Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

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

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

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

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

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

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

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

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

This Government is characterised by dodgy behaviour, by its capacity to continuously invent new taxes, and by empty slogans. I want to hone in on each of those three issues.

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

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

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

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this

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

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to remind those members next door—

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIM GROSER (National) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this

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

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

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

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

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

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

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

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

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

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

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

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