Pettis Jill: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Pettis Jill: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7444] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speake and welcome to you at the beginning of this parliamentary year. 
There have been a couple of comments made this afternoon about Waverley High School. Waverley High School is in an area which I have had the privilege of representing. Waverley High School has had problems for many years. A number of rurally based primary and secondary schools have had issues that have been avoided for too long. Although difficult decisions have to be made about the long-term educational opportunities for young people who live in the smaller towns in provincial New Zealand this Government is not afraid to make them. Difficult decisions will have to be made—and have been made since Labour has been in Government. Educational opportunities for children are the key factor in any decision that will be made. I am somewhat mortified by the sanctimonious crocodile tears from the National members this afternoon given that they failed to do anything when they had the opportunity to do so. 
At the beginning of the week we had the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament. This was a speech that was very forward-looking and was designed to set the agenda on issues of critical importance to New Zealand. The Prime Minister set out those plans and her speech let all New Zealand know what this Government wants to achieve for all New Zealanders—not just the minority. 
In contrast to the Prime Minister’s positive forward-looking inclusive and aspirational statements Mr Key said very little about National’s plans when he gave his speech on Tuesday. In fact Mr Key says very little about anything of substance at all. When the hard questions are put to him by the media—and we have free and open media in New Zealand which do ask inquiring questions—he very rarely has an answer. The question that was put to him which is of a great deal of interest to me was the one about his view on the 1981 Springbok Tour. The fact that he cannot remember what his view was in 1981 is absolutely remarkable when my children who are much younger than Mr Key but were certainly at school when the 1981 tour was on have a very clear memory of what their views were on that issue even while they were at primary school. 
Mr Key also does not have an answer for what National’s policy is on the critical issue of housing. He is assiduously avoiding responding to the question of what National is going to do about market rents. What is National going to do about its housing policy? Is it going to sell 11000 more State houses—like it did when it was in power last time? Is it going to reimpose market rents? The National members have suddenly gone very quiet over on that side of the Chamber. In fact National sold every single State house in the Wairarapa which meant that there was no Government provision of State housing in the Wairarapa at all. 
The other interesting thing about being in Parliament is that one gets to observe people very closely and not just hear them on the wireless. One gets to see the whites of their eyes so to speak. One of the fascinating things about watching Mr Key over the last 2 days is that when he is sitting next to Mr English he is smiling with his mouth; he is controlling the muscles of his mouth but he is not smiling with his eyes. That is very very revealing. Anybody can put on a forced smile with their mouth but the eyes have it. The eyes are the window into people’s souls. Mr Key knows that Mr English who is sitting right beside him is not his best friend. It reminds me of Mark Antony and Caesar. Mr Key may be trying to avoid the hard questions now but he will not be able to avoid Mr English’s ambitions forever. We all know the film  
The English Patient 
 but we do not know the patient Mr English. 
I also want to speak this afternoon about the critical issues that were referred to in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House. Those critical issues include climate change. We all know that John Key is a climate change denier. In fact he avoids talking about this issue at every available opportunity. The world is talking about climate change; I tell him to go on to Google and have a look at what the leading newspapers of the world are saying. The world is talking about climate change but Mr Key is denying it. 
One of the things that we also heard yesterday was the release of the Unicef report on child well-being in New Zealand. That report is made up of information that is not current but I still thought it was interesting to read. New Zealand has come a long way since the data the report was based on was compiled. It draws on 2001 data and we have had a Labour Government for the last 7 years and considerable progress has been made including rising incomes increased employment and fewer people who are now reliant on a benefit. 
 In fact 115000 fewer people are reliant on a benefit under a Labour Government. The Working for Families package saw $1.6 billion going to help low and middle income families. Market rents have been abolished by this Government and income-related rents of $417 million a year provided to help families. The Primary Health Care Strategy is reducing the cost of going to the doctor and prescription charges are much much lower under a Labour Government. Those people who are eligible to go to the doctor for reduced cost are now spread across a much wider age group. 
Given the release of the Unicef report I do not see how anybody cannot support the bill of Sue Bradford from the Green Party to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill is a forward-looking bill and she was very brave to introduce it. I commend her for it and I certainly support the work that she has done on it. The public mood and attitude towards the repeal of section 59 is changing quite considerably. A lot of the scare tactics that have been used by those who are opposed to it are now starting to lose any credibility. I want to give thanks to Sue Bradford for her bravery and her forward-thinking actions. I want to thank groups like Barnados EPOCH the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges Plunket Save the Children New Zealand Unicef and other kindred organisations that have done a huge amount of work on this. This bill will not criminalise loving parents. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yes it will. 
JILL PETTIS 
: It will not criminalise loving parents at all because the retention of section 59 actually provides children with less protection against assault than adults are provided with. If we really care about children then why are we saying they are entitled to fewer rights? I do not understand that. There is no logic to it at all. Supporting this bill will send a powerful anti-violence message to society and encourage social change. We have had significant social change brought about in this country by the introduction of legislation and some of that legislation was very topical. I urge this House to support Sue Bradford’s bill.