Thursday, 14 February 2008
Volume 645
Sitting date: 14 February 2008
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House, at the conclusion of the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, priority will be given to the first readings of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill, the Financial Advisers Bill, the Policing Bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. Ann Hartley’s valedictory speech will occur on Wednesday at approximately 5 p.m.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us whether the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill is likely to come up on the Order Paper, given the Prime Minister’s new commitment to rid the nation of graffiti.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): If the member looks at the Order Paper he will find that that has been postponed until 25 February, so it cannot come up next Wednesday. However, the member should watch this space.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Electricity—Supply
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Has he received a report on yesterday’s National Winter Group meeting led by Transpower; if so, what did the report conclude on electricity supply security in New Zealand for this coming winter?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): I have not received a formal report, but I have received draft minutes. Those minutes confirmed what I said in the House yesterday. An important element of security of supply is whether we can restore part of Pole 1 of the high-voltage direct current (HVDC) link across Cook Strait, and work on that is progressing.
Gerry Brownlee: Does he agree with the chief executive officer of Meridian Energy, who told the Commerce Committee this morning that security of supply is as finely balanced as he has ever seen it in his 39 years in the electricity industry in New Zealand, or does he still wish to insist that there is really not too much of a problem and that we will get through it?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I do agree with Dr Turner’s comments, but I also reinforce the point that notwithstanding the very unusual coincidence of adverse effects happening at once, the system is coping.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve run the system down.
Hon DAVID PARKER: We have not run the system down. There are unprecedented levels of investment in both transmission and generation.
Dave Hereora: When does Transpower expect to make a decision on the partial restoration of Pole 1?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Transpower’s chief executive officer, Patrick Strange, said this morning that he expects a decision on that will be taken in the next few weeks.
Gordon Copeland: Why, when the risks around the ageing Cook Strait cable have been highlighted by Keith Turner of Meridian Energy and others for some time, have we reached the point where one pole of the cable is apparently uninsurable, and will he hold the entity responsible for that—be it Transpower or the Electricity Commission—accountable for placing our electricity supply system at unnecessary risk?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It will come as no surprise to the member that when the Government was surprised by the somewhat sudden retirement of one pole of the Cook Strait cable last year, it was very fulsome in its expression of opinion about how surprised it was to be surprised.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You were told 5 years ago!
Hon DAVID PARKER: That is not correct. Until I received a phone call late last year, 24 hours before it was retired, we were told that it had many years of life left in it.
Gerry Brownlee: Can we take it from the Minister’s answers that the incoming briefings provided to him, presumably from his forebears also in Cabinet, did not tell him of the problem that they had known about for at least 5 years; and why cannot he take some responsibility for an HVDC link that now looks like a frayed rubber band about to go at any point?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I do not think it is acceptable that within 24 hours we had a change from an important part of the electricity infrastructure being available for many years to its being retired at the end of that week, albeit on a temporary basis.
Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that despite the urgency around the survival of the HVDC link, the Electricity Commission, which is supposed to guarantee security of supply, is not even considering a proposal either to replace or to repair it?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm that, because it is not so.
Gerry Brownlee: It is so!
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it is not. The Electricity Commission can only consider an application that is made to it. It is awaiting the application from Transpower. The technical specifications are also being prepared by Transpower separate from that process to put out to tender, so that the Electricity Commission procedures do not delay the practical implementation of the upgrade that we need.
Peter Brown: Noting the concern in this House and in the public at large about the possibility of security of supply being threatened, and noting that the Minister answered yesterday by saying he could not guarantee security of supply, can he at least guarantee that all the participants in the electricity industry will work together on a coordinated approach in order to address the current problems and any potential problems?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I can indeed confirm that relationships between different parts of the electricity sector are better than they were a year ago.
Peter Brown: If relationships within the industry are improving—and are certainly improving upon a year ago—is it feasible to suggest to the Government that it considers amalgamating the Government-owned entities and recognising that the Bradford reforms of 1998 were indeed a failure and that we should put the sector all back under one authority; is it feasible to ask the Government to consider that suggestion?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It is one of the options that the Government considered last year, and full papers as to the merits and demerits of that are publicly available and are, I think, sitting on the Ministry of Economic Development website.
Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister concur with the recommendations that came out of the chief executive officer’s meeting yesterday, suggesting that New Zealand will get through this winter successfully only if the suppliers can rely on interrupted supply, which means cold showers, no heaters, and industrial shut-downs?
Hon DAVID PARKER: That member put that same incorrect assertion to Dr Turner at the select committee today, and Dr Turner rejected it and said it is not correct. The system is designed to be able to withstand multiple contingencies happening at the same time, as is evidenced by the fact that notwithstanding multiple contingencies already happening at the same time, the power system is, at this stage, coping.
Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document that shows that Dr Turner said it would require Comalco to shut down, would require hot water to be turned off, and would require other disruptions to supply in order to survive, if at all possible.
Document not tabled.
Youth—Education Initiatives
2. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to ensure all young people achieve their potential through education?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education): As the Prime Minister announced in the House on Tuesday, the Labour-led Government plans to revolutionise secondary schooling with our realising youth potential Schools Plus programme, which will ensure all young people are in education or training until the age of 18. Schools Plus will significantly improve the skill levels of all young New Zealanders, contribute to stronger communities, and ensure our economy has the skilled workers it needs to keep us prosperous.
Moana Mackey: What steps has the Labour-led Government already taken to improve learning opportunities for young New Zealanders?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Since 1999 the Labour-led Government has changed the direction of secondary schooling from a pass or fail model under National to a modern education system focused on building success for all students. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) gives students a comprehensive record of what they have actually achieved at school; we have rebuilt the route into trade and technical careers destroyed by the National Government, with Modern Apprenticeships, Gateway, and now Youth Apprenticeships; and we have launched the New Zealand curriculum to enable schools to personalise the education they offer to meet student and community needs. Schools Plus will build on these initiatives and give students and teachers a much wider range of education options to keep them engaged in learning up to and beyond the age of 18.
Anne Tolley: Why is the Government forcing students aged 16 and over to stay at school when the truancy rate for years 11 to 13 has already risen by 25 percent since 2004 and when many of these students just want the flexibility and choice that the National Party policy provides, where they can go out into the workforce and start earning a living?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Schools Plus is all about flexibility and choice.
Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear in this Chamber when the barracking begins. So that everyone gets an opportunity to hear, members will be asked to leave.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is not about the compulsion to go into a boot camp; it is about finding a pathway—whether that is a Youth Apprenticeship, working in an industry training organisation, working with a tertiary institution, or just staying at school—and students will get those choices under Schools Plus. It is an incredibly revolutionary idea, it builds on initiatives that we are already doing, and I think it is a fantastic programme.
Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister give an explanation for the findings of the Social Report 2007 that although 65 percent of European school leavers left school with NCEA level 2 or higher, only 36 percent of Māori school leavers achieved the same status, and what impact does that have on the ability to be employed?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: It has a very serious impact on employment, and it is for exactly the reasons the member has outlined—and I share those concerns with the member—that we need to do something to change the way secondary schools operate, and Schools Plus is about that. It is about widening the range of options so that we can keep all young New Zealanders in education, which is not only good for them but also good for our country.
Dr Pita Sharples: Given this lag in Māori education, will the Minister be resurrecting the manaaki tauira scholarship grant to allow more Māori to attend university?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I cannot comment on that particular programme, but what I can assure the member is that we will be utterly focusing on students in our school system at the moment who are not succeeding, the 40 percent of students who are leaving school without the equivalent of NCEA level 2. We have to provide new pathways to upskill those students.
Hospitals—Safety
3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Why are New Zealand public hospitals “unacceptably unsafe”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): New Zealand’s public hospitals serve the vast majority of New Zealanders very well by international standards, and this country has a better safety record than many overseas countries, including Australia and the United States. I welcomed the recent comments by the Health and Disability Commissioner who, while highlighting substantial improvement over recent years, challenged the system to continue improving quality. The Government has committed to doing this as a top priority.
Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think New Zealand public hospitals are unsafe, and why should New Zealand patients have any confidence that this Labour Government will deal with unsafe hospitals when it is clear that after the commissioner’s damning comments of 2 years ago, all that he and Mr Hodgson have done is set up yet another committee and write a letter?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I have said, I think New Zealand’s public hospital system serves the vast majority of New Zealanders very well. Since becoming Minister of Health, I have not only outlined the Government’s priorities to all district health boards through the annual letter of expectations but tied district health board budgets to progress on the quality and safety agenda.
Jill Pettis: What has the Minister done since taking office to look at safety issues in the health sector?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Since becoming Minister of Health in November last year, I have, as I said, sent all district health boards a formal letter of expectations outlining my expectations to put quality issues at the top of their agenda. For the first time, we made a proportion of district health board budgets conditional on their meeting performance targets for quality improvement, and we are working cooperatively with nurses, doctors, and other health care staff to push forward the quality agenda. I add that the Prime Minister in her opening speech to Parliament this year emphasised how seriously the Government is pushing this issue.
Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister consider that increased monitoring of the public health system will be sufficient on its own to improve the quality of medical care, or will he also investigate measures such as separating elective and emergency surgery?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Transparency is important, but it is not enough to stop there. We need to build learning organisations that prevent errors from occurring wherever possible. That must involve an active partnership with clinicians at all levels.
Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree that it is a shocking state of affairs when we do not even have enough basic information to know whether the rates of infection and medication errors or the numbers of people who die during or shortly after surgery are actually improving in our hospitals or getting worse, and why does he think his predecessors in the health portfolio refused to require the publishing of this information, despite repeated requests by the Green Party and the Health Committee over many years?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that under the previous Government such data was not collected at all. This Government set up the Quality Improvement Committee, which has a project under way to collect standardised data for incident reporting and open disclosure across all district health boards. The Quality Improvement Committee is also working on medication safety, infection control, improved patient flows, and a mortality database, which identifies conclusively causes of death.
Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Minister concede that in spite of significant increases in funding in the public health sector since the year 2000, understaffing and overwork of those existing staff remains a problem and that waiting lists are still far too high, and would he therefore acknowledge that one of the solutions that ought to be considered in order to make New Zealand hospitals safer and more effective is greater use of capacity in the private surgical sector to perform elective surgery procedures?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In answer to the two parts of that question, I say that, no, I do not accept that the sector is understaffed. This Government has brought in another 2,000 doctors and 4,500 nurses since taking office in 1999. However, I agree with the member that it is important that all theatre capacity, whether public or private, is optimally used, to the benefit of New Zealand patients.
Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think our hospitals are safe, when a 60-year-old woman with multiple sclerosis was admitted to Auckland City Hospital and for the 4 days she was there did not have her teeth cleaned or her hearing aids put in, had only the food her family took in because she could not eat the food provided, was turned only when the family requested it, and could not read any books because no one would put them in her hands; and after 8 years of a Labour Government and $5 billion extra put into the health budget, is that the standard of care we want to give our grandparents?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I share the member’s concern that every New Zealand patient is well treated. If the member would be kind enough to follow the normal convention of providing such information privately to the Minister, or in the primary question, rather than playing politics with the issue, then I would be happy to investigate.
Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think our public hospitals are safe for patients, when a 74-year-old man, during his first 4 days in a public hospital, had no personal care, did not have his bandages changed, was not checked for a rapidly growing infection where an intravenous luer was inserted, and had a different nurse every shift for 4 days; and after 8 years of Labour and $5 billion extra, is that the first-class health system Helen Clark boasted about on Tuesday?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government shares the concern that every New Zealander should receive first-class health care. If the member would like to share information about the case, rather than playing politics with an individual family’s concerns, then I will see that it is followed up.
Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister realise he has actually missed the point of what Ron Paterson was talking about yesterday, because he was not talking just about the major sentinel events where people die but also about the many everyday cases where systemic failure, mistakes, and poor standard of care lead to a lot of inconvenience, suffering, and distress for more and more patients, which is increasingly the reality for many of our older New Zealanders?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The member may not have heard, but the Government is attaching priority, and requiring district health boards to attach priority, to a broad-based quality and safety agenda. At no time has the Government implied that that is limited only to the most serious events.
Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister realise that the people of New Zealand are rapidly losing confidence in their public health system, with more and more people buying private health insurance to protect themselves; and is this what New Zealanders get after 8 years of Labour and $5 billion extra—unsafe hospitals?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Repeated surveys show that New Zealanders care greatly about health care, which, amongst other reasons, is why they have returned a Labour Government for three successive terms. That is because we stand for strong public health care, not for lifting doctors’ fees and privatising State assets.
Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table last year’s Vote Health estimates, where the Health Committee points out that it has repeatedly recommended the publication of hospital-related adverse events, and calls on the Minister to direct district health boards to—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table my 2008-09 letter of expectations to district health boards.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Environment, Report—Conclusions
4. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Which conclusions in draft chapter 13 of the state of the environment report was he referring to when he reportedly said on Monday that the chapter had been scrapped because it made a series of conclusions that were not strictly supported by the facts?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): Peer review of the draft chapter made it clear that the qualitative nature of some of the statements in draft chapter 13 was not in line with the factual nature of the report. One such example is: “the sheer scale of existing pastoral land-use in New Zealand combined with recent record dairy returns mean that intensification of land use is likely to continue to pose a significant challenge to our environment for some time, even if stringent pricing and regulatory regimes are agreed and put in place.” The report did not contain quantitative analysis to support the statement. No such economic analysis of dairy returns had been undertaken in the report. The report contains no analysis of the effect of pricing and regulatory regimes on land use. Such interpretation extends beyond the scope of a retrospective, facts-based report.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is not that very example the one I put to him in my question yesterday, and he agreed vehemently that he agreed with that conclusion?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, we can agree with an argument. It is a different thing for a department to present an argument as a fact.
Hon Marian Hobbs: What is the Government doing to address the environmental effects from farming?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: In the foreword of the state of the environment report I state that this issue, especially around water quality, is a real problem. The Labour-led Government is taking leadership in the area under the Sustainable Water Programme of Action, and a national policy statement for the management of freshwater management is in development. In addition, there is a raft of national environmental standards. There are other initiatives, including $22 million a year invested in freshwater research through the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. Since its inception, the Sustainable Farming Fund has provided over $22 million to project teams working on tools and techniques to improve environmental performance in the primary sectors. The Government has committed $36.7 million as its share of the Lake Taupō water quality protection programme. And much of the $175 million over 5 years allocated to the sustainable land management and climate change plan of action will enable work that provides further impetus to reduce sediment and nitrogen discharges into water. Again, I could go on.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does the Minister excuse the deletion of chapter 13 of the state of the environment report, saying that it was only a retrospective factual stocktake of the state of the environment, when the report is loaded all the way through with mushy references to future Government initiatives, which is the key change in the format of this report compared with that of 1997, and why does he not just come clean and admit that the report was doctored because a clean report on the state of the environment would show how awful this Government’s record actually is after 8 years?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member has a copy of the report. I suggest that he reads it and, if he does not understand it, that he gets someone else to read it and explain it to him.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have actually read the report and I note that a key change from the 1997 report is that it did not include all the way through it these statements of future Government actions. The Minister, in his original answer to Jeanette Fitzsimons, said that the reason chapter 13 was taken out was that this was only a retrospective report, looking back. My question is—
Madam SPEAKER: This is a point of order. It is a debating point.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister has not addressed the question of why the format was changed from the 1997 report—
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to add to his answer, please. I understand your point Dr Smith.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If the member had read and understood the report, he would have agreed with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who said that this was an outstanding addition to the information available on the environment in New Zealand. I suggest that the member should take the commissioner’s word, rather than making things up about mush.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Did Treasury’s input of data, peer review comments, and suggestions on the presentation of the information, as acknowledged in the report, include advice that chapter 13 should be dumped?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is my understanding that that is not the case.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was not this chapter dumped because it was politically embarrassing for the Government and showed that the economic strategy of deliberate promotion of land intensification, more cars and motorways, and more consumption is destroying our clean, green image, which is crucial to our economy?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The clean, green image is something that is very important to our economy. It is something that I value and the vast majority of farmers value, but I think we should not catastrophise, and we should also not pretend that farming is the only cause of pollution in New Zealand. To that end, I invite the member to come out to the Waiwhetū Stream in my electorate and have a swim there.
Kyoto Protocol—Costs
5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Can he confirm that when the climate change Minister said in 2002 that “New Zealand will be a net seller of credits, with a positive balance of about 11 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. At a world price of say $20 a tonne, that would be $220 million a year, net, into the economy.”, the Government was expecting a $1.1 billion surplus over the 5 years to 2012 from the Kyoto Protocol?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Yes.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it not a telling sign of how badly this Government’s sustainability programme has failed that Treasury is now forecasting a $967 million deficit—a figure snuck out after the House rose last year—or a $2 billion deterioration from that which the Government promised just 5 years ago?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Treasury estimates are updated monthly. The November update was as the member said, but I would note that the quantity in tonnes that is used in that estimate of 45 million tonnes does not take into account the emissions trading scheme.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is it that since last year when the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament mentioned “sustainability” 39 times, and when she has said the biggest issue of sustainability is climate change, in that same year New Zealand’s Kyoto liability has deteriorated from $560 million to $967 million; and does that not prove that the sustainability talk was all hot air?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The liability for the first commitment period of course will not be known with certainty until the end of that commitment period. I am confident that the policies the Government put in place during last year has our emissions’ profile tracking downwards rather than upwards.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does it not seem ironic that in the year in which sustainability and climate change was the No. 1 issue for the Government, in fact over 15 million trees, net, were lost in New Zealand—a higher figure than for any year since records began in 1951, and does that not simply again confirm the failure of this Government’s climate change policies?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it does not. Of course, the emissions trading scheme cannot affect rates of deforestation until it starts. Obviously, it did not start to take effect until 1 January this year, and I am confident it will be effective in curbing rates of deforestation.
