General Debate 
General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:5022] 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Yesterday Prime Minister John Key pulled the corned beef and peas out of the freezer together with the failed ideological policies of the 1990s and brought back Don Brash into the centre of policy making in this country. Through Don Brash’s chairing of the 2025 Taskforce we are about to see a regurgitation of the failed policies of the 1990s. John Key assured the country that this task force would have a narrow role. That was utterly contradicted yesterday by Don Brash who said that everything is on the table. When Don Brash says that everything is on the table we know that means the policies privatising the public assets of this country and privatising the services that he has trotted out for two decades. Why would we not believe that? 
It is not simply the return in isolation of Don Brash. Let us look at who else has come back. We have seen the appointment of Graham Scott a former Secretary to the Treasury under Ruth Richardson and ACT candidate as one of the so-called purchase advisers who was brought back to do a knife job on the Public Service—and alongside him Murray Horn. We have seen the Prime Minister’s close confidant Mark Weldon the head of the New Zealand Exchange talking about privatising State-owned enterprises. It is hard to conceive that he made those comments without talking to the Prime Minister about them first. Then we saw the Secretary to the Treasury John Whitehead who is a good person and was never politicised by the previous Labour Government being brought back by the National Government to do its dirty work and saying the things in public that it does not have the courage to say. 
We are seeing here a consistent agenda to bring back the failed ideologies of the 1990s. John Key has spent the last 3 years trying to convince New Zealanders in order to get elected that he is moderate not ideological and is centre of the road. But what we saw and heard on  
Q+A  
on Sunday was different from what we heard during the election campaign when privatisation was off the agenda. Mr Key got into power and suddenly he is philosophically relaxed about privatisation. 
With Don Brash there are no surprises. What you see is—mostly—what you get. Don Brash is the man who said there should be no minimum wage and that we should pay workers what they could get on the market. He is the one who said the cost of superannuation and benefits was too high and needed to be cut. He is the one who said the radical policies of the 1990s had one thing wrong with them: they did not go far enough. He is the one who said he is happy to see schools and the health service privatised. He said he did not care who owned the schools. Less candidly Dr Brash was prepared to accept secret funding from the extreme fringe group the Exclusive Brethren and lie to the public about that. 
Where does Bill English stand on privatisation? Publicly he was against it during the election campaign. But when somebody held out a tape recorder as he talked to his party hacks at a conference he said he was in favour of privatisation. So we know where Mr English is on this issue as well. 
I am proud that the previous Labour Government brought Air New Zealand back into the public sector. It is now run efficiently and profitably as a company with a majority public shareholding after the private sector had run Air New Zealand into the ground and bankrupted it. At one point I believed that the private sector would do a good job with Air New Zealand. The private sector proved me wrong. Then there was the gift from the National Government to the private sector of New Zealand Rail. National hocked it off to its personal mates and fundraisers at a price below the value of that company. They asset-stripped it and ran down its assets. We had to buy it back so that we had a decent and integrated public transport system. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Phil Goff talked of the failed policies of the 1990s. Today I want to talk more about the failed policies of the previous Labour Government when it came to early childhood education because I heard that Government crowing plenty of times about how it was increasing participation in early childhood education. All the time members of that Government talked about their 20 hours of so-called free early childhood education and about how it would increase the participation of young New Zealanders in early childhood education. As the Government coming in we inherited a situation where an area like Counties-Manukau has an average of 60 to 65 percent participation in early childhood education. 
The answer from the previous Government was for the previous Minister of Education to go out and have a look at the schools in that geographical area and at the size of their playing fields and decide that nine schools would be the places where early childhood education services would be built. There was no consultation; the previous Government just picked out the schools where there was some clear space and decided that it would happen. Well actually some of those schools did not want an early childhood centre on their land. In fact one of them was a high school and there was absolutely no relationship between it and an early childhood education centre. 
What have we done in Government? I am very proud to tell this House today what we have done. We have gone out and talked to the communities and we have asked them what they want when we start developing—as we need to—more early childhood centres. What do those communities think they need? Guess what! Lots of people have put their hands up and said they have some good ideas and that their schools want to have early childhood centres on their sites. They think it will be of benefit to their communities and they are prepared to get involved with the design and management of those centres. So now six schools in Counties-Manukau have self-identified as wanting to be suitable sites for a centre and we announced yesterday that three of them will have an early childhood centre on them. Another three decile 1 and 2 schools are being assessed for early childhood education sites. Six certified playgroups are supported to open in Counties-Manukau. 
