss, and I know that tonight her family and her extended family in Dunedin and elsewhere must be very, very proud of their mother, wife, and daughter, and of the contribution that she has made to this Parliament. We all wish her well, and I think she will continue to serve our country in different ways in the future. She is one of those rare members of Parliament, if you like, who is admired across the House. Brian Donnelly is another good example of that. They have both announced their retirements today, but they are very clearly liked, by all sections of the House.

I obviously want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister’s statement, and I am very, very proud to be a New Zealander at this time. The Prime Minister, in her delivery yesterday, gave us some very salient and important facts. It is a fact that Labour goes into this year knowing that we have led the economy through its longest run of economic growth since the Second World War. It is a fact that the economy is one-third larger than it was when we were elected. It is a fact that 377,000 more jobs are in the economy. It is a fact that unemployment hit a new low of 3.4 percent in the December quarter—the lowest level since the household labour force survey began, 20 years ago. It is a fact that the labour force participation rate is the highest ever recorded in the survey. It is a fact that total working-age benefit numbers are down by almost 140,000 on the numbers we inherited from the previous Government. These are facts.

As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West, and as one of the members representing the Waikato region, I have to report what is very obvious: my city in my region is on a roll. It is doing exceptionally and incredibly well. Indeed, just a few statistics in terms of unemployment levels are an indicator of economic activity and well-being. In September 1999 the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. In September 2007 that went down to 3.2 percent—need I go on? In respect of benefit numbers we have gone from 15,000 down to 11,000 in 2007. The number of State houses has gone from 3,300 up to just under 4,000. The total school operations grant funding has gone from $50 million to $74 million - plus—a real increase of 46 percent. Do I need to go on? My city, economically, is on a roll.

These are examples, I think, of some very, very positive things that have obviously happened under this Government. In the time I have left I will briefly pay a tribute to a really good project in our city. Our city has initiated a major pilot of a new 40-kilometre-per-hour speed restriction around 18 Hamilton schools. I want to say that I, Sue Moroney, and Dianne Yates, working very closely with the Hamilton City Council, lobbied the Minister of Transport very hard to get this programme in the city of Hamilton. I really want to pay tribute to that project tonight. We now have safer speed restrictions around our schools. I use this opportunity in Parliament tonight, in terms of the really good work that my colleague Harry Duynhoven has done in road safety, to say that this is an area of great importance to us all—that is, the safety of our young children and young students returning to school. This is a really great programme, and, indeed, we have seen very good improvements in driver behaviour as a result of these speed limits. That is an example of the day-to-day practical examples of Government and positive initiatives that come out of the Ministry of Transport, and that come from the city council under Mayor Bob Simcock, who is very pleased with this scheme. Bob will be known to a number of people on the other side of the House. I also refer to councillors Dave Macpherson, John Gower, and others who in my view have done exceptionally well.

Need we go on? We can talk about the Prime Minister’s announcement in terms of making sure that every young person leaves school with some qualification, and does not go out like flotsam and jetsam as in the 1990s when they were just left. Every young person will exit from school into some sort of job, qualification, or role. These are good examples. Modern Apprenticeships is another really positive example of the wonderful things that are happening in our country today.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): There is one more fact that I can give the member for Hamilton West, and it is that if this bunch of broken-down party hacks, tired union officials, and failed academics cannot fix the problems of New Zealand after 9 years, they never will—and they know that. We have just listened to those thought-disordered ramblings from Martin Gallagher, and there was not one thing there that addressed the challenges facing New Zealand today. It is quite clear that those guys are out of answers and are out of time.

I speak to the motion that our leader of the National Party, John Key, put to the House yesterday. I think it bears reiterating: “That this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government because it has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders, because it lacks ambition, because it is tired and bereft of ideas, because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power, and because under its lead our country has become a story of lost opportunities.”

I can tell the people who are sitting at home tonight in my electorate of Northcote on Auckland’s North Shore that this Government is completely out of touch with their concerns. The Government does not care that their interest rates are doubling. Government members do not care that when they came into office, interest rates were 4.25 percent. If people go out and get a mortgage today, the rate is nearly 10 percent. Government members are not interested in real answers to homeownership. They are not interested in the fact that our communities are not safer. They do not care that after 9 years of a Labour Government, one in five kids leaves a New Zealand secondary school unable to read or write. Government members do not care that when people really need to call upon the New Zealand health service, they cannot get the care they want after paying taxes all their lives. The fact is that those guys have had too much time inside the beltway. They are going because they have lost touch with the concerns of real New Zealanders.