Moana Mackey: What does the Minister estimate the effect of the emissions trading scheme will be on the current Ministry for the Environment estimate of a Kyoto deficit of 45 million tonnes for the period to 2012?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Treasury figures, as I said, do not take into account the effect of the emissions trading scheme, and the estimate without that being in the calculations is a deficit of 45 million tonnes to 2012. My estimate of where it will get to during that period as a consequence of the emissions trading scheme and other initiatives, is a deficit of around 25 million tonnes, which is a substantial improvement on the 45 million tonne figure.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm private sector estimates that New Zealand’s net emissions in 2007 will be the worst ever because of the chainsaw massacre triggered by this Government’s forestry policies; and that because of the low lake levels and drought, this year there will be, with the high use of thermal power, even higher emissions—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is John Key up at Tame Iti’s today?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, he is desperate. [Interruption] The Minister for the Environment is concerned about Tame Iti.
Madam SPEAKER: Please, would the member just address his question. [Interruption]
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I can see, Trevor, why you want to change the topic from the environment.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. This is creating disorder. If the member interjects again in that way he will be asked to leave the Chamber. Would the member please complete his question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm private sector estimates that the emissions in 2007 will be the highest ever because of the chainsaw massacre that occurred in respect of forestry, and that with the drought and the increased use of thermal generation projected for this year, 2008 will see a further record increase; and why should anybody take this Government seriously on climate change when it will have 9 consecutive years of record increases in emissions?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The deforestation emissions of 2007 were driven as much by the change in the relative economics of dairying compared with forestry as anything else, so they are not a consequence of Government policy but just a change in the relative value of different products. As I said, those deforestation emissions are expected to go down quite markedly this year. In respect of electricity-related emissions, I can tell the member that they did go down a lot last year. What happens with them this year depends in large part on how much water we have in our hydro catchments, because if we do not have much water in our hydro catchments we have to burn more fossil fuels in our thermal stations. That said, the 300-and-so megawatts of additional generation capacity that is currently under construction is all renewable, and none of it will produce additional greenhouse gas emissions.
Māori Wardens—Capacity Increases
6. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What progress can he report on increasing the capacity and capability of Māori wardens since Budget 2007?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): The increase in funding to Māori wardens has allowed for greater focus on the tasks at hand, and has complemented the training that has been delivered to date. There has been an increase in the overall number of Māori wardens, which now stands at 530. In addition, the provision of police vehicles to enable wardens to travel to carry out their duties has been seen as good support, and has provided real benefits to many communities across Aotearoa New Zealand.
Pita Paraone: Is he satisfied that previous impediments to the granting of funding have been resolved, and can he reassure the House that the additional funding is, in fact, improving the services provided by the Māori wardens?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I can most certainly guarantee that, and the role that they are playing is spread around the country. Just recently, 65 of them were at Waitangi, and they were at all the great celebrations of Waitangi Day around the country. They are everywhere.
Pita Paraone: Can the Minister make a further comment about the contribution made by the Māori wardens at Waitangi last week, where in excess of 46,000 people were in attendance to commemorate the 168th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: They certainly managed a good flow of traffic and helped people who needed to find their way, and they certainly looked after everybody who was there. They also serviced all the other celebrations around the country.
Pita Paraone: Can the Minister confirm that the additional $2.5 million secured in Budget 2007, and the further funding for 2008 and beyond, to increase the capacity and capability of the Māori wardens are among the many achievements secured through New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement with the Government?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is certainly a partnership to be celebrated, and I thank that member and his party most wholeheartedly on behalf of all our communities and the Māori wardens.
Dr Pita Sharples: I seek leave to ask an additional question.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Dr Pita Sharples: What is the actual operational relationship between the New Zealand Police and the Māori wardens, and have any concerns been raised with the Minister about that relationship?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There are certain perceptions in the sense of those issues and strains in the urban areas—and that member knows that—but the police are certainly working in partnership with the Māori wardens, and I welcome that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: With reference to the $2.5 million of funding mentioned by my colleague Pita Paraone, that is just the beginning, is it not, of a much more substantial investment in the Māori wardens in the future to bring them up to date in terms of their equipment and training in the 21st century?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There are several ways that we support the wardens, and in part that is right. As for training, 94 people have been trained by the police and Māori communities, and we will head towards 200 in the next 5 months. Kia ora.
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest
7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: When does he expect to receive the Ministry of Health report into potential conflicts of interest by members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, which was commissioned in July 2007?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): The report will be given initially to the Director-General of Health, who has commissioned it. I am advised that a firm date for its completion is not yet available.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that while he awaits the completion of this investigation, the Dominion Post reports today that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s chief executive is on indefinite sick leave because of exhaustion, that a board member has refused to come to meetings, that the board is facing an $8 million deficit, and that it still does not know who its chairman will be; and is this what he meant with his comment to the House that he is running the show now?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, I am aware of all of those factors, and I am keeping the situation of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board under very close scrutiny.
Russell Fairbrother: Does the Minister know the origin of recent reports of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s intending to utilise the proceeds from the sale of capital assets to offset operating deficits?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No. A lot of misinformation on these issues is being distributed in that region, either through ignorance or mischief. But the board was told by previous Ministers, and will be told again by the ministry, that the use of capital sales to fund deficits is unacceptable and at odds with the legislation. I will table the relevant letters at the end of this question.
Russell Fairbrother: Does the Minister stand by his earlier statement that no Hawke’s Bay District Health Board appointments will be made until the report has been received?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am very concerned at the rapidly deteriorating situation of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. As the member opposite has noted, the chief executive is now out on stress leave, there is a rapidly rising deficit projection, and there are continuing apparent tensions within the present board and with clinicians. Against that, I note further that the final date for the director-general’s report is not yet available.
Craig Foss: Will the report examine information discovered from a forensic audit of a May 2005 computer back-up tape of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board that had somehow been damaged, but when repaired by forensic experts has revealed that senior Hawke’s Bay District Health Board management personnel were illegally recording meetings and conversations with staff and board members; if not, does the member endorse the covert recording of discussions with staff and board members?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As the member knows, all matters concerning the director-general’s governance review remain confidential to the process. I have had no access to a draft report, nor have I had access to the incoming evidence. If the member feels he has had such access, that would seem to imply that someone is at odds with his or her obligations under the confidentiality deeds.
Chris Tremain: Will the report examine the conflict of interest between Hawke’s Bay people and the Ministry of Health with regard to how $12 million from the sale of Napier Hospital was allowed to be accrued to the 2007 annual accounts of the district health board to fund multi-year operating deficits, when health Minister Pete Hodgson wrote in a letter to the board and in regard to the hillside site sale: “I draw your attention to the requirements of the NZPHD Act, which requires HBDHB to use all the proceeds for ‘the purchase, improvement, or extension of publicly owned facilities for health purposes unless the Minister, by written notice to the DHB approves a different use.’ ”; why were those sale proceeds allowed to be used to fund the deficit, and when was approval given?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am extremely glad the member asked that question, because it would appear that somebody has not abided by the law or the appropriate governance process. I repeat, without the Minister’s permission capital assets cannot be used to fund operating deficits. If the member is concerned about the deficit of that district health board, he may want to look at the fact that it has not achieved the efficiency gains that it projected.
Craig Foss: How on earth can the people of Hawke’s Bay have confidence in that Minister, when our cardiac patients die from preventable deaths, when the Government overrides advice and appoints a board member from outside the Hawke’s Bay region whose company planned to tender for a multimillion-dollar contract with that same district health board, when the Minister refuses to communicate with the board about impending deficits, leading to yet another absolute shambles in the public health sector, and when this is from the Minister who says he is running the show?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is intriguing that the member’s questions have violated proper process on not one but two inquiries. Perhaps the member would like to clarify whether he is asking me to make an early decision about board appointments.
Chris Tremain: I seek leave to table the 2007 annual accounts of the district health board, which show—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of certain standards in this House, I would ask you to ask the National Party member at the back who used the phrase “Tell the Minister to get off his”—and I will not say what else he said—to apologise to the House for that very intemperate language.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment. [Interruption] I think the difficulty, Mr Peters, is that it was not heard at this end of the Chamber. That is a continuing problem; it is very difficult to hear in the Chamber.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What matters is that I heard it, and so did my colleagues down here. I understand the member did not say it loudly, but it was loud enough to be heard, and I am sure it could be heard in the gallery. That member knows what he said. He should be getting up on his feet and apologising.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member who made the comment please withdraw it and apologise.
Chester Borrows: If the use of a colloquial phrase—
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw and apologise, and then we will be able to move on, please.
Chester Borrows: I withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a letter dated 20 October 2003 from the then Minister of Health to Mr Kevin Atkinson, chairman of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, noting that he may not use the proceeds of the sale—
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: It is very difficult to hear, so members will be leaving. I simply cannot maintain order in this Chamber if this level of chatter continues.
Craig Foss: I seek leave to table an article from today’s Hawke’s Bay Today entitled: “Bugged emails reveal tapes”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Community Groups—Sustainable Funding Model
8. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How will the new sustainable funding model for community groups help to support New Zealand families?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Government is investing an additional $446 million in community services over the next 4 years. The additional funding and the new model will support early intervention, working together, and a focus on outcomes for families. As Paul Baigent of Plunket said: “This investment will make it easier for agencies to join forces to deliver better support and services to families and children.” Our Government is working in partnership with community organisations to deliver real results for children, young people, families, and our communities.
Lesley Soper: What reports has the Minister seen regarding working in partnership with the community sector?
Hon RUTH DYSON: I have seen a report from the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, in which he dismisses working in partnership with the community sector because it “creates expectations that, quite frankly, government is often unwilling and usually unable to fulfil”, and says that “the Government is really just a purchaser of services, and the need to sustain a longer-term relationship is not an explicit part of its actions.” I can tell the House that, in contradiction to the National Party, our Labour-led Government is willing to sustain a long-term relationship with the community sector.
Paula Bennett: Does the Minister agree that community groups should be funded the full cost of delivery, and that compliance costs and bureaucracy should be reduced, as John Key announced in May last year; or does she side with Michael Cullen, who stated in reply: “in the end, only the active and redemptive power of the state can address at all adequately issues …”; or does she agree with Steve Maharey, who labelled these very initiatives “Tory charity”?
Hon RUTH DYSON: There are a number of points I want to make to the member. First of all, the comments of both Dr Michael Cullen and Steve Maharey were made in relation to an entirely different speech—that delivered at Burnside at the beginning of the year—so they related to an entirely different model, which was indeed Tory charity, and I completely agree with both of them. On the second point, the member’s quote of what her leader promised may have been what he said to caucus but it is not what he actually said to Plunket in the May speech to which I referred. John Key actually said, and I quote from his website: “when a National Government wants to run a particular programme, and there is a competitive tendering process, we will encourage community groups to put in bids which reflect the full cost of delivery,”. That is very different from making a commitment to fully funding essential services.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. After you asked that member over there during question No. 7 to apologise he is now writing to me using the same phrase, and I do not think he should. He should apologise again to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: That conduct does not create order in the House. I ask members to refrain from sending each other notes that may be considered to be offensive. If they wish to do that, I ask them to do it outside this Chamber. I know that will take away the fun for some of you, but it will create more order in the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the document then.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Judy Turner: To what extent will the new funding model allow community groups to pursue outcomes other than those specified in their contracts?
Hon RUTH DYSON: The member’s question has demonstrated that she absolutely understands the importance of the new model, which will have contracted services based on outcomes for children and families rather than outputs. That is a key lever for innovation.
Lesley Soper: What kind of service providers will benefit from the new sustainable funding model?
Hon RUTH DYSON: The announcement will benefit hundreds of community groups across New Zealand, providing essential services to children, families, and young people such as parenting support and advice, mentoring for young people, programmes to address youth offending, family violence prevention and crisis support, budgeting advice, victim support, refugee and migrant support, early intervention support, youth suicide prevention, and family and crisis counselling. These are examples rather than a complete list. This is why the community sector has called this policy an “inspired and visionary investment in the health and well-being of our community.”
Paula Bennett: I seek leave of the House to table the document on turbo-charging community groups that the National Party under John Key brought out last year.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon RUTH DYSON: I seek leave to table the actual speech from John Key.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Schools, Secondary—Enrolments
9. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Education: How many secondary school-age children under 16 are not enrolled in a school?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education): We will know soon; schools started last week. Primary and intermediate school student records are currently transiting across to secondary schools. These new enrolments are being processed by individual schools, and the Ministry of Education expects they will all be processed by March, when a clearer picture will emerge.
Anne Tolley: Why in the same week that the Government announced it wants to keep students in school up to the age of 18 is the Ministry of Education telling its regional offices that the hardest cases to keep enrolled in school under the current law can no longer be dealt with by the contractor that is meant to get those non-enrolled students back to school?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is for exactly the reasons the member has outlined that the Schools Plus programme has been developed. We are losing too many students, not just at the 16 and 17-year-old age range but younger. We need to revolutionise the secondary school system to deal with exactly the problem the member has outlined.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What action has the Labour-led Government taken to identify and place back into education the students who are not enrolled at school?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: One student not enrolled in school is one too many. The Labour-led Government has been very active in addressing truancy. Measures have included a complete review of truancy services, which led to enhanced funding in Budget 2006/07, school-to-work programmes like Gateway and Youth Apprenticeships, and the $6.4 million enrolment system, which once all schools have been operating for a year will give us accurate and consistently updated enrolment information.
Anne Tolley: Why did the ministry sign a contract with a private provider, which means that students who are not enrolled and who are in contact with Child, Youth and Family or with the police will no longer be targeted to get back into school?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: All students who are legally obliged to be in school are being targeted. Schools all around New Zealand are engaging in a variety of different initiatives to try to address this problem. One example is Rotorua Girls’ High School, which has reduced the number of Māori students leaving school with no formal qualifications from one in three 6 years ago to zero last year.
Anne Tolley: Why, in that same contract, does the ministry say that students who are excluded—so are not enrolled in school—will also not be targeted to get back into school?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member clearly was not listening to my earlier answer. One student not in school is one student too many. This Government is absolutely committed to upskilling students and keeping them in school in New Zealand. That is why we have launched Schools Plus. It is all about the concerns the member has raised.
Anne Tolley: Why should we believe any of this Minister’s or this Government’s rhetoric about keeping students in school until they are 18 when there is a lost tribe of 6,000 kids not enrolled in any school, when there are 31,000 truants every day, when the Government cannot even keep them in school until they are 16, and when they disappear off the radar because they get into trouble the Government washes its hands of them?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member once again is being very free and easy with the figures. The reality is that we have done a complete review of truancy services, increased the funding for it, introduced and supported programmes like Gateway and Youth Apprenticeships, and set up the electronic enrolment system, which in a year’s time will, for the first time ever, let us know exactly how many students are falling out of the system.
Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table a document outlining recent changes to the Non-enrolment Truancy Service, which shows excluded students who have contact with Child, Youth and Family or the police—
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table a document I launched in January called Staying at School, which outlines eight incredible initiatives by schools around New Zealand to keep students in school.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Housing—Affordability
10. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Is her definition of “affordable housing” the same as that which appears in the general policy statement of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill that refers to “housing affordable to low and moderate income earners”?
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing): My definition is that, and much more besides. Affordability is a function of house prices, incomes, and interest rates and varies from region to region.
Phil Heatley: Why, according to the Housing New Zealand Corporation chairman, will first home buyers need an income of $70,000-plus to buy any of the 500 “affordable houses” on offer in the Minister’s flagship Hobsonville development?
Hon MARYAN STREET: Affordability can be made possible by a Government that chooses to intervene actively to assist first home buyers, not by an Opposition whose only solution is the self-appointed housing spokesperson, Bob Clarkson. Affordability is actually created through a whole range of solutions, including greater supply of houses, the application of KiwiSaver contributions, Welcome Home Loans, shared equity proposals, and a whole range of issues.
Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today you have repeatedly asked for people to be quiet when answers are given. I think it is pretty rude for someone to ask a question and then to have a barrage of interjection on the Minister when she is trying to answer it.
Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member.
Phil Heatley: Is the Minister confirming the chairman of Housing New Zealand Corporation’s statement that young Aucklanders will need $70,000-plus per annum to buy one of the Minister’s affordable homes; if so, how can she say they are affordable when the average household income is not even $70,000?
Hon MARYAN STREET: The member clearly did not listen to my previous answer. Clearly the solution here is about creating affordability and being able to provide some application—some products that are able to bridge a gap between income and house price.
Phil Heatley: Why does the Minister use Hobsonville, Weymouth, and Tāmaki as flagship housing affordability solutions, when most Aucklanders do not work in those places and will not choose to live there—in fact, 3 million Kiwis do not, and will not—and even if they did the houses on offer are for higher-income earners or one has to enter into some joint ownership scheme with Housing New Zealand Corporation?