One might ask: why a playgroup? Well some of these communities do not actually understand the benefit of early childhood education so it is a matter of building confidence in the whole— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’re beginning to sound very patronising. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is not patronising at all; this is what the communities themselves have told us. They do not want to go into a formal centre. That was the problem with the previous Government. When Labour was in Government it thought it knew best. It thought that— 
Paul Quinn 
: They would know patronising. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: They were patronising. These communities have said that if we just build a centre then the kids will not come. Those families that we really want to get to and that the evidence tells us get the most benefit from early childhood education will not come along to an early childhood centre. But they may come to a playgroup that has been organised in their local street and parents may come and participate with their children and start to get involved in their children’s ongoing education. That is what the communities have told us they want and that is what we are helping them to do. 
The communities have also said to us that they should develop some playgroups in some quite highly visible areas in shopping centres. We said that was a fantastic idea and asked how we could help them to do that. You see we on this side of the House understand as a Government that parents are an important part of early childhood education. The previous Government did not see parents as being worth anything and excluded them and any parent-led centres from funding. The previous Government cut out the parents. In fact they only— 
Hon Member 
: Caregivers. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Caregivers. We are not allowed to talk about parents. The previous Government talked about caregivers but we care about parents and kids and are listening to our communities. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Last week this country was treated to a rare moment of autochthonous wisdom. Responding to an invitation from the New Zealand Law Society the Chief Justice allowed herself some personal reflection on the criminal justice system that has developed in New Zealand over recent decades. Notwithstanding the surprisingly intemperate response of the normally balanced Minister of Justice and the characteristically unbalanced response of the erstwhile Association of Consumers and Taxpayers this country has reacted rather well to the speech made by the Chief Justice. Indeed so it should for the speech might conceivably mark a turning point in the national debate on crime and justice in this country. 
The Chief Justice’s analysis rests on facts we have come to know painfully well. New Zealand’s incarceration rate is disproportionately high. The racial skew against Maori reveals a socio-economic bias that rests on the dominance of one culture in our society. The prison rate continues to increase. In short we have a series of interrelated problems. Her thoughtful comments were clearly designed to generate some soul-searching that might enable us to turn things round. They did not deserve the spasm of repudiation that followed from the Government. 
Let us consider what the Chief Justice has invited us to reflect upon. First she notes the significant impact of introducing the victim’s voice into the sentencing process which can risk turning cool justice into hot vengeance. Victims she says must be relevant to the process but how far should we go before basic values of justice are undermined? Direct assistance to victims may be of greater help than a sense of ownership of the criminal justice process. 
Secondly the requirements of sentencing demand a balance between the safety of the community and the rehabilitation prospects of the offender. There is a positive not a negative correlation between these two considerations. The problem with incarceration is that the offender usually re-enters society so if prison damages the offender then he or she may well be more dangerous coming out than going in. Our recidivism rate is an alarming 52 percent yet research shows that those with community-based sentences experience better rehabilitation than those imprisoned. 
Even a few decades ago the Chief Justice recalls sentencing policy was largely left to the judiciary. Today there is a stronger prescriptive direction from the legislature with minimum sentences and non-parole periods. That is not to suggest that there is no place for prison in the criminal justice system rather that various reforms and initiatives in the system must be tried. We need she says to keep trying to see what works. 
To that end the Chief Justice advanced five areas for consideration. The first was greater community education. It must be recognised that prisons do not reduce crime and that the causes of crime have to be directly addressed in order to achieve that shared goal. Secondly there should perhaps be more positive support intervention strategies at crucial stages for those most at risk. Thirdly a return to more activist probation care is perhaps in order. Fourthly there should be more sensitive treatment of drug and substance abuse within our prisons. Finally there should perhaps be a managed reduction of the bloated prison population of this country consistent with the safety of the community. It was this last thought that set the hounds baying. Certainly the idea runs counter to the political blood-lust that has surged through the nation’s public veins in recent years. That is all the more reason then for an antidote a dose of reason to temper the adrenaline. 
David Garrett 
: Anyone in