We counted up the number of times Helen Clark used the word “sustainability” in the speech we heard from her yesterday. It was in there about a dozen times. Basically that speech was just a collection of mock clichés. There was no vision for how we are to go forward into the future. What we will hear from Labour members at this election will be a lot of looking backwards. They will campaign on the basis of looking into the past. They have a leader who is very much tied up with the ideological battles of the 1980s and the 1990s. I can tell them that New Zealand is over that.

New Zealand is ready for John Key. In John Key we have a man with a vision for the future. He is a man who knows what the problems of ordinary New Zealanders are. John will lead a Government that tackles the problems of economic growth. He will make this country a great place for our kids to stay in, build a life, and build a business. Every year now 40,000 New Zealanders—that is the capacity of Westpac Stadium—leave for Australia. What has Australia sent us? It has sent us two people in a kayak, and they are going back there, as well.

We hear from Mr Cullen that Government members will give us a tax cut if it meets four tests. The fact is that there is only one test for a tax cut from this Government: it is behind in the polls and this is an election year. That is all Government members care about, because the concerns of those people are solely about retaining power. I look across the Chamber and see five people who are not going to be here after the election. The concerns of those people are solely about retaining power. The Electoral Finance Act is all about the Government retaining power.

I tell Government members that if they lived in Glenfield in my electorate on the North Shore of Auckland, they would be worried about violent crime. Last year this Government amended the Bail Act. Violent criminals can get out of court, go out on to the streets, and commit more violent crime. About 2 weeks ago we had a very serious violent assault in our area; people will have read about the four young people who were violently beaten on the North Shore of Auckland. [Interruption] Do members know what I was told when I talked to our local police chief? He said those guys are going to be back out on the streets in 3 years. Is that not amazing? [Interruption] We hear a lot of interjection from Dianne Yates, but she will be gone from here. She will not be back. She lost her seat, and what is even worse, she could not even get back on the Hamilton City Council at the last local body elections. That is what name recognition and meeting the voters actually did for her.

But the key point is—and listeners at home should remember this—that if after 9 years this mob has not fixed it, they never will. They are out of time. They do not have the answers to the health problems in New Zealand. We had the Health and Disability Commissioner with us today, and he said that our hospitals in New Zealand are unacceptably unsafe—completely unsafe. He said “unacceptably unsafe”. He said the problem is a failure of leadership. I said to him: “A failure of leadership? You must mean the Minister of Health?”. He said: “Well, those are your words.” But I tell members he did not deny that. We have heard many stories. In my area four elderly people died unnecessarily at North Shore Hospital last year, and that is bringing the Health and Disability Commissioner to launch an investigation into Waitemata District Health Board. We have three district health boards on intensive watch. The health system is in disarray. The Government has upped its spending on health from $6 billion a year to $12 billion a year, yet fewer operations are being done each year. If that is not managerial incompetence, then what is?

The problem is that Government members have been worried only about driving through a social agenda and now are worried only about getting back into power. That is all they care about. That is what the Electoral Finance Act is all about. We have the problems of 40,000 people a year leaving for Australia, violent crime on the streets, hospitals that people cannot get into, and spiralling interest rates, yet all this Government can focus on is ensuring its own re-election with the Electoral Finance Act. That is an absolute disgrace. People listening and watching at home should just remember that if those guys cannot fix it after 9 years, they never will. I can tell them that right now.

But I will say what National is going to do. We will get this economy growing again. There is no question about that. We have a leader who can drive an economy. We have a leader who will give people their hard-earned cash back into their pockets. He will get us back into the top half of the OECD. People in New Zealand need to have the money in their pockets. I tell Mr Duynhoven—although he might know this; he will be asked about this at the election—it is true that last October the price of milk went up by 27 percent and the price of butter went up by 7 percent, and petrol went up by 25c a litre last year. How can people afford to pay for the basics of life? They cannot. They need to have the cash in their hand. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee today, Dr Cullen said that people who asked for tax cuts had an Oliver Twist mentality. I can tell him that one had to go to Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist to get the tax cut.

I can tell people that the bottom line is that if Government members have not fixed it after 9 years, they never will. When we go out on to the streets of New Zealand and talk to people, they say they realise that. They know that those guys are not delivering. They know that those guys are going. In my area the reaction against those guys has been absolutely stronger than ever. I have been door-knocking around Birkenhead; I have been to every business there. The language from people was incredible. They were saying: “Get rid of those people.”

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.