Hon MARYAN STREET: Let me just give the member an example of some of the support that a project like Hobsonville is getting from everybody, except the local member until recently. Can I just say that in a statement made by the Deputy Mayor of Waitakere City, she states that the city of the future—she is referring to the city of Waitakere—encourages affordable housing as part of its housing mix in order to get to this place. It takes the stability of local and central government to make affordable housing and local high-end jobs happen together. This city council sees Hobsonville as a way of progressing economic development and increasing jobs and opportunity in its area. That is progress.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Three times now Mr Heatley has asked the Minister a relatively simple question. He has tried to help her by asking the question with different emphasis. I do not think it is acceptable for anyone to say that the Minister is addressing the question by reading a press release from a local council. This is a nationwide issue.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the Minister addressed the question, and that is not all she said in her answer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister intend to recommend to some of her clientele who get into trouble with constructions the sharper point of the National Party spokesperson Bob Clarkson’s solution, that the moment one gets into trouble with a project and it starts making losses one should get the ratepayers to pay for it?
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to reflect whether that is a reasonable and legitimate question. We know that Mr Peters is in some political trouble looking for a seat, but bringing his local fight into this House in that way is quite despicable.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is precisely what happened in Tauranga, and Mr Clarkson knows it. I am just wondering whether that, as a sound precedent in the past, could now be narrowed down to some Housing New Zealand Corporation clients.
Madam SPEAKER: If the Minister responds only to the policy issue without any other references.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are two things here. Perhaps you might reflect, firstly, that it has been very difficult for Mr Heatley to get an answer to a question he wants. Now you have ruled that the Minister can give a general answer to a question that Mr Peters asked that frankly should not be allowed to stand.
Madam SPEAKER: The question had a general policy intent behind it. It was not asking about a specific issue. Would the Minister please—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry I have ruled on this point, Mr Brownlee. If the member wants to raise a totally different point of order please feel free to do so.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I reached for the Standing Orders I would go to Standing Order 372, which deals with questions. Questions are to be of a specific nature. In this case, with all due respect to your ruling, you are saying that a specific example can then be taken as an example of something that would apply to a question of national interest. If that is the case then the Hon Maryan Street should have been required firstly to answer each of the questions that Mr Heatley asked, but if that is not the case then Mr Peters’ question should not stand.
Madam SPEAKER: I ruled that Mr Peters’ question stands. It was a perfectly acceptable question in terms of asking whether a policy matter could be applied. The Minister will now address the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My colleague Phil Heatley has three times asked questions about whether the Minister agrees with the chair of Housing New Zealand Corporation, an organisation for which she has ministerial responsibility, and she has not answered. She has now been asked a question from Mr Peters about an issue that is outside her portfolio. It was about private builders and it relates to the portfolio of the Minister for Building and Construction, not the Minister of Housing. The issue that Mr Peters has raised is the responsibility of Shane Jones because it is related to who pays for the cost of fixing houses that have been built by private developers and are not up to standard. I simply ask why it is that we cannot get answers for things the Minister is responsible for, but you are happy to allow her to answer questions for which she has no responsibility.
Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows perfectly well, no member can require a yes or no answer to a specific question. If members want that I invite them wholeheartedly to change the Standing Orders, for which I would be truly appreciative. But they do not read like that at the moment.
Hon MARYAN STREET: The member’s question does actually relate to issues under my portfolio, because this Government is keen to ensure that private developers, amongst others, contribute to providing greater supply of affordable houses into the market, but they have to be quality, sustainable, affordable houses. That is what we are looking for.
Phil Heatley: In light of that answer, how does she think forcing developers to provide cheap housing through the affordable housing legislation will work when Housing New Zealand Corporation itself cannot even provide cheap housing at Hobsonville when it has the economies of scale of Hobsonville; and how does she expect private developers to do it when Housing New Zealand Corporation is not doing it unless one is on $70,000 a year?
Hon MARYAN STREET: Private developers are welcome to join us in this effort to provide affordable houses. In fact, a number of developers have indicated an interest in doing so, because there is a market for quality, sustainable, affordable houses. Those are the houses that will be available to low to modest to moderate income level households, so that people can afford to get into their first homes. That is what we want.
Phil Heatley: Why, under Labour, is someone considered to be a high-income earner by the Inland Revenue Department when he or she is on $60,000, but a low-income earner by Housing New Zealand Corporation when that person is on $70,000 and wants to buy one of its houses?
Hon MARYAN STREET: The member refers to the household income, which is the standard level for accessing a Welcome Home Loan. That is two people earning $35,000 each. They are not high-paid workers. Their household income is the threshold at which a Welcome Home Loan kicks in.
Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister started that answer by saying: “The member refers to …”, then told us what I referred to. I referred to the fact that the Inland Revenue Department considers someone to be on a high income when that person is on $60,000, yet Housing New Zealand Corporation considers someone to be on a low income when that person is on $70,000. She did not answer the question, and she misinterpreted me. Could she please answer the question.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The situation is absolutely clear. What Housing New Zealand Corporation refers to and what the member is referring to is a household income of $70,000. What the member is referring to with the Inland Revenue Department is individual income of $60,000. Indeed, the National Party cannot have it both ways. It cannot argue one day that $60,000 is indeed a very low income and $70,000 is actually terribly, terribly high.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a document that shows that $68,000 is the average household income according to Statistics New Zealand.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the statement of the chair of Housing New Zealand Corporation that one will need a household income of $70,000 to buy one of these—
Document not tabled.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table “Affordable housing too dear for most”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table “Affordable homes still too expensive”, from the New Zealand Herald.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister consider it contributes to affordable housing if people buy an expensive and very good house next door in order to knock it down to build a tennis court; if not, will she be inviting Mr Heatley to take it up with Mr Key and advise him to start walking the walk, not just talking the talk?
Hon MARYAN STREET: I absolutely concur with that member’s point. Further to that, I would welcome any lifting of ambition on the part of the National Party to address the issues of housing affordability.
Housing Initiatives—Hobsonville Development
11. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Housing: What recent reports has she received regarding the Hobsonville development?
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing): In December the developer A V Jennings was announced as the preferred partner to carry out the first precinct development at Hobsonville. This is the excellent project that aims to create a mixed community of affordable housing, State rentals, and higher-end homes.
Lynne Pillay: What reports has the Minister received indicating support or otherwise for the Hobsonville project?
Hon MARYAN STREET: I have seen the affordable housing project in Hobsonville described as “economic vandalism”, I have seen a report stating that it would be cancelled, and recently I saw a report stating that the Hobsonville project has always been supported but the project should really be privatised. All of those reports come from John Key.
Australia - New Zealand Migration—Permanent and Long-term Departures
12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Statistics: How many permanent and long-term departures to Australia were there for the year ended December 2007?
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics): The figure is 41,634, but this figure includes all departures, not just those of New Zealand citizens.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that that exodus to Australia last year represented a loss of 800 people every week, and was that the largest exodus since 1988, when Labour was last in Government?
Hon DARREN HUGHES: It was the largest number in the time period the member refers to, but in terms of percentage of New Zealand’s population the number was roughly the same as it was when the National Party was in Government in the 1990s, until 1999.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister confirm that the net loss to Australia last year of 28,000 people represented an increase of over a third since 2006, and almost three times the net loss of 10,000 in 2003?
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I can confirm that there was a net outflow of 28,000 people, a quarter of whom were children. That was the outflow for December 2007.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand experienced a net outflow of 32,700 New Zealand citizens last year, and that a recent survey has shown that New Zealand has the largest brain drain of native-born tertiary-trained people in the whole of the OECD?
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I cannot confirm that we have what the member said in terms of that study. What I can confirm, though, is that demographers expect New Zealand to be a net gainer in terms of skills through migration policy, and that will continue, and that, over the cycle, in different years there is a different outflow in migration. The member should not hang his hat on just 1 year.
Darien Fenton: Has the Minister received any statistics on the patterns of wage growth in New Zealand and Australia?
Hon DARREN HUGHES: Yes, I have. The wage gap grew between—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question is extremely wide of the wicket. We are talking about immigration here, and suddenly the Minister is asked for statistics on wages. Everyone knows that the answer will be incredibly embarrassing for the Government. I suggest the question should not stand. It is not fair to poor old Darren.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I know that Mr Key is not here to advise the member on this, but Mr Key has been saying for some weeks that the driver of this so-called exodus is higher wages in Australia. Mr Darren Hughes is about to inform the member that that gap opened up hugely in the 1990s, under a National Government, when the exodus to Australia increased every year—under a National Government.
Hon DARREN HUGHES: Yes, I have received a report about the wage gap between the two countries, and I can confirm that the wage gap—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. The question is about statistics. The Minister has responsibility for statistics. Would the Minister now please address the question.
Hon DARREN HUGHES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I have received a report on this matter, and I thank the member for the question, because the report shows that the gap between wages in Australia and wages in New Zealand grew by 50 percent between 1990 and 1999, when the National Party was in Government, and that since the Labour Party has led the Government in New Zealand, wages here and wages in Australia have grown at about the same rate. But, clearly, we have more to do, and the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday showed how we are going to do it.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Given that the Minister is keen to compare performance under National and Labour, is it correct that the net loss of New Zealanders to Australia has more than doubled from the 9,000 per year under the National Government in the 1990s to an average now of 20,000 a year under this Labour Government, and why do so many New Zealanders want to leave under a Labour Government?
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I have good news for the member. There are 400,000 more people in New Zealand since the Labour Party took office in 1999. The population outflow to Australia in 1999, under a National Government, was 0.6 percent of the population, and the outflow to Australia under this Government is 0.7 percent. In comparing 0.6 percent when we took over and 0.7 percent now, we should consider the bigger size of the population now. I would not be running down New Zealand too much on those statistics.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept that you ruled that the Hon Darren Hughes should answer the question that had been asked by Darien Fenton, but if the subsequent comments that you made were to become a ruling, then I think that would significantly expand the scope for asking a question in the House. I wonder whether you might consider giving us some guidance on Tuesday as to whether the interpretation we are putting on—
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I think this is a matter where one judges each case as it comes up in terms of the question.
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement
Debate resumed from 13 February.
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): If this bunch of tired, broken-down party hacks, failed career politicians, and bitter Labour Party lackeys cannot fix this country’s problems after 9 years, they never will. There is no question about it; since this mob came to power people are less safe on our streets, they cannot get into hospitals, their kids are going to Australia, and they have less money to pay for the basics of life. That is why I support the motion moved by 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.
Sad old Dr Cullen reckons there are four tests for a tax cut, but we know there is only one. The test is that it is election year and they are behind in the polls. Those members opposite have totally lost touch with the concerns of real people. If those guys come to my electorate in Northcote they will be told that they are going. They are out of here now. Government members are not in the real world. Their concerns are the Electoral Finance Act and getting re-elected at the next election. They do not care about crime or hospitals. They do not care that ordinary New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet. The message for people listening at home on the radio or watching TV is that if this mob cannot fix it after 9 years, they never will. They are going.
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education): Approximately 13 weeks ago I had the amazing privilege of being made the Minister of Education. I assure this House and anyone listening, and particularly the National member who has just spoken, Jonathan Coleman, that I am full of energy and enthusiasm about my job. I am incredibly proud to represent our Government as Minister of Education and I am really enthusiastic about the amazing programmes we are bringing into our schools, not least the programme that the Prime Minister introduced in her statement to the House earlier this week, which is realising youth potential—Schools Plus. Schools Plus is about revolutionising our secondary school system. The Labour Government in its 8 years in office has been an amazing provider of resources to schools.
One can never do enough for education. Education is not only the future of our nation, because of the skills of our young people, which will ensure our ongoing prosperity, but it is the ladder that individuals can climb to realise their own individual potential. Labour Governments have always been committed to education. Every Labour Government we have ever had—from our very first one, which introduced free schooling—has been committed to education, and none more so than the Government we have now. Right from 1999 when we came into Government we have poured resources into education. We have put over $4 billion extra into education. For example, we have increased the early childhood education sector by 180 percent, and we have added 20 free hours of early childhood education so that every 3 and 4-year-old in New Zealand can go to a preschool centre for free.
We have also built 36 new schools since we came into Government. That is amazing. Our population has been going up, so we have needed extra teachers but we have recognised that schools could actually do with more teachers, above that roll growth. After 8 years of a Labour Government there are over 5,000 more teachers in our schools today than roll growth justifies.
We have also built 1,400 new classrooms around New Zealand, and in my own electorate of Te Atatu all 27 schools over the last 8 years have had major building projects, and every one of the members of Parliament—Labour, National, and whatever—will be able to say that the schools in their areas are building new classrooms, employing more teachers, and are better resourced. Of course, there is always more we can do, but one of the most exciting things we will be doing is Schools Plus, and I would like to share with the House some details about this amazing, exciting, and revolutionary programme for our secondary schools.
The House has just finished question time, for those who have just switched on the radio or television, and one question I was asked as Minister of Education asked what the Government was doing about truants. Actually, we have done heaps about truants. We have introduced a new electronic enrolment system—it cost us a bit over $6 million—so that for the first time ever we will be able to know where kids are. But there is a problem with truancy in this country. There probably always has been, but we do not want any child leaving school who should be at school. But, most particularly, we do not want the 40 percent of our young people who are leaving school at the moment without achieving at least the equivalent of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 to be doing so. We want those young people to have better skills when they go into the workforce, because, of course, their skills, their energy, and their participation in the workforce is critical, not just for the economic well-being of our country but for their individual growth as people, to fulfil their own potential. Our new programme is designed to catch those youngsters. It is also designed to catch the 30 percent of young people who are leaving school before the age of 17, some of whom are going into work, others not. We want those children to stay in education, because that leads to lifting their skills.
What does Schools Plus involve? Well, it involves looking at Youth Apprenticeships. We have a pilot programme going this year in 10 schools—from Whangarei Boys’ High School to schools in the deep south. We are trialling channelling children into Youth Apprenticeships to see whether this is their career. We are working with private industry and with industry training organisations to see whether this is a pathway that those young people can pursue, connected to the school but also connected to the industry. We want to see how well that programme works, what sort of resources we need for it. We want to look at that pilot and see how we can expand it out to every school in New Zealand.
We have introduced Gateway, which is a sort of teaser programme for work where students, at a school, choose an occupation—it might be early childhood education, working in retail, or even working here at Parliament, or whatever—and they have a work experience while they are at school. So the school provides guidance but the student gets a taste of employment. I was at Wellington East Girls’ College yesterday meeting a group of young students who are incredibly enthusiastic about the jobs they were going out to in the next few weeks. Every secondary school in New Zealand is now in the Gateway programme. Is that not fantastic? The programme has been rolled out over 8 years.
Lynne Pillay: It is working.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is working, and the employment outcomes are fantastic. But we want to broaden that much beyond the Youth Apprenticeships, much beyond Gateway. We want to provide alternative paths so that every young Kiwi up to the age of 18 is in a learning experience that is lifting his or her skills.
A report to the OECD is about to be released, which will state that although New Zealand has done fantastically well lifting the literacy skills, numeracy skills, and science skills of our students, we still have this big problem of these 40 percent who are just not achieving their potential. Schools Plus is all about dealing with them. This is the only way we are going to keep kids at school; the only way we are going to lift their potential. That is about a Government with a programme that is ongoing and is actually revolutionary, and although we have done so much to repair the disasters of the 1990s under the previous Government, where we had bulk funding at schools, lifting the zone requirements around schools so we had winner schools and loser schools developing, we have had to spend so much time repairing the basic infrastructure at schools. We are all set now for that next big leap.
We have revolutionised early childhood education: we have introduced the 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy, which is an amazing development. It has been expensive but it is an investment in young children. We have also had the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health just last week announcing a programme where every 4 and 5-year-old will be tested to see whether we can identify the specific learning needs, or behavioural needs, of that child, so that at the very beginning of the programme we can address the situation of inappropriate behaviour and failure. We have designed a sort of seamless education system from early-childhood education—with 20 free hours’ education, those early checks, and a 180 percent improvement in funding—that then moves on to the primary school.
A new curriculum for primary schools was launched just before Christmas and it gives schools flexibility to design programmes. They must have core competences in literacy, numeracy, science, behaviour, environmental consciousness, which are all important things for surviving in the modern world, but schools also have the flexibility to design their teaching programmes around their local circumstances. That is amazing for primary schools. That has modernised our system.
Moving into secondary schools, the NCEA has rolled out, and it is working well. We now have an assessment system that is modern, contemporary, and records everything the student has done. Employers have been very positive about it. It had a few teething problems at the beginning but we are getting there. People understand it; it is very positive. So we have early childhood, we have primary, we have secondary, and now we are going to have Schools Plus. That is designed to provide that net to catch every one of those students to see that they realise their full potential.
I know I have very little time left, but I just want to mention a conference I went to last month in London. I went to an education Ministers conference in London during the holidays. I was happy to give up my holiday time to go to this conference because I went with a great deal of pride. I spoke before 61 education Ministers from around the world. I showed an audiovisual presentation of what was happening in New Zealand schools, and I am telling members that it was with great pride that I was able to show that New Zealand teachers have created an environment of great professionalism where success is happening.
Of course, we can always do better. Schools Plus will help us to do better but parents, this Parliament, and the community should be very proud of what is happening in our schools. Some fantastic things are happening. New Zealand students are doing really well in international scores, like the Programme for International Student Assessment put out by the OECD. But we can always do better, and we must aspire to the best possible outcomes we can. Education is something the Labour Government values, it is something we have invested in, and it is something that we are developing further because we certainly have not run out of energy or run out of ideas.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National): When Parliament opened on Tuesday this week, the National Party leader, John Key, moved a motion in this House that many New Zealanders want to see voted on—I think on Tuesday next week—and passed with success. That motion of John Key expressed no-confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government because it had failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders. Despite the words from Chris Carter a minute ago, I say that the current Labour Government is tired, is stale, and is bereft of ideas, and all New Zealanders whom I speak to, up and down the country, agree with that statement. They want the election sooner rather than later so that we can get a Government that is keen to be ambitious for New Zealand and to make progress.
When I listened to Helen Clark’s speech on Tuesday, I knew that I had heard it all before. There was absolutely nothing new in that statement, as Helen Clark continued to trot out the ideas that she has trotted out now for nine prime ministerial opening statements. In nine Prime Minister’s statements in a row she has given us the problems that face this country, and for nine statements in a row she has failed to give us the answers. New Zealanders have had enough. New Zealanders have had enough of a Prime Minister who is not prepared to come up with solutions.
When I think back to the foundations that were created for this economy by the previous National Government, I know that when Helen Clark took over in the last few months of 1999 we had the foundations right for tremendous economic growth. Those foundations had been built with a lot of hard decision-making by the previous National Government. We saw buoyancy come into the economy, which, if the Labour Government had utilised it correctly, could have lifted the standard of living of all New Zealanders for all time. But the Labour Government and Helen Clark have continued to take the easy options. She has been prepared to take the good times but not to bank the good times. Michael Cullen has squandered—squandered—huge tax surpluses year after year without building in the chance for a sustained improved economy in this country. Now, for the first time in this decade, we have an economy under extreme pressure. We have the second-highest interest rates in the developed world. That does not seem to worry many Ministers. They live in their ministerial houses and they do not have the mortgages that most New Zealanders have. But I can tell the Labour Ministers that they ought to get out of Wellington and go back and spend some time in their electorate offices. If they are prepared to get out and listen to real people, they will find that those interest rates are really biting. New Zealanders are saying to me that they know they had the opportunity for some good times over the last decade, yet they personally feel no better off. I think that will be the legacy of this Labour-led Government after the last 8 or 9 years. The foundations were there for the good times, but Labour has squandered them.
Today in question time we had questions around what has happened to wages in New Zealand compared with those in Australia. Despite the drivel given by the new Minister of Statistics, last year there was a net loss of 28,000 New Zealanders to Australia. They are not going because they earn less money in Australia. Despite the drivel from Darren Hughes, I say that they are going because they know they will be far better off by leaving New Zealand. I do not know a New Zealander who does not view that with concern.
Sue Moroney: That’s obvious—that you don’t know a New Zealander.
Hon DAVID CARTER: We all have either family or good friends who have left this country with no intention of returning—and Sue Moroney thinks that that is funny. Well, I do not think that that is funny, because the ones who are leaving are the talented ones who are ambitious for this country, and unless things come right they will not come back.
It is interesting. I remember the election night of 1999 when Jim Anderton, the great messiah, appeared on TV. He was like Martin Luther King, calling for people to come back. But what we have seen since he made those pronouncements is a great exodus, which has got bigger and bigger. In fact, the last time so many people left this country was 20 years ago, in 1988. Can members guess who the Government was then?
Hon Members: Labour.
Hon DAVID CARTER: So—yes—the Labour members on that side of the House can hang their heads in shame, because they have squandered some of the best years we have ever had.
We have issues like the health system. Labour has, admittedly, poured billions more dollars into the health system. But what do we get out the other end? A person who had done some work for me on a farm went to the Christchurch emergency department last year with serious back pain, and Christchurch Hospital sent him home to die. And that is not a one-off. There was another case in the headlines on the front page of the Dominion Post on Tuesday this week, of a woman from Hawke’s Bay who came down to Wellington for emergency treatment, and, again, she was sent home to die. That is not the health system that New Zealanders deserve, and the Labour Government needs to take responsibility. A headline in the Christchurch Press on Tuesday acknowledged that the Labour Government has poured billions of dollars of additional resources into social welfare. But Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army, no known friend or supporter of the National Party, was quoted as saying that that money had been squandered too. So I say to Helen Clark and I say to the Labour members in the House that it is time they took responsibility for the mess they have created over 8 or 9 long years. It is time those members realised that New Zealanders are desperate for change, because with every week that goes by, another 800 of our talented young people decide it is better on the other side of the Tasman.
We desperately need success in the vote of no confidence in this Government next Tuesday, because National’s members need to get over to the Treasury benches, where we can make a difference. We need to focus on the real issues that this country needs to address. We want to make sure that New Zealanders have the opportunity to better themselves. The extraordinarily high tax rates are not about that. We heard in the House today about the situation that has developed where the Inland Revenue Department says that if people earn $60,000 or more, then they are wealthy and will pay tax at 39c, yet the Housing New Zealand Corporation says that if people earn $70,000, then they are poor and the corporation will help them into a new, affordable, low-cost house. The priorities are all wrong. We need to take the opportunity of high product prices in the dairy industry and buoyancy in the economy, and bank it with some strong structural change that means we can lock in an improved standard of living for all New Zealanders. Unless we face those decisions and make those hard calls, we will be faced with more and more good people acknowledging that life is better in Australia, and I take no satisfaction out of that, at all. I know that the Labour members seem to think it is a joke that 800 people leave New Zealand each week and go to Australia, but I do not.
I look forward to the vote on Tuesday. John Key is right. I have no confidence in the Labour-led Government, and certainly the National Party caucus has no confidence in the Labour-led Government and never has had, but the most important thing is that more and more New Zealanders all around the country are coming to hold the same point of view. If we do not have an early election and the situation drags on until 18 October—as I am told it probably will because Labour members are not interested in the future of this country; all they are interested in doing is making sure they preserve their own jobs for as long as possible—it will only get worse. The sooner that date comes the better, so that New Zealanders will again have the chance to be ambitious for themselves.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I think that is a fine example of just how far New Zealand has come. I do not think New Zealanders really want to hear a doom and gloom vision, which is why National deserves to be on the Opposition benches. Members on this side of the House are excited, we are energetic, and we are inspired about the job we have to do ahead of us.
The Prime Minister clearly outlined in her statement some of the achievements that have been made since we came into office in 1999. I remind the member opposite that in 1996, when I was an Opposition member, I remember very well what it was like to be in the electorate. I remember visiting women’s refuges and hearing how underfunded they were for the services they were providing. I remember constituents coming into my office, saying that market rentals in State houses simply did not cater for those most in need. That was when National was in office. I can remember that in 1998 people used to complain in my office about the brainy kids fleeing from certain schools in our communities and going to certain other schools, and what that did to the quality of their learning experience within the school system. So there are people here with memories that are long enough to remind the House just how far we have come.
Between 1996 and 1999 Māori unemployment was around 19 percent. Now Māori unemployment is below 8 percent. So we have made gains and we have made a difference. The Prime Minister has said quite clearly that although those gains have been put through in each term we have been in Government, there is so much more to do because we are only beginning to see the transformation and the differences that this Labour-led Government is starting to make. And there are differences, very clear differences.
When we talk about homeownership and affordable housing, it is recognising that we have stepped up by providing income-related rentals, by providing packages for homeownership, and by ensuring there is greater social responsibility in the range of packages that will assist people into homes. Of course, housing prices are very expensive throughout the whole country, but people cannot deny that this Government has made certain steps to try to ensure that we will track up and improve the housing options for a far greater number of New Zealanders than have them now. The member across the House Phil Heatley raised issues around people not wanting to go and live in Hobsonville. Well, we are not into ghettoising low-income people in State housing stock. In fact, what we will see in many communities, and certainly within my own electorate, is that the policy adopted by the Housing New Zealand Corporation to pepper-pot State houses actually improves the aspirations of many, many people who are now living in Housing New Zealand stock. They will see that they can move from a State house to their own home, and that they should start considering those options.
Those very active policies will support people to lift their aspirations and their opportunities to be able to support their families, and that is the type of direction this Government has taken. The Prime Minister clearly said in her statement that this Government is about investing in people and their opportunities, and lifting their aspirations. It is not about competition.
Let us go to the health system, because the stark difference in the health system between where a Labour-led Government is going and what National proposes is that under Labour people access health care when they need to, not when they have to. I can remember people coming into my office complaining about the cost of general practitioners’ fees. National would have it that the market determines the fees, and if one cannot afford that, then it is too bad. What we did, as at 1 July last year, was ensure that all people had access to lower-cost general practitioner services and also lower prescription fees. That is the fundamental difference between our two positions. We know that a far greater number of people are going to the doctor when they need to, not to the hospital when they have to. There are more hip and knee operations and more cataract operations.
There is more to do in the health system, sure, but we have made steady gains along the way and we know that the real difference in all our communities is that we are focusing more and more on prevention. That is why the roll-out of the Primary Health Care Strategy will make a fundamental difference at a community level to the lives of people who understand that if we really want to reverse the problems that exist around diabetes and heart disease, then we have to make radical changes in our own lives. We are all models to make that type of change, and with this Government we are partnering that approach in the community.
Let us move on to education. In the education system the stark difference between the Government and National is that there were winners and losers in National’s idea of the education system. Kids who did not succeed, or who did not fit, fell out and were on the dole, or were just excluded and in alternative education centres. Under the National system of education, if students were bright they were winners, and if they were losers, they were nowhere—they were considered to be dumb. The Minister of Education has just highlighted the advantages of Schools Plus. The real advantage is that the ideal aspiration for all kids in New Zealand—Māori, Pākehā, or whoever—is to stay in education.
I urge all members to consider the messages they are giving out to young people. We know that education is the key to opportunities for any individual. The aspiration through Schools Plus is that that is the ideal, but we have to recognise there are opportunities that could be provided within the education system, or multiple learning pathways that should be provided, so we can be more responsive to meeting the learning needs of many kids who perhaps are better at learning with their hands than learning while sitting at a desk. We understand this. Those of us who visit our schools every time we go to the electorate understand that there are kids who are good with their hands. They are not dumb; they understand how things work, how to take something apart and put it back together again.
Sue Moroney: We need more people like that.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, we do. We need more people like that—people with skills that can help in a number of ways. When I visit alternative education centres, many, many young boys in particular say to me “If I could have done an apprenticeship when I was 13, I reckon I would be much better placed today.” Those young boys are now about 16 and they are saying “I failed the education system.” I say “No, no. The education system failed you because we just weren’t able to link you up.” Now we are making differences, in terms of Schools Plus, to be able to provide those types of pathways. The opportunity for some of our schools to roll out youth apprenticeships this year will, I think, start to show many members in this House the potential of where we can go in education by linking young people to a more relevant pathway in learning and education, skills attainment, recognition, and going on to a job. That is a great opportunity.
Gateway is another initiative that the Minister talked about, which has been rolled out from decile 1 to decile 10 schools. We started with decile 1 to decile 3 schools, because we recognised that that was where the need was greatest, and then we rolled it out further. We are starting to see that the transition for many kids through Gateway into industry, into employment, is that much more alleviated by providing this type of pathway.
And there is more to do, because if we understand anything about opportunities for young people, we have to understand that they, too, want to be a part of society. There are so many negative stereotypes surrounding many of our young people in New Zealand that I think we need to give them a fair shot at things. The real opportunity, in terms of New Zealand’s advancing forward, is to understand the real potential of young people. I think if we can ensure that, with the programme this Government is promoting in the areas of health, education, housing, and employment training, then we will be able to harness the opportunities that exist, not just for young people but for everybody in society.
That is the type of agenda that this Government is committed to pursuing, so there is a stark difference between a Labour-led Government and National. We believe that each individual has a place in society. It is not about winners and losers; it is about every person winning his or her game. Kia ora.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): Over the years in this place I have heard many Prime Ministers and many Leaders of the Opposition from both sides of the House give statements and Addresses in Reply. What a contrast we saw earlier this week. The Prime Minister’s speech was so boring and so ordinary that her own colleagues were either asleep or nodding off to sleep. It was one of the more tedious, boring speeches I have heard a Prime Minister give. What a contrast with my colleague John Key. He gave such an energetic and aspirational speech.
I support John Key’s motion of no confidence, when he moved: “That this House has no confidence in this 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,”—and, my goodness, it is—“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 have seen that. In the last 2 years all that this Labour Government has been interested in is clinging to power—not in what it can do for New Zealanders, but in just hanging on to power. Look at the Electoral Finance Act. It is all about clinging to power. New Zealanders are sick of that.
Labour has squandered, not just in the last 2 years but over the last 8 years, the most favourable economic conditions in 20 years in this country, and it has failed to build the foundations for a strong economic future for New Zealanders. If Labour had not squandered those conditions, if Labour had got things a little bit right, then why, after 8 years of a Labour Government, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? Why? If Labour has got it right, why do we have the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? When Labour came to power they were at only half of that level.
Why, under Labour, is the gap between our after-tax incomes in Australia and New Zealand getting wider and wider? Why does Labour offer a tax cut only in election years and—it should be noted—only when it is way behind in the polls? In previous election years Labour has made maybe a suggestion of tax cuts and then backed out on its promise because it was not behind in the polls. This time, Labour is promising tax cuts because it is so far behind in the polls.
But the public of New Zealand are not silly. They ask why only in election years do they deserve to be treated with more respect. Why can our hard-working youngsters not afford to buy their own house under Labour? Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? Why, when Labour claims it aspires to be carbon neutral, are our greenhouse gas emissions still growing rapidly? Why has the health system, when billions more have been poured into it, not actually started to deliver for New Zealanders? Why is violent crime against New Zealanders continuing to soar, and why is Labour unable to do anything about it? Why are our best and brightest leaving New Zealand in droves?
I have the Prime Minister’s statement here. It is such an unmemorable document, except for one thing that marks it out. The word “sustainability” is peppered right the way through it. In here the Prime Minister says she wants New Zealand to step up to the sustainability challenge and focus on sustainability. She wants the public sector to lead by example on sustainability. The unifying concept, she says in her speech, is sustainability.
At a Business New Zealand function last night, one of the key speakers—one of my colleagues remembers this, too—said that if members of the public make submissions to the Labour Government these days they have to put the word “sustainability” into every second line. It does not matter if it makes no sense—that is not the issue. One has just to put “sustainability” into every second line.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: It’s the future.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I ask the Labour members opposite, and Ashraf Choudhary, what is sustainable about losing 110 New Zealanders every day to Australia? What is sustainable about 800 New Zealanders every week going to Australia? What is sustainable about that? I ask Ashraf Choudhary what is sustainable about the figures we have this year that show that three times more New Zealanders have left for Australia than just 3 years ago? What is sustainable about that? Each year we see more and more New Zealanders going—just going. How is that sustainable?
Our greatest asset is our people, and they are going because they see no hope under this Labour Government. Hope is the most important aspiration of people. Hope is what keeps people going. Hope for a better future is what drives people, and it is what is driving people away from New Zealand under this Labour Government. They do not see hope. How can those members expect a woman on the domestic purposes benefit to see hope in her life if when she works a bit harder and earns a bit more money, the Government takes 90 percent of it—92 percent of it, in fact?
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Rubbish!
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Ashraf Choudhary says that is rubbish but it is a fact. If a woman on the domestic purposes benefit is trying to work her way off it and is earning more money, she loses about 92 percent of it. The Government claims it back. What about a middle-income New Zealand family on $70,000 and the Working for Families package? If they work a bit harder and get a promotion they lose 60 percent of it in tax to this Government—60 percent of it. Where is the hope in that?
New Zealanders are leaving in droves. We have not seen the like of it since Labour was last in Government. Back in the late 1980s, when Labour was last in Government, again, New Zealanders saw no hope, and they went. They went in the late 1980s because under Labour they saw no hope. During the 1990s when National was in office that exodus came right down, even though we had some hard years. We had the difficult years of the major restructuring in the early 1990s and the recession that followed that. We had the difficult years of the Asian financial crisis. Yet during the 1990s the net loss to Australia of New Zealanders was just 9,000 people a year, on average.
Under Labour the number has more than doubled. Every year Labour has been in office since 1999, 20,000 New Zealanders, on average, have gone to Australia. Why? Why are New Zealanders finding that the country they love, the country they were born in, the country they grew up in, is no longer a country that offers them hope. They see more hope in Australia. This Labour Government should be deeply, deeply ashamed of that.
I have heard Winston Peters say that these are just people who are recent immigrants to New Zealand who are going. That is simply not true. In fact, last year the net loss of New Zealand citizens was 32,700—in just 1 year. That is the net loss. When we count New Zealand citizens coming back home we see that we lost 32,700 more. What is tragic about the net loss, especially people going to Australia, is that they are not old folk going to retire in Queensland. They are not older folk going to Port Douglas or the Gold Coast or some of those nice places up in eastern Australia. I actually think that some of the places up north in New Zealand—in Rodney and Langs Beach, and some of the lovely areas in Mangawhai and south from there—are lovely areas for people to retire to.
The tragedy of these people going to Australia is that they are young and working New Zealanders. Of those we lost last year, 86 percent were under 44 years old. The tragedy is that we are losing some of our best and brightest. I know there is an argument about that. I know that when the Hon David Cunliffe was the Minister of Immigration he used to say we were winning on the brain exchange. I put this figure to him.
Hon David Cunliffe: We were—and we are.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Well, the member should listen to this. A recent study by the Australian Department of Immigration has shown that New Zealand is losing the highest proportion of our tertiary-trained people of any country in the OECD. We are losing 32 percent—almost a third—of all our tertiary-trained people. That includes those with apprenticeships, degrees, or diplomas—you name it. They are going. In fact, if we look at New Zealanders living abroad we see that 45 percent—almost half—have university degrees.
I know that some say we are getting people with degrees coming back to New Zealand. This document I have here is an unpublished study. It will be published very shortly by Massey University. It shows that our new migrants are not remotely replacing those who are leaving. Although they might have degrees, they are not being employed in professional areas. In fact, this research shows that many of the women coming in under the skilled migrant category are earning no money at all, and that 34 percent of the men, in the first 2 years, were in the lowest employment brackets in New Zealand. This research study shows that we are not replacing the brains and skills we are tragically losing under this Labour Government. It is time for a change.
SUE MORONEY (Labour): New Zealanders should be very worried after listening to that speech, because Lockwood Smith either wants to close down the borders and stop New Zealanders from going overseas and getting valuable overseas experience, or maybe he has just announced a new National Party policy to raise wages in this country. Yeah, right! We know that is the very last thing that the National Party would ever do, based on its track record, and based on its members’ voting record in this House where they consistently vote against any improvements to wages for New Zealanders. Yeah, right! They must be going to close down the borders; that must be their policy.
Today is National Heart Foundation Day and I am proud to be wearing red today in support of that. Of course, red is one of my favourite colours anyway, as a Labour member of Parliament. The Prime Minister’s statement was, of course, a very heart-warming speech indeed. It was heart warming because it had real vision—not this pretend vision and the slogans we saw in John Key’s speech, but actual announcements of things that will make a real difference to New Zealanders’ lives. Labour has that strong vision, and it was articulated by our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark. We have big policies to roll out and we want to make further progress this year, building on the progress we have already made in this term of Government.
Some of the 2007 major achievements that we have already made are that we have built a strong and resilient economy, and we have affordable health-care, which has been extended through lower doctors’ fees. I may remind people listening to this debate that the National Party said in its policy that it was OK for doctors to have the right to increase and move up their fees once again. That is not Labour Party policy; we will keep those doctors’ fees low. One of my personal favourites from last year was the 20 hours’ free early education for 3 and 4-year-olds that was introduced by Labour. If that had been available when my children were 3 and 4 years old—and they were consecutively 3 and 4 years old—it would have been a huge saving for our family. But that was not available back in those days. There is the ever-expanding KiwiSaver scheme; 430,000 people at the last count are taking part in saving for their futures. They are saving under a superannuation scheme and changing that culture that we have developed here in New Zealand of spending more than we save.
Our plan is for a truly sustainable New Zealand and that is well and truly under way. But now we must take the next steps, and the Prime Minister’s statement really set out this pathway. My favourite was the major funding boost for the community-based organisations, because I know that will make a real difference to families in need, particularly in the Waikato area.
I want to let people know about the organisations in Hamilton that will benefit from the $446 million, which will be rolled out over 4 years and will make a big difference for these agencies in being able to deliver services to families. It is a very long list but I think it is worthwhile reflecting on, because just in Hamilton alone, there is the Desert Spring Ministries Trust—the family support services provided by the Catholic network; the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project, which is one of the innovations that came out of Hamilton that looked at violence within families and men taking responsibility for that; the Hamilton Budgeting Advisory Trust; Kirikiriroa Family Services Trust; the Waikato branch of the New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society; the Institute for Child Protection Studies—another organisation that specialises in training school teachers how to look for signs of violence and how to help children who are seeing family violence in their own home lives; Raukura Waikato Social Services; Rostrevor House; Te Kohao Health; the Waikato Muslim Association; Anglican Action; Hamilton Apostolic Training Centre; Birthright (Waikato) Te Whanautanga Tika Inc.; the Waikato branch of Family Works; Kaute Pasifika; the Link House Trust; the Pacific Education and Social Services Hamilton Trust; and the Hamilton Rape and Sexual Abuse Healing Centre.
The list goes on. I am only halfway through it but I want to make particular mention of the Waikato Family Centre Trust—which will benefit from the package that was announced by the Prime Minister just on Tuesday—because it has a very interesting history. It used to be called the Waikato Plunket Family Centre. In the 1990s its funding was cut by the National Government. I was able to lead a protest action, which was supported by mothers and fathers and their children, to make sure that that family trust centre did not close its doors despite the fact that the National Government had pulled the plug on the funding for that very valuable service.
Katrina Shanks: What did you do to Plunket? Tell us about your track record with Plunket.
SUE MORONEY: If the member would care to listen, I will tell her about Plunket. In the 1990s what occurred was that this valuable service—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am finding it incredibly difficult to speak with the member opposite barracking from a seat that is not her own and I ask you to intervene.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that sometimes debate invites interjections. However, having said that, I say to the member on my left that if she looks at Speakers’ ruling 57/3, she will know that interjections are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable. If she looks at Speaker’s ruling 59/1, she will know that she should not move to facilitate interjections.
SUE MORONEY: I think this is a story worthwhile listening to and the members opposite in particular should be listening to it. Waikato Plunket Family Centre was a centre that operated for families with young children who were struggling to cope with problems such as breastfeeding or behavioural issues—families just struggling to cope with that change in their lifestyles. I was not a mother at that stage—it was before I had my own children—but I thought it was absolutely appalling that the National Government at the time took away the funding and wanted to close down that very valuable centre. I was one of those who led a protest to stop that centre from closing down. We were not successful in changing around the National Government’s view on pulling the plug on that funding, because it was belligerent in its view, but we created enough community support for that trust to carry on in a private capacity. I am so pleased to see that particular trust on the list of organisations that will be getting increased funding as a result of this Labour-led Government’s commitment to families in our communities.
Very real action came out of the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday. But there has been all this carry-on from the National benches, with National members saying that it was a speech they do not even remember anything good coming out of. They should go and talk to some of these services in their own communities, and they will find out exactly what goes on in these communities and how valuable this programme will be.
I could go on and read out the statements from Plunket, Barnardos, and Women’s Refuge that actually reinforce just how valuable this programme will be. We have this programme that we must continue on with. The Prime Minister was very precise and very detailed about it. Her speech had substance and it had action behind it, as opposed to John Key’s speech. Talk about a speech that was not memorable! I cannot remember one single thing in it—no announcement and no policy. I cannot remember one thing John Key said in his speech. It sounded to me like it was a bunch of slogans. All he left his MPs to do for the course of the rest of this debate was to continue to preach empty slogans—no substance, not one policy, and nothing that has any action behind it, just empty slogans.
Of course, flip-flops have been happening in National. We need to make a point of reminding people about them. Even if National did have policy to announce, who knows how long it would stick around for? National cannot even stick to its own policy in opposition. Goodness knows what might happen if it got into Government and into power and flip-flopped on its policies at that stage. Interest-free student loans are an example of that flip-flopping. At the time Labour promoted interest-free student loans in this House, National members not only voted against them but made speeches about how much they would damage New Zealand. Now, apparently, National is in favour of them.
The real danger for New Zealanders is if they think that the National Party continuing to develop and adopt Labour’s policy programme means that is what they might get should the Government change at the next election. But of course it will not be. National could not continue the programme Labour is embarking on. It could not continue the programme, because it fundamentally disagrees with it. There are parts that National fundamentally disagrees with—the course of progress for our country—but the other bits it does not actually understand.
We are on a pathway of having developed a good, strong base in this country in the last 8 years. We want to continue the progress on that. We will continue the progress on it, but it is only Labour that is capable of doing that, because we understand the fundamental things that have created that progress in New Zealand. National does not.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): When the Prime Minister outlined to the House on Tuesday the intentions of the Labour-led Government for the rest of this parliamentary term, one issue appealed to the optimist within me. It was the announcement by the Government that it intends to develop a stronger relationship with the non-governmental sector. The sceptic within me asked some quiet questions about the devil in the detail of this policy. Stronger relationships can be just talk or can be extremely good news for those working in the voluntary and charitable sector. The Prime Minister talked about new funding—a substantial amount of new funding—being ladled in over the next 4 years. United Future welcomes that additional support. We certainly like hearing the list of providers that currently have contracts with the Government that will be able to see fuller financial support for the services they offer.
I was also interested to note that she talked about the fact that the response to smaller service providers within the communities will move from a contracts-based approach to a grants-based model. The inference here is that because of that change, there will be fewer bureaucratic requirements on these smaller providers and fewer compliance costs. If the Government is serious about this intention, and if what the Prime Minister has said is real, then United Future welcomes it absolutely. From what she said, we are not clear about what will happen to new and innovative community projects that spring up on a pretty regular basis in response to community needs at a grassroots level. Part of what makes civil society gel is when the organisations that understand people and know people on a personal basis, and make policy from a ground-up position, are allowed the freedom to do the work they do best and are given support to do that.
When I questioned the Minister this afternoon about this announcement, she said one thing in her answer that gave me additional hope. My question was whether this new funding comes with any fish-hooks in it. That has been the concern of community providers for some time. I know, for instance, of a fantastic project in Christchurch that works to integrate prisoners as they leave prison and go back into the community. The organisation offers accommodation to former prisoners if they need it, and certainly employment.
The way the organisation makes that work—and it has very good results, measurably good results—is that it works to develop relationships with inmates while they are in prison, then it selectively offers its programme to people it has built a good relationship with and who have demonstrated a real intention to change. The organisation did not ever want to apply for Government funding, because the fear was that the very ethos of the organisation would be undermined by Government departments like the Department of Corrections and the probation service insisting that it take whoever they sent its way. That would undercut the tone of what it wants to achieve.
I am very interested to see whether organisations like that are now sufficiently comfortable when they see this rolled out to make applications. They certainly get results and save the New Zealand taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars every month with the success they enjoy. I am also keen to see whether the Government is serious about ensuring that it does not duplicate the work of agencies. The example that comes to mind is another Christchurch one, the Christchurch Family Help Trust, which years ago went to the Government with some extremely good evidence of the work it did. It had done its own research and could prove to the Government that what it was doing was working. What did the Government do? Did it give the trust a contract or any funding? No, it went and duplicated the service itself and set up an alternative provider, and the organisation, which has continued to do the work, has spent a huge amount of its time fundraising to try to provide an ongoing basis for the most at-risk families in Christchurch.
So United Future welcomes the Government’s announcement, but we signal that we will be watching and monitoring the roll-out of this very, very closely, because if what the Government says is true, then it will be good news for those organisations. If this is just a lot of words and a talkfest, then I think we will have a lot of very disappointed organisations. The optimist in me welcomes the call, and signals that we will be watching very closely what the Government really does mean by what it has said.
Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, ngā mihi o te tau hou ki a koe, me tō whānau hoki. I wish everybody in this House a happy New Year and compliments of the season to all. I support the motion of John Key, which was: “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.”
After 9 years of a Government that has had the best conditions we have seen for a long, long time, what have we got? We have lots of heartache and lots of bribes by the Government. I want to refer to the speech made by Judy Turner. She raised some interesting points about flicking money to community organisations. That is all about shoring up the historical support of the Labour Party. The women’s refuges do a wonderful job, a great job, but would it not be great if we did not have to have them? Why is the Government funding them? It is because the Prime Minister’s mates are in those organisations—and not specifically the women’s refuges, but other organisations—and they are run by hard-left people who have sympathies with the Labour Party, who are paid-up members of the Labour Party, and who also are mates with the union movement.
Nandor Tanczos: The union movement? That’s outrageous.
Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, it is actually. But that member will never know because that member is going, and I just want to say farewell to a good member. I actually think the member is a good member.
These are the questions Kiwis really want answers to. 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? A number of years ago this Government put to bed—put to rest—closing the gaps, but now it is interested in closing only one gap, and that is the gap between it and us. How is it going to close those gaps in the polls? This is the reinvention of closing the gaps.
Hon David Cunliffe: Put you on TV!
Hon TAU HENARE: Oh no, no. Labour will try to close the gaps by attempting to bribe the country. But here is the big thing: the country has already made up its mind and it is ta-ta boys and girls from the Labour Party. It is going to be a hard lesson for the Labour members to learn, but no matter how much money they throw at the community, the community has already made up its mind. Why? I have travelled the length and breadth of this nation, and all I hear is that it is about time we had a change of Government. In fact, there are three words that people are saying on the streets of Wellington, the streets of Auckland, and the streets of Whangarei: “Yes, we can.” That is what they are saying. “Yes, we can have a new Government with a new vision—an ambitious vision for this nation.” I feel sorry for some in the Government because they are good people, and they do have—
Hon David Cunliffe: No you don’t.
Hon TAU HENARE: Absolutely I do, and I can name one of them—Winnie Laban. She is a good person who has a vision, but unfortunately she has been stifled by the failed leadership of the Labour Party.
While I was at Waitangi the Minister of Māori Affairs referred to Māori as “roamers”. He called Māori people “roamers”. He gave that as the excuse for 100,000 people of Māori descent living in Australia. It was not because there were good wages. It was not because there was cheap and affordable housing. It was not for the low taxes. It was not even for the good education. It was not even because there was a good rugby league side in Australia. It was because they were roamers. The Minister of Māori Affairs had the audacity to call the indigenous population of this country a pack of roamers. That is all he could come up with, and I think he is going to get a bit of a shock come election time regardless of whether the foreshore and seabed agreement between Ngāti Porou and the Government is signed. I think the only roaming that Māori will do on election day is make sure that that Minister of Māori Affairs is roaming the hell out of this place.
In the Prime Minister’s statement there was not a word on Māori education—not a word—when the largest number of commissioners are in kura kaupapa Māori. I suggest that there is a real problem in kura at the moment—lack of resources, lack of professional development for our teachers—but there was not a word on Māori education. Some of the poorest statistics are making headlines in our national newspapers, but there was not a word, not a whisper, not a mutter, and not a murmur from the Prime Minister. There was a very, very cursory statement about Treaty settlements. What does it mean? Well, to me it is a shameful, shameful case of being left out of the equation. Four hundred to five hundred thousand people—15 percent of this nation—have been left out of the equation. They have been sidelined, and, quite frankly, we are tired of being disappointed, which is all we get from Labour. We are tired of being told what to do, and we are tired of being told how to raise our children.
The Prime Minister mentioned—and members should get this; this is the best one, from my perspective—that the Government was working to “bring about long-term transformational change”. What does that really mean? Well, to me what that means, in a nutshell, is moving the excuses around and blaming everybody else except the perpetrator. The perpetrator of that—the horrible thing that we face now—is the Labour Government.
I will finish up by saying that this nation has the opportunity, on election day, to go forward, to go forward fast, and to realise an ambition and a vision that we have not seen in this country for a long time, for Māori and Pākehā and other people in this nation. The only way we will realise that vision and that ambition is to make sure that on election day that party vote goes to the National Party, with John Key being the new Prime Minister of this nation.
Hon David Cunliffe: Dream on!
Hon TAU HENARE: Well, like other people overseas, I do have a dream, and that dream is to make sure that we have the vision and we have the ambition. And that will be led by none other than John Key after the election in 2008. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise Mr Copeland that he has a speaking slot of 5 minutes’ duration, and I will ring the bell with 1 minute left.
GORDON COPELAND (Independent): I will be voting for the Government at the conclusion of this debate, because I have agreed to give my support on confidence and supply for the duration of this Parliament. However, my support will come to an end when the House rises for this year’s election. I have no doubt that we will then see a change of Government. During the 1990s a number of black marks arose against the National Government when it cut benefits and introduced market-based rents. As a result, real poverty emerged amongst Kiwis. Churches and other third-sector organisations responded by creating food banks and organising a Hīkoi of Hope to protest these heartless actions. Labour was, in consequence, elected in 1999, and, to its credit, it has tackled the issue of poverty through the restoration of benefits, the switch to income-related rents for State housing, and the introduction of the Working for Families package.
However, that is not the whole story. Now black marks have also been awarded by caring Kiwis against Labour. These black marks relate to Labour’s social engineering. Between 2002 and 2005 that included the Prostitution Reform Act, the Civil Union Act, and Labour’s continuing support for the law, originally introduced by National, that gives girls under 16 the right to an abortion without parental consent. None of those actions enjoyed the majority support of Kiwis. Indeed, the Prime Minister was quick to say after the 2005 election that it was the social engineering that brought her Government to the brink of defeat. However, she then proceeded, in short order, to put all her MPs under the whip in support of Sue Bradford’s bill to criminalise good parents who use the occasional smack to correct and discipline their children, ignoring the fact that polls indicated that 80 percent of Kiwis are vehemently opposed to the State intruding into their homes and lives to that extent.
Her Government also opposed the marriage bill, and put its MPs under the whip to support the appointment of a practising abortionist to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I believe that in this year’s election the Prime Minister will discover that she cannot say before the election that she will not be supporting anti-smacking measures, then do the opposite after the election, in the hope that Kiwis will simply forget about it. They have not, and they will not. On the contrary, on this very day hundreds or thousands of Kiwis will add their signatures to the petitions that will lead to citizens initiated referenda both to overturn the criminalisation of good Kiwi parents, that gross intrusion into their freedom to make their own choices about child discipline—with child abuse being a completely separate case—and its companion petition that asks the Government to understand and address the wider issues of family breakdown, family violence, and child abuse. We will have referenda on both those issues. Over 290,000 signatures have already been collected.
Whether or not the Government likes it, the voice of the people will be heard—the hard-won freedom and liberty of Kiwi families will be restored. The unwarranted intrusion of the State, in the form of the police or Child, Youth and Family, into the homes of good parents will come to an end. A new, grassroots party, based on the timeless values of the people whom Labour has abandoned, will emerge.
Hon Darren Hughes: Which one?
GORDON COPELAND: The Kiwi Party. The Kiwi Party will give New Zealanders the chance to vote for themselves.
There is an old saying. Labour may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, and it may be able to fool some of the people all of the time, but it will find—later this year in our general election—that it has not fooled the majority of Kiwis this time. One will find, indeed, that there will be a backlash against those social-engineering measures. I could go on, too, about Michael Cullen’s broken promise on tax cuts, which was made in 2005 and reneged on in 2007. The plain fact is that the writing is now on the wall. Time is up for Labour, and we will see a new National-led Government later this year. The polls indicate that, my interaction with Kiwis indicates that, and I very much hope that the Kiwi Party will be back here as well, working with National as a partner so that we can actually change these unfortunate blots on the record of what used to be a great party. In that connection, I refer to the “former” Labour Party.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I rise in support of my leader’s motion: “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.”
When I listened to the Prime Minister’s speech on Tuesday it reminded me of the children’s story The Emperor’s New Clothes. The Prime Minister and her cohorts still think that if they continue with the same rhetoric they have been trotting around with for the last 8 years, then people will believe them. Well, I have news for them. The rose-tinted glasses have come off, and the public are starting to see the real truth about this Government. They are seeing the Government naked and exposed, and that is not a very pretty sight. Kiwis are asking themselves: “If things are as good as the Prime Minister says, then why are we struggling? Why are we as Kiwis struggling so much?”. The answer is that as time has gone on, Labour has concentrated more on more on its own preservation than it has on the issues that concern hard-working Kiwis in New Zealand.
Labour has squandered New Zealand’s economic inheritance by failing to build strong foundations for the future of this country. If we really live in a fairytale land, as this Government would have us believe, why can we not buy our own homes any more? Why are there so many New Zealanders out there who cannot buy their own home? Why is that the case? Why is violent crime on the rise right across New Zealand? Why, after 8 years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the OECD, or in the developed world? Why is that the case? We can all remember the Labour Government of the 1980s, when interest rates peaked at 22 percent. Do we want to leave Labour there long enough for interest rates to eventually get to 22 percent again? The answer to that is obvious, and most New Zealanders are now starting to realise that this Government has completely run out of leadership and ideas.
Why are our schools unable to deliver what would have been described in Michael Joseph Savage’s day as basic curriculum in the education system? Why is that the case? Why are our children in rural New Zealand now not able to get a bus to take them to the classroom? Why is that the case after 9 years of a Labour-led Government? Do members remember Labour’s catchphrase when it was in Opposition 8½ years ago? Labour members used to say: “Listen New Zealanders, just pay a little bit more tax and we’ll fix up the health system and the education system. It’s fair to pay a bit more tax.” So New Zealanders have paid and paid. Now, tell me, has the health system been fixed up? Can people get operations when they need them? Is it better than it was 8 years ago? The answer to all those questions is that it is certainly not any better.
The problem is that one cannot fiddle with the figures, employ more bureaucrats, and expect that to fix the health system. They can pour money into bureaucrats until their heads fall off but it will not fix the health system. What we need is more operations, more theatre time, more doctors, more nurses, more opportunity for people to get treatment, and more medicines. What we have is thousands and thousands more administrators and fewer doctors where we need them. It is time we had a change, and in October or November of this year people will line up and make that decision and we will see the end of this Government.
No amount of huffing and puffing from the Government can hide the reality from the public any more. The Government has been exposed. The Prime Minister should look at her own counterpart—or, I guess one could say to some extent, protégé—in Australia. He has just offered an apology for a couple of hundred years of abuse to a small sector of that country. She should look at her own supporters and her own voters and offer them a similar apology. She has let them down. She has not delivered on the promise she gave them, and they will, along with everybody else, make their decision come October this year. She should apologise to all New Zealanders for underachieving and not delivering. No one is fooled by Labour’s offering tax cuts only in an election year. No one is fooled by that. No one will buy that bribe. The student-loan bribe worked, but the tax cut one will not—
Hon Darren Hughes: It’s the member’s policy now.
SHANE ARDERN: —and the member who is interjecting is about to find that out.
Labour’s so-called affordable housing delivers nothing unless one is earning over $70,000. Of course, as we have heard before, the tax system says that those earning over $60,000 in this country are rich. Why are one in five kids leaving school with grossly inadequate skills? Why, when Labour claims to aspire to be carbon neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an enormous and alarming rate? I can tell the House why that is. For every year this Government has been in power, more trees have been cut down than have been planted. Forestry in this country has never been on a more unsustainable route. This year we will cut down thousands more hectares of trees than we will plant, yet on the international stage the Government parrots that we are leaders in the field of carbon neutrality.
The Labour Government came up with a plan, which is similar to what Labour Governments always come up with. It said that if we tax farmers more, that will stop emissions and save the planet. The Government failed back then, and it became an international laughing stock in the process. It is absolutely bereft of any other credible idea about how to deal with the issue.
For the first time in 50 years, far more trees are being cut down than ever before in our history. That is happening at the same time as our Australian cousins are planting more trees. Afforestation is going on in Australia, but the amazing point is that the standard stock—Pinus radiata—grows faster in New Zealand than it does in Australia. The second amazing point is that we market into exactly the same international and domestic markets as the Australians. So we have the same marketplace and the same market signals, and we have trees that grow faster here, but we have a Government policy that forces the forestry industry to go backwards.
It would be so easy for National to say: “We told you so.”, but that will not fix the problem. We will not buy into Labour’s attempt to divert attention away from the truth, as it has done in the past and is doing in this debate. We will get on with the job of fixing the problems. We will deliver the change that Kiwis are demanding. National will take on the ethos that makes New Zealanders proud. We will take on the can-do attitude that we have all celebrated so much in the last few weeks with the passing of Sir Edmund Hillary. We all associate that “we can do it” attitude with our Kiwiana. We will make that the foundation of New Zealand once again, and will not accept the mediocrity that has been dished out by this Government.
National will lift wages by driving economic growth, investing in infrastructure, having ongoing tax cuts, and monitoring the quality and quantity of Government spending. We will create safer communities by taking the brave steps needed to address this country’s growing crime problems. We will ensure that our education system delivers real opportunity for young people. We will give Kiwis confidence in the public services they rely on. We are more interested in building performance than in building bureaucracy.
National will build a more confident New Zealand, with a proud sense of nationhood, so that, once again, we can stand on top of the highest mountain in the world and be proud of it. Once again, we will beat our Australian cousins on the rugby fields, or anywhere else, and, once again, New Zealand will be a country that people want to come home to.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): Aleikum salaam, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to say how proud I am of this Labour Government, because this Labour Government and the Labour Party provide leadership and vision for this country, and have done for years. For the last 8 years this Government has provided leadership and vision in many spheres of life. I am proud to say that in the areas of education, health, savings, and the environment we have shown real leadership, particularly in early childhood education and tertiary education. I am proud when talking about some of the ethnic communities, which take education as a major interest in their life, because they themselves are so proud that their 3 and 4-year-old children are now being educated. This is a new vision for us, to ensure that our children, as they grow up, start going to school early in their life.
The student loan scheme and particularly the interest-free loan scheme provided by this Government last year have also been great news for a lot of our youngsters in university and tertiary education. They give an opportunity to everyone in the community—be they ethnic community people, Māori people, low-income people, or Pacific Island people—to go to a tertiary institution in order to advance themselves into higher education and into jobs. Unless we have a skilled labour force, this country will not make much progress.
I am proud of the fact that this Government has lowered doctors’ fees. We now have a $3 prescription fee. I was really surprised the other day after going to the doctor about a problem when I went to the pharmacy and found that I had to pay only $3 for the prescription.
Hon Darren Hughes: How much?
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Only $3. After years of having to pay $20 or $15, I had to pay only $3 for the prescription. I really got a shock. I could not believe that after so many years of high prescription fees I paid only $3 for a prescription. It is unbelievable. I am very proud of the Government for taking those steps.
I will spend some time today talking about major issues on which this Government has taken leadership, and they are about sustainability, climate change, and resource management. I think that any nation, any country, that does not look ahead, plan for the future, and take leadership will go nowhere.
I am really proud of the fact that in so many areas this Government has shown real leadership in terms of sustainability, climate change, and resource management. This country is a small country. We do not have a lot of resources, as, for example, Australia has, but whatever resources we have, we have to make sure we use them properly and have sustainable agriculture and a sustainable environment. We must look after our soils, air, and water.
I will highlight some of the issues on which this Government has taken leadership, not only in New Zealand but overseas. I am particularly delighted to talk about these issues, because they are around some of the areas in which I have had the opportunity in my lifetime to do some research and development.
One of those issues is the passage of the emissions trading scheme, which is a scheme that concerns the future of this country and the future of this world. Under the Kyoto agreement, we have to make sure we have a good log of all the emissions of various gases—for example, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane. Unless we have a good catalogue of the rate of emission of these gases and of what will happen, particularly in agriculture, we will not go very far. I am really delighted that, first, there will be a lot of money spent on research and development into gas emissions, and also that there will be a look at the trading scheme. Under the Kyoto agreement, most nations will look into it. I am delighted that Australia, our neighbour, has come around to signing the Kyoto agreement and that we will move ahead together.
Second, I am really pleased we have passed the Biofuel Bill at its first reading. It is a fantastic bill. Again, we have to look forward, to look ahead, to how we will use biomass in this country. We have to look at alternative ways to fuel cars—alternatives to petrol and diesel. I am delighted with some of the work I was part of in my department at Massey University years ago, when we looked at various fuels—for example, tallow esters. Tallow is the one thing that at the moment we have plenty of. We have plenty of tallow—animal fat—in our factories and on our farms that we can use to be converted into petrol or diesel equivalents. We can also look, for example, at vegetable oils for biofuels.
I have been thinking about another thing, and I will be talking to the Ministers about it. You know, it is not often thought that we can grow sugar cane, for example, in this country. I have been thinking about it. Historically, we have not really looked at growing sugar cane in this country, but if we look at the climate north of Auckland we see that the climate there is almost semi-tropical, which is the ideal climate for growing sugar cane. I am not sure why, over the years, nobody has looked at that. I have actually seen sugar cane growing at some people’s houses in Auckland. It grows very well. Being from a farming background myself, I know that in the climate of the Auckland-Northland region we could grow sugar cane as a biomass to convert into biofuels. This is something that is happening overseas in Australia, South America, and so on. A lot of sugar cane is being used to be converted into biofuel and into ethanol for cars, etc. It is something I think we should look at seriously—sugarcane as a source of biofuel to power our vehicles in the long term.
Then of course we have our transport strategy. I am really proud of the fact that I now live in Auckland, where I have the opportunity to travel around the motorways every weekend when I am going out to meetings and see the building of motorways, roads, and transport systems really going places. I am very proud of the fact that this Government is doing that.
This Government is proud of the fact that we are looking at sustainable land management, because, again, it is looking to the future. We have a fantastic resource that we are using for our foreign exchange; we are a proud dairy-farming country of the world. I am delighted to see the extension of dairy farms and the way things are happening in this country with Fonterra. That is the future of this nation, in terms of milk and milk product exports. I know that some people have been worried about the potential impact on the environment, but I myself, as a scientist, can assure them that dairy farming in this country has a long-term future. We should be proud of the fact that we are taking leadership and also looking at the sustainable land management of this country.
Similarly, we are developing a national policy statement for our fresh water. Our water source is generally considered to be clean and green and all that, but having looked at some other nations and at the way things are happening, I think we have to look at cleaning our waters, particularly our lakes, rivers, and streams. As we grow the dairy industry more, we have to make sure our bodies of fresh water are clean.
Along with the green image, we have also been finalising the waste minimisation scheme in our country. Again, we have in this country the perspective of being very clean and green, but, really, if we look at what is happening in terms of waste, particularly at some of the ways in which it can be recycled, we see that we need to take leadership. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
PAULA BENNETT (National): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the House today in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. I support the motion of John Key, and have no confidence in this Labour-led Government. The reason is that there is simply nothing new. This Government looks tired, and after 9 years it is bereft of any ideas. We are certainly not seeing anything coming out that is worthy of mention.
You know, it is about people, and I think that that is what this Labour-led Government has completely forgotten. When we go out on the streets and talk to people we find out what is truly important to them, and we realise that this Labour-led Government has simply left them behind. People put their trust in Labour. Quite a few people out there voted over the last 9 years and put their trust in Labour, and Labour has simply ignored them and is thinking purely and only about its own survival. I think that that is a crime against society, quite frankly, and against those very people who have gone forth and put their trust in the Government. I would say to New Zealanders today that this is not all that they are worth—the last 9 years is not all that they are worth. They are worth more and they deserve more from their Government.
The reality for thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders is that they are living day by day and realising that their pay packet is worth less. When they look back at the last 9 years, they will see lost opportunities for them to get ahead. Time is passing quite quickly and people are realising that, day by day, they are worse off when they go to put petrol in their car, and when they go to the grocery shop and realise that the dollar does not go far enough at all to even feed their family in many cases. And they are supposed to be grateful and go to the Government for their handout. Their Working for Families handout is supposed to be all they are worth. They pay more each week than they can afford and then they go for the handout that might mean survival on a week-by-week basis.
That is not all that New Zealanders are worth. Members of this Labour-led Government should not tell New Zealanders—as I have heard in this very House—that crime rates have come down. I have heard that time and time again. They should tell that to New Zealanders who live in fear on a daily basis. They should ask New Zealanders whether they feel safer now on the streets of New Zealand than they did 10 years ago. It is a simple question. I challenge the members opposite to go out and ask New Zealanders whether they feel safer now than they did 10 years ago. We have to ask why violent crime against innocent New Zealanders has continued to rise. Why do people feel such a sense of insecurity and fear when they are out on the streets, and why has Labour not addressed this very key issue and done something about it?
Why is Labour unable to do something about these absolutely critical things that are most important to New Zealanders? New Zealanders are worth more than that. People were fed myths and lies for many years and over the past two elections. They were told that the Government would give them a handout and make this country a better place for them, and people now understand that that simply is not true. It shows how out of touch this Labour-led Government truly is. It has been quite amusing this week to hear the backward chants about the 1990s and about all that went wrong, the woes of the Tories, and all the rest of it.
When New Zealanders look back at the last 9 years, all they will see is lost opportunities, and all they will know is the reality of being and feeling worse off today than they were 9 years ago. When people look back at the opportunities that were there for them, they will say they will no longer settle for mediocrity. They will no longer settle for being OK, because they know that, given the sorts of opportunities we have had in the last 8 or 9 years, the possibilities of what could have been were truly tremendous. Normal New Zealanders, who want to get on with their day-to-day lives, live with their families, have their jobs, and get on with what they are doing, feel so let down by this tired Government because they are not having that type of opportunity. They are finding that this Government wants to get into the stuff that families do not see as being important, and the very stuff they do want to be dealt with—like the levels of crime, safety issues, health, education, and having a wage that actually means something and means they can survive—is not being addressed.
I want to talk a bit about the community sector. The conversations we have had about that over nearly the last 8 months have been quite interesting and amusing. Members on this side of the House were not surprised at all by the Government’s announcement this week that it is waking up to the importance of fixing some of the problems out there for the non-governmental organisations. We are not surprised that Labour has woken up to the main issues and realised that the Government is not the answer to all social problems—although I do not know whether it has quite woken up to that—and it is acknowledging that there needs to be some continuity with funding, there needs to be some certainty, and, most certainly, there needs to be some cutting of compliance costs. We knew that when John Key raised this issue last year it would give the Labour Government a bit of a shake-up and it would realise it had better do something about it. I congratulate the sector, because at least it is getting something, even if it is for no other reason than the fact that National, under John Key, has made this such an issue.
John Key has said continuously that more government is not the answer. He has said continuously in speeches and in brochures—like this brochure here—in black and white that the answers are, more often than not, in our communities and at the grassroots. It is not about more bureaucracy in Wellington. Does Wellington have any answers? I can tell members I do not think this House has the answers when it comes to all of those sorts of social issues, but it has to go back to the people who are working at the coalface. I stand here proudly, having given those sorts of speeches and having been to speak to those groups myself, to say that under the leadership of John Key, who has raised this issue time and time again, we knew that this would shake up the Labour Government. When we spoke about it last year, John Key’s answer was that at least it would get some results for the sector and that that could not be a bad thing. We say blatantly that we are reasonably pleased to see some of these changes being made. Having an opponent steal a policy may not always be a political party’s ideal situation, but this is one occasion where it has seen some sort of positive result.
But the devil is going to be in the detail. I think there are questions that the Government desperately needs to answer. It is not actually $40 million a year that is going into these services, but are we going to see more services created for those people who are most in need? From what I have seen, the answer is no. How will the Government cut the compliance costs? Words have been quite sweet in this Government, and certainly the word “partnership” has been. But how are compliance costs going to be cut? I have been hearing about the Plunket Society saying how wonderful the Government is today, I have been hearing about how the Salvation Army has said things, and Minister Dyson has stood up and said many things. I just thought I would finish with a couple of quotes. On Tuesday morning this week we read in the newspaper that the Government is spending billions of dollars more on social policies, to little or no effect. We hear that the Salvation Army has slammed the Government’s performance. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor appears just to be widening. More children appear to be at risk of harm, and that, unfortunately, is what is happening under this Labour-led Government.
So it is time. Bring on this year. It is time for a National Government. It is time that we had some true leadership. It is time we had true vision, and it is time we got ambitious for New Zealand and grabbed every opportunity and then made them ourselves.
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs): Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings to everyone. It is a real pleasure to be able to follow the National MP who has just spoken. At least I can be a proud New Zealander and stand tall to say that I come from a Government and a party, Labour, that has a great track record, great policy, and great results. We have yet to see any policy coming from that side of the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I am really proud to participate in it. Listening to our Prime Minister’s address on Tuesday made me very proud and very excited. I am proud of our solid track record, I am proud of all the achievements that our Government has made, and I am excited about our vision and our ongoing plan of action for the future.
Over the last 8 years we have had major achievements that have improved the living standards of our families and strengthened the New Zealand economy. A huge investment has been made in primary health care, which is now affordable for all families, with lower doctor costs and prescription fees of $3. Early childhood education is more accessible and affordable, with 20 hours’ free early childhood education for our 3 and 4-year-olds. Over 400,000 Kiwis have joined KiwiSaver and are planning for their secure future. Our families are receiving tax relief through Working for Families and, with our 4 weeks’ annual leave, they have more time to spend together with their loved ones. We have the lowest unemployment rate on record, and the labour force participation rate is the highest ever recorded. The Pacific Island unemployment rate has reduced from 12.2 percent in December 1999 to 4.7 percent in December 2007. The minimum wage has gone up eight times in 8 years, with a further increase this April to $12 an hour.
We are supporting economic development regionally and nationally, and our economy is a third larger than it was when we were elected in 1999. Only last night I had the pleasure, on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development, to launch Grow Wellington, the new Wellington regional economic development agency that is about a collaboration of central government, regional councils, local councils, and the business and private sector, in order to absolutely boost and increase capability in our businesses and increase export potential.
There are many more achievements that I could talk about, and I could spend a lot more time talking about those because our Government’s record of delivery is a fantastic one. What is exciting now is that we are taking the next steps, with our policies focused on long-term change. These new initiatives build on what we have achieved for New Zealand. We are recognising the enormous contribution of our non-governmental sector, our community and voluntary sector, by boosting and guaranteeing funding for it. We are improving pathways for harnessing the potential of our young people. Every young person in New Zealand is our child and our young person. We are establishing a plan for increasing the supply of affordable housing for our Kiwi families. We are investing in New Zealand’s roads, railways, and public transport, and evidence of that is right around our country. We are moving forward and taking the lead on sustainability. This programme is a positive one. It is about developing New Zealand’s potential and opening up opportunity for all.
As the proud Minister for Pacific Island Affairs, I say that for our Pacific peoples who are energised, youthful, and optimistic about the future, this provides an exciting opportunity. We are encouraging programmes that utilise this potential and establish a skilled and versatile Pacific workforce. The Pacific population is growing faster than the New Zealand average population and will be a considerably larger proportion of the New Zealand working-age population in the future. Last year Prime Minister Helen Clark launched the Pacific Economic Action Plan and the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan. They aim to significantly increase our Pacific peoples’ contribution to the New Zealand economy, and therefore increase the prosperity of Pacific families. The goals are education, leadership, workforce development, business development, entrepreneurial culture, and creative emerging and growth industries. We are already achieving results through this whole-of-Government approach, in working with the private sector and the community. We are seeing exciting potential with the young Kiwi Pasifika brand, and with our young people doing well in the arts, in music, in film making, and in fashion. The list goes on.
Another example of the Pacific economic plan concerns a number of our women who hold nursing qualifications gained in Pacific countries and who either are unemployed, are working in low-level positions in New Zealand, or have allowed their registrations to lapse. These women will gain New Zealand qualifications if they pass through the international English language testing system. This is a programme to increase the participation of Pacific women in nursing. It provides flexible, tailored foundation learning, and there is training. A partnership has been formed with Counties Manukau District Health Board to employ these women, with further pastoral care to be provided to ensure they remain in employment. But they can also apply successfully for higher-paid nursing jobs. These plans are not just plans; they are plans in action, and the evidence is there for all of us to see. We are very excited about this road map that harnesses, and will continue to harness, the potential that lies within Pacific people and communities to develop sustainable and existing businesses, careers, and educational opportunities.
Our young people are another important investment for all of us. Lifting their participation and achievement levels in education and training is vital, so that they can contribute to and share in New Zealand’s success in its economy and its society. We need to realise the enormous potential of our youth, and not send them to boot camps. We put the boot in boot camps! Having all young people in some form of education or training until the age of 18 is particularly good news for our Pacific youth and communities. In 2006, 10 percent of Gateway students were young Pacific students engaged in work experience with their school-based study. This has had wonderful results in terms of those young people getting back into sustainable work.
The other fabulous thing is the non-governmental organisation funding package. We are really excited about that because this sector, the civil society sector, comprises the groups that are the lifeblood of our community. They play a very important role in supporting our families and our communities. They provide enormous social capital, and it is good that we are providing resources for them so that they continue to exist in a sustainable way but also to support the most vulnerable in our communities. That is the Kiwi way, and I am so proud that our Labour-led Government has made this wonderful contribution to the non-governmental organisation community. Groups like the Cannons Creek Fanau Centre in my Mana electorate will benefit enormously, because they love and they give unconditionally. Pacific providers such as the Pacific Island Safety and Prevention Project in west Auckland will also benefit from this. This is all good news for New Zealanders and, more important, for our Pacific Kiwi communities.
I am very excited about all these opportunities. I am very proud to be part of the Labour-led Government, and I look forward to continuing for another 9 years under a Labour-led Government.
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, which invites this House to state that it has no confidence in a Government that is increasingly out of touch, a Government that is increasingly running out of steam and running out of ideas, a Government that is in the process of squandering the best economic opportunities this country has had for many decades, and a Government that is presiding over a saga of failure. Worst of all, this is a Government that is now so badly out of touch with New Zealanders that it is focused on one thing and one thing only: its own miserable political hide.
With poll after poll we see the looks of increasing desperation from the other side, and one would think that the Prime Minister might have come to House this year with some ideas, some programmes, and some solutions. But there was nothing from the Prime Minister in her speech. The term used by the Leader of the Opposition to describe that speech was “vacuous”. I think he was being kind and courteous. It was more than vacuous. I invite members to join us in expressing a vote of no confidence in this Government for several reasons.
Many New Zealanders who are finding things a little tough right now must have watched that speech from the Prime Minister and wondered whether she was in a different country, or possibly even on a different planet. She could not have been more out of touch. I get people coming to my electorate office—and, I guess, other members have people coming to their electorate offices—who are finding times tough. They look to the Government and to the Prime Minister to see some solutions, and there are none. New Zealand now has the second-highest interest rates in the developed world. What was in the Prime Minister’s statement that dealt with that? Absolutely nothing.
The Leader of the Opposition reminded the House on Tuesday that when this Government was elected to power, one-third of the average income of New Zealanders would service the cost of an average house. Today it takes half of an average income to service the cost of an average house in this country. What was in the speech from the Prime Minister on Tuesday about that? We heard more slogans and more acronyms, and we heard about more committees, but there were no solutions. Not one New Zealander out there who is under pressure to service a mortgage would have heard that speech and said: “Ah! Things will get better because at least the Government is on the case and the Prime Minister understands the pressures on me and my family.” There was nothing for those New Zealanders in that speech.
Others have commented that in the last 12 months we have seen 76,000 New Zealanders leave these shores for good. These are not statistics from the National Party research unit—although they are always accurate, of course. These statistics are from the Government Statistician. Seventy-six thousand New Zealanders packed up and left. They voted with their feet and expressed their own lack of confidence in this Prime Minister and this Government. Forty-thousand of those New Zealanders went to Australia; 40,000 just packed up and left. They said: “There is no future for me and no future for my children in this country. I’m off to Australia.”
It is not hard to understand why. If we look at the direct income comparisons, we see that the situation is bad enough, because the average income in Australia is now about one-third higher than the average income in this country. Most New Zealanders are not stupid. Most New Zealanders understand that, for them, considerable advantage is to be had from moving. Michael Cullen’s response to that is that these people are functionally innumerate and we should be pleased to see the back of them. That is what New Zealand’s Minister of Finance says to the 40,000 New Zealanders who got on a plane and went to Australia. They took their skills, their aspirations, their ambitions, their families, and their futures to Australia, and our Minister of Finance says they are functionally innumerate and we are better off without them. Is it any wonder there was nothing in the Prime Minister’s speech to send a message to the 40,000 or 50,000 New Zealanders who are thinking about leaving New Zealand for Australia this year as to why they should stay in this country? There was no hope for them in the Prime Minister’s speech; there was no hope for the 100,000 or so New Zealanders who are thinking about departing abroad.
It is bad enough that when we look at the direct income comparisons, we see a gap of about one-third. The average wage in Australia is one-third higher than that in New Zealand. The equivalent of one’s take-home pay in Australia is one’s gross salary in New Zealand. But it gets worse when we do a state by state breakdown. Again, I am not using figures we have invented; these are figures from Dr David Skilling of the New Zealand Institute, and I have checked the figures with him myself. If we look at the state by state breakdown, we can see why people are heading for Western Australia where, in Kiwi dollar terms, the average per capita income is $58,500. In the Northern Territory the figure is $59,500. Those figures make even Queensland look a little bit sick at $45,000, and the figure for New South Wales is around $46,000. The worst performer of the lot in Australia is, of course, Tasmania at $35,000 for the average per capita income, so New Zealand may have some chance of surpassing the performance of Tasmania. But even that has not happened. The average per capita income in New Zealand is $33,600. That is behind Tasmania and about half the figure for Western Australia or the Northern Territory.
And we wonder why people are packing up and moving to Australia. It is because they can count; that is why. It is because they can count and they can work out that there is a future for them in a country where for five successive Budgets people have had a tax cut from the Government to make it easier to pay the mortgage, to pay the kids’ school fees, and to make ends meet. In this country the response from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, is that people moving to Australia are functionally innumerate and we are better off without them. What sort of country says that to the 40,000 good, hard-working New Zealanders who leave our shores each and every year—and the number goes up week after week after week?
What do we get from the Government? There is nothing on that front, just a few weasel words. The Prime Minister thinks that if she says “sustainability” a few times in a speech, it may encourage a few people to vote for her later on this year. I say to Prime Minister “Sustainability” Clark that her Government has one of the worst records in living memory on one of the most important issues affecting the sustainability of this country. I am talking about the planting of trees. In this country we have kept records on forestry since 1951. In each and every year until 2004 we planted more trees in New Zealand than we cut down. If we look at the period from 1995 to 2000, we see that New Zealand’s planted forestry area increased by 90,000 hectares, 64,000 hectares, 88,000 hectares, 49,000 hectares, and 52,000 hectares consecutively during those years. By 2004 we had actually moved into a position where we were cutting down more trees than we had been planting. By 2004 we had actually lost 5,000 hectares of forestry. For each of 2005 and 2006 the figure was 11,000 hectares. But the granddaddy of them all is going to be the year just past, because this Government has put in place the most powerful incentives possible to get people to cut down trees in a hurry, and the stockpiles of logs are sitting all over the place. I say to this Government, which wants to talk about sustainability, that we are going to look at its record on sustainability in forestry, in particular, over this year, and we invite New Zealanders to pass their judgment based on the numbers. On the National side of the House we have some policies that are going to make a dramatic difference in that respect, and Government members are going to have some cause for concern as the year goes on.
It is a truly shameful state of affairs when we have 40,000 New Zealanders a year moving to Australia and a Deputy Prime Minister who says they are functionally innumerate and they can go. This is a Government that lacks ambition for our future and it is time it went.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): That is a joke—to say that we lack ambition for the future. Murray McCully clearly is a member who failed to listen to the Prime Minister’s address on Tuesday of this week. What an amazing address that was. It laid out—chapter and verse—the plan for the future and concentrated on just two things that I want to talk about today. Those two things are demonstrated by an area that I will be seeking to represent after the next election—the area of Wairoa. One of the key things that the Prime Minister announced on Tuesday was the support for community-based groups. There are five such groups in Wairoa that at present are subject to contract-based funding, but they will be moving to grant-based funding whereby they can receive their money without the bureaucracy and the tedious accountability that is the lifeblood of the member opposite. These community groups from Wairoa will be able to contribute to the growth and resurgence we see in that town—a growth and resurgence that is reflected in the political leaders of the town: the mayor, the council, and the recently developed Wairoa Community Development Trust.
The trust is the brainchild of the Mayor of Wairoa, Les Probert, who when he became mayor 6 years ago thought Wairoa was in the news for all the wrong reasons. He brought out some initiatives and was the driving force to bring around him eight or nine other very competent, well-qualified people who have given their time freely to form the Wairoa Community Development Trust. Where is this leading to? It is leading to 21 and 22 November this year, when Wairoa will host a multi-sport challenge that New Zealand will be proud of: the Lake to Lighthouse Challenge. It is a distance of 177.5 kilometres involving running, biking, and kayaking through some of the most picturesque parts of the country—around the beautiful Lake Waikaremoana and biking through the hills to Ardkeen, where they will get their kayaks down to the river to Wairoa, then a final sprint to the lighthouse. The very fit international competitors may do it in 1 day. Most of the averagely fit people will take 2 days. The significance of this event is twofold. First, Wairoa now has the confidence to launch such an international enterprise. The 21st and 22nd of November were chosen because they fit into the international sporting calendar. The organisers are confident that overseas athletes will attend. What will it achieve? It reflects the efforts of this Government being put into communities such as Wairoa, which have reduced unemployment down to about 4 percent, funded community-based organisations, and turned Wairoa into a prosperous, law-abiding town.
The Wairoa Community Development Trust wants to lift the profile of Wairoa so that everybody in this country can see what a beautiful town it is, so that the youth that go to a very good college in Wairoa will want to stay, and so that employment is generated. Unemployment in the town will reduce even further under this very, very good Government. That is the sort of plan that was outlined by our Prime Minister on Tuesday. Of all the subsequent speakers from the Opposition, not one person has come forward with any policy that would suggest that Wairoa could do any better under any Government other than a Helen Clark - led Labour Government. I look forward to the future of Wairoa and to my continuing involvement with the town I have been closely associated with now for the past 25 years.
Speaking about Wairoa takes me further south to the area of Napier and to its health problems. As I refer to Napier I congratulate Mr Chris Tremain on his elevation to the position of junior whip of the National Party. But surely it is a bitter-sweet accomplishment for him—and an accomplishment it certainly is. As he no doubt noticed when the elevation was announced, and as Katherine Rich found out, when one feels a knife in one’s back one knows the National Party caucus is right behind. Katherine Rich was the liberal spokesperson on social policy. She was the person who stood against bulk funding. Allan Peachey smiles that knowing grin because he knows he is pulling the strings that were predicted in the book he published—that scatological approach to educational development. The book deals with this adherence to bulk funding, which is ripping off the taxpayer to build an empire in the education system. Allan Peachey came down to Napier before the 2005 election with his acolyte Chris Tremain, who is now the junior whip, and preached bulk funding to a hall full of about 15 people. They did not understand what he was saying, but bulk funding was the message he wanted to introduce. Chris Tremain went round the various school unions and tried to sell bulk funding to the teachers. He was at one meeting that was a dismal failure because they just could not gain any enthusiasm for a scheme that came in under the National Party and was dispensed with in 1999 because it was an absolute dismal educational failure.
Schools such as those in Wairoa will suffer from bulk funding. Decile 2 and 3 schools in Napier will suffer because of bulk funding. Bulk funding is the enemy of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). This is the real secret that the National Party is refusing to discuss. They have brought in the legions of soldiers, headed by Anne Tolley, a previous spokesperson on education, who said that decile funding for low-decile schools was a waste of money. She is on the record as saying that lower-decile schools in the area she now represents—unfortunately, there are too many now, and they will never improve their decile rating under a National Government—are receiving too much money and that pouring money into them is a waste of time. That is the secret behind the bulk funding agenda of Mr Peachey as he puts up his puppet Anne Tolley to become the temporary spokesperson on education for the National Party. Bulk funding is a failure and will undermine NCEA, which is lifting the educational achievement of students in our community throughout this country.
The other thing we heard about in the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday was the move to affordable housing. Wairoa is a good example of the need for affordable housing. One can buy houses in Wairoa for under $100,000. One can buy houses in Wairoa for under $90,000. One can buy houses in Wairoa for under $70,000. One can house one’s family in Wairoa for $60,000. That is not because the houses are inferior, the town is not one of the prettiest in the country, or the opportunities for fishing, hunting, sport, and a good lifestyle do not exist, but because the low economic development of the East Coast under the National Party drove people away and there are now too many houses in Wairoa for the people seeking to buy them. Wairoa is a classic example of what the Government will achieve with its housing policy of increasing the supply of housing. Of course, we know that those people who make money out of rising house prices sit on the other side of this Chamber. The property speculators, property developers, and people who for a profession sell houses make money out of rising prices. They need a scarce house supply. They need plenty of mortgage money. They need overseas money coming into our banks to lend out to people to over-commit themselves on buying houses, in order to keep up those prices. We will put an end to that by bringing back affordable housing to New Zealand. We are doing that in innovative ways. I notice that not one of the speakers on the other side whom I have heard has dared attack the detail of the policy outlined by the Prime Minister on Tuesday—and a very good policy it is.
The other thing I will speak about on the bitter-sweet ascension of the junior whip to his present position is the way he criticises his own. In the paper this week he has been leading a campaign, along with his colleague the Hong Kong investment banker—the carpetbagger into Hastings, and MP for Tukituki, Craig Foss—criticising the chairman and board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for misappropriating money. They are claiming that, against all statutory demands and letters and instruction from the Minister of Health, the district health board, chaired by one of their own, is spending—
Chris Tremain: Authorised by your Minister.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: Yes, indeed. A document prepared and signed off by that very man. That is my whole point. The document was signed off by Kevin Atkinson, and the district health board wants to spend the proceeds from the sale of the Napier Hospital for the deficit. There should not be a deficit. The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has the same amount of funding on a population basis as all district health boards in the country. But, of course, they want to develop the private sector health, and they want to ruin public health in Hawke’s Bay. They want to breed discontent. They want people in Hawke’s Bay to feel insecure and uncertain about the health services.
If one speaks to a person who goes to the Hawke’s Bay Hospital, one learns that he or she leaves that hospital in glowing terms. The nursing staff is excitingly competent. The doctors are specialists. The services patients receive are first class. Those who travel from Napier spend just 12 minutes doing that. Where in Auckland can one travel from one extreme to the hospital in 12 minutes during peak hours? One can in Hawke’s Bay, so what do members grizzle about that for? What that man is doing is spreading the fear that that money will be used against the law to prop up a deficit run up by his cronies. [Interruption] Of course it is, because that is a document prepared by that member’s own board cronies. That is exactly right, and that is against the statute; he is exactly right on that. That is money the board should not have spent and money it will have to account for. One cannot siphon off, for deficit funding, money meant for capital expenditure. So Chris Tremain is criticising his own team—the people who back him. He is running them down for their incompetence in running a district health board. We need good administrators at our district health board in Hawke’s Bay. We need a district health board that is run by visionaries who are dedicated to public health, not those who want to make profit out of misery.
KEITH LOCKE (Green): Saturday, 2 February was a great day for Aucklanders with the opening of the much-needed North Shore busway, which is already pulling people out of their cars, providing quick journeys up and down the North Shore, and making it easier for North Shore commuters to get to Auckland City.
Inspired by this, the Prime Minister should have loosened the purse strings for other vital public transport projects in Auckland. Instead, Labour has developed a bad case of what we might call tunnel vision. It has decided to spend $2.3 billion of our money on a 4.5 kilometre stretch of motorway from Mount Roskill to Waterview, 3.2 kilometres of it through a tunnel. That is huge money, about half a million dollars for each metre of motorway.
If the Government is keen on tunnels, then it should be throwing this money at a cheaper tunnel to carry a railway line beyond the Britomart downtown terminus to Mount Eden. It is obvious that Auckland needs a downtown rail loop, like that in Sydney, to have the frequency of services required, which is why the Auckland Regional Transport Authority favours this rail tunnel project. But the Government is stuck on the mantra: “We’ve got to complete the motorway network.”
The Greens have a slightly different mantra: “Let’s complete the rail network first.” The rail network has 50 years of neglect to catch up on, and it takes people out of their cars, whereas motorways encourage people to hop into them. The downtown rail loop would be expensive, but considerably cheaper than $2.3 billion, and new over-ground rail loops do not cost nearly as much to construct. A southbound to Avondale line may cost $200-300 million, and a connection to the airport should not cost much more than that.
To get around the argument that rail projects should come first, the Government is proposing a public-private partnership to build the Mount Roskill to Waterview motorway. It is a sort of “build now, pay later” situation. But Melbourne taxpayers found that when they finally got around to paying for their public-private partnership city link motorway it was twice as expensive as a fully public funded one would have been.
One reason privately funded ventures are more expensive than publicly funded ones is that the Government can borrow money at a cheaper rate than private firms can. In a public-private partnership to build a motorway from Mount Roskill to Waterview, there is no way that the private partner will pull the required $2.3 billion out of a back pocket. That private firm will borrow the money. “Aha!” members might say. “But isn’t some of the money going to come from tolling?” The Government might project that, but a couple of years ago there was a consultation on tolling for the western ring route—of which this projected motorway is a part—and Aucklanders gave tolling an emphatic thumbs down. Tolling just is not a runner. The sort of tolling the Greens support is that which gets people out of their cars. It is often called travel demand management. We do not support tolling to raise money to build a motorway that will only put more people into cars.
The English Greens support London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s tolling around central London, which has reduced traffic volumes. But the key difference with Auckland, as it is now, is that London has an effective public transport alternative, particularly the London underground to get people in and out of the central city, and Auckland is still a long way behind. Our State spending should be helping Auckland to catch up. We want Auckland, the City of Sails, to also become the “City of Rails”.
Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill, if passed by this Parliament, will help. It will ensure that transport funding is allocated mainly to encourage alternatives to car travel rather than to build new roads. It is not just the general need for public transport in Auckland that we are worried about; it is even greater need when the global production of oil peaks but the international demand for it keeps growing, pushing the price of petrol in Auckland through the roof. It is pretty certain that petrol will be much more expensive come 2015—the projected opening date for the Mount Roskill to Waterview motorway. Throwing $2.3 billion at this project just does not make sense.
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): Water is shaping up as a major issue internationally, nationally, regionally, and locally, and last week’s state of the environment report simply reinforced that. But for many people this issue was perhaps most dramatically brought home by a series of articles and press releases this week and last week.
There was an algal bloom warning for Lake Tūtira on 13 February, from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. The district health board’s public health unit issued a health warning following the discovery of high levels of cyanobacteria in Lake Tūtira, north of Napier. Exposure to the algae and its toxins can have health effects, including severe skin rashes and stomach upsets, and it can spark hay fever and asthma attacks. The medical officer of health warned that people should not swim in the lake or pursue any recreational activities that would involve contact with the lake water.
On 14 February the Dominion Post reported that blue-green algae was still a threat in rivers, and was spreading through the Wellington region, in the Wairarapa, and Hawke’s Bay. The algae was blamed for the deaths of three dogs in the Hutt River early last month. Again, a warning was issued for people to stay away from the water.
This morning the Waikato District Health Board issued a summer cyanobacteria warning, due to the raised and rapid changes in the levels of blue-green algae. Current warnings remain in force for the Waikare, Whangapē, Kainui, Hakanoa, Waahi, and Ngaroto lakes. Users of all shallow lakes should increase their caution, says the district health board’s medical officer of health. And blooms have occurred in Canterbury and Otago.
What is noticeably lacking from these reports is any suggestion of the cause, as if it is some kind of an act of God. The view is: “We have these algal blooms. Look, it is not our fault.” Well, of course, blue-green algae has always existed in the waterways. But it blooms under conditions of excessive nutrients, and that is a very good indication of water contamination. Yes, it is true that the climate is making things worse. Drought conditions mean less water in the waterways and less flushing of nutrients, and we can expect to see many more droughts in the immediate future, and other extreme weather events, as a result of climate change.
But it is not climate that is causing the problem; the problem is the contamination of our waterways. From what? In Hawke’s Bay, at average dry water flows, 3,100 cubic metres of partially treated sewage is being pumped into the Tukituki River per day. Although the sewage is allowed to break down, it still contains contaminants. The resource consent expires in 2015, at which time the point-source discharges will be upgraded—2015! The local authorities consider it acceptable to keep using Hawke’s Bay rivers as a sewerage pipe for another 8 years.
In Wellington and the Waikato the pollution can be traced directly to pastoral farming. It is the major environmental problem of this country and of the world. It is New Zealand’s sacred cow, and we have an unquestioned drive to increase the intensification and the extent of dairy farming in this country, because it is making such good money. Meanwhile, the taxpayer is directly subsidising it through payment for its greenhouse gas emissions.
When my office contacted Environment Waikato to discuss the algal blooms, we were told that they were not uncommon and that they occurred every summer in the lakes. That is like those people who say: “I do not have a drinking problem. I get drunk, I fall over—no problem.” It is the same kind of attitude. Just because it happens every year, are we to take it that we should not be concerned about algal blooms in the Waikato lakes? We were also told that some of the shallow lakes have chronic blooms all year round, and that this is a product of being shallow. No; it is a product of being polluted. The shallowness just makes the lakes more sensitive ecosystems and, therefore, they require more protection, not less.
The problem is that we have removed the natural buffers in the ecosystems through our drive for profit and economic growth. We have taken our environment to the limit, and under climate change those buffers will be needed more than ever. We are still waiting for national water standards from this Government. We have to start to question the drive for the intensification and expansion of dairy farming all over this country, which is driving our waterways to absolute contamination and is responsible for a large proportion of our greenhouse gases. We have to start taking our environment seriously.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am very proud to stand up and make a speech on the Prime Minister’s statement. First, I point out the contrast between the speech from our Prime Minister Helen Clark and that of the Leader of the Opposition. All I can say about the speech from the Leader of the Opposition is that it is fine if we want a stand-up comedian for a Prime Minister in New Zealand, someone who can read out funny jokes that have been written by his research unit—witty little plays on words—but if it comes down to serious policy on the serious issues that New Zealand is facing, there is only one Government that can address those issues, that tackles them head-on, and that does not try to avoid them, and that is a Labour-led Government.
Above everything, really, is the economy. As Bill Clinton famously once claimed: “It’s the economy, stupid.” A Government that manages the economy effectively, that has a firm hand on the rudder, means that we are able to do many of the things that New Zealanders hold very dear. We are able to provide for our families, provide for our businesses, and provide for our communities. It is interesting that recently we have seen that New Zealanders believe that it is a Labour-led Government that is the best Government to lead New Zealand through difficult international economic times. That is because of Michael Cullen and his performance over the last 8 years. It has not been an easy 8 years financially, in terms of the economic and financial global markets. We have faced numerous challenges. We have had terrorism attacks. We have had a war in Iraq. We have had oil prices rocketing because of instability in the Middle East. We have had severe acute respiratory syndrome. We have had mad cow disease. We have had all those things. We are now going through a difficult international economic time but still we have seen the longest sustained period of economic growth since the Second World War. That does not happen by accident.
We can compare that Government with National’s, which had two recessions the last time it was in Government, because, unlike Labour, National does not believe in governing for all New Zealanders. So long as its supporters are doing OK, then that is all it cares about. Only a Labour-led Government, with Michael Cullen in the finance role providing stability in our economy, will mean that we are able to have an economy that has dividends for all New Zealanders.
There were a couple of really key areas in the Prime Minister’s speech, such as housing affordability. This Government has come out with a range of options and a range of tools. We can compare that position again with that of National, when its own leader last year said that he thought the Hobsonville development was “economic vandalism”. This week he said that he thinks it is a good idea that National can probably support. He is swaying in the wind, getting dizzy from the U-turns.
I am really proud of the major funding boost for non-governmental organisations announced by the Prime Minister this week. Recently, at the end of last year, Ruth Dyson came to Gisborne and Whakatāne and she met with a range of providers. As the new Minister for Social Development and Employment, she talked about her vision being about sustainability in that sector. She said that the sector has now been built up, and that one of the most important things for a Government to do first is to address a lot of the social issues—to put money back into the pockets of working families, to provide 20 free hours of early childhood education, and to make sure our teachers are paid properly so that people want to go into that profession. They are all things that reduce the work for the non-governmental organisation sector we rely on. They will help the people who were buying food for a large proportion of our families under a National Government. That is the first thing we have done.
The second thing is that we have now partnered with that non-governmental organisation sector. We have built it up so that it has capability. We now need to give it sustainability and to say: “Well, here you go, here is the money, and here is your long-term funding contract. You know that you have got a future. You know you can keep your staff employed.” That is what those people in Gisborne and Whakatāne wanted, and what the Prime Minister announced this week is a huge step forward in that direction. I congratulate her, and Ruth Dyson, on that.
I will also talk about the Prime Minister’s recent comments about keeping students engaged in education until the age of 18. This is a fantastic idea, and I find it astounding that unlike other countries where it is a normal expectation that students stay in the education system at least until they are 18 years of age or in training, apparently the National Party thinks that it is a bad thing to expect our students to keep engaged in the education system and in training until the age of 18. But that will allow us to keep track of those students, and to make sure they are getting all of the opportunities available to them. It is a long-term vision. It is great now to say that they could just go out and get a job and get experience on the job. Of course, there are a lot of jobs around at the moment; the labour market is very tight. But, God forbid there was ever a change of Government and we had another National Government with unemployment rocketing, as it did last time. We had a 21 percent unemployment rate in Gisborne at the end of the 1990s. Those jobs will not be there, and what will an employer say to a young person coming in to get a job? The employer will say: “Why do you only have NCEA level 1? Why did you drop out of school?”. Young people like that may find themselves missing out on a job because they did not stay engaged at that time, and because they did not have put to them the importance of education and getting those qualifications behind them.
Then we heard from the National Party that “The system just does not work for some kids, so why should they be made to go to school?”. That is not good enough. If the system does not work, we change the system. We make sure that the system fits our students, and all students—not just the white ones that the National Party represent, not just the ones who go to private schools, but all students. Labour has been doing that since we came into Government. We have introduced the Gateway scheme, which is for students who may not want to do all the academic subjects but who go out and work on the job, then come back to school and get their qualifications. We have announced that we are moving the Modern Apprenticeships scheme into schools, and Labour is committed to ensuring that our system works for all children, because their parents are taxpayers and their parents are members of our community. It is not good enough for any party in this House to stand up and say that if the system does not suit some children, then those children should leave the system. Labour says that we will change the system, and that is what we are doing.
We have had some extraordinary National Party speeches. National members keep trying to say that Labour is out of touch, and clearly that is what they have been told in caucus to say. If that is so, I want to know why they are copying all our policies, if we are so out of touch. If we are so out of touch, why are they stealing Labour Party policy and trying to claim it as their own? And it is not just that; I heard an extraordinary speech by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith earlier today. Not only was he stealing our policies, he was actually stealing Barack Obama’s campaign slogans. Lockwood Smith gave a speech about hope and inspiration, and it was extraordinary. I am thinking that maybe he is sensing that his time is up in this House and he needs to move on to something else, and that maybe instead of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, we might see an Obama—Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD ticket running in the next election, because clearly that was where he was aiming that speech.
That brings me to the issue of interest-free student loans. This is a subject that I associate very closely with Dr Lockwood Smith, because of course I studied at university in 1993 and he was the Minister of Education who brought in a lot of those reforms. The National Party has now been trying to convince students, and their parents and families, that it now supports Labour’s interest-free student loans policy. We can put aside the fact that this is probably one of Labour’s policies that National hated the most, and this is probably the policy that it attacked the most. National said that it was corrupt, that it would destroy the economy, and that students were untrustworthy and would take everything out and invest it on the international markets. Because that is what National would do, it just assumed that that would be everyone else’s priority, too. National thought it was the worst policy ever in the history of the entire world. Then we heard, a few weeks ago, that in fact it now supports that policy. It is going to keep it in place.
My comment to that is: “Yeah, right!”. We have been here before. This is history repeating itself, and as we often say: “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I remember in 1990 the National Party’s then spokesperson on education Lockwood Smith was out there on the campaign trial promising students everything, just as National is doing now. They are promising students everything. I have a little blast from the past here. I am holding a policy pledge. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD was so committed to students that he even signed a document. I will read it out: “I, Lockwood Smith MP, hereby pledge to tender my resignation as Minister of Education if National, having become the Government in 1990, has not implemented most of the party’s education policy by the beginning of the 1992 academic year.” Here is the best bit—“In particular, I pledge to tender my resignation if the $1,250 tertiary tuition fee has not been abolished by this time.” I am not sure, and maybe the House can clarify this for me, but I think that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD is still in this House. I do not think he resigned.
I think that everyone needs to look very clearly. These are the same people on that front bench who promised New Zealanders the world in 1990—promised them the world. But what did they do the minute they got into power? They stood up and said that in fact they had not looked at the Government books—and we heard this earlier from Chester Burrows—and they did not realise that in fact there was not the money to do everything they promised. They will do that again. I can guarantee we will be seeing pledges like this, and then if National does manage to win the election, on dishonest pledges, its members will stand up in the House and they will say that they thought the money was there but it is not, and they are sorry but they are breaking all their promises. It will be history repeating itself.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): It is an absolute privilege to support the next Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr John Key, in his motion of no confidence in this Government.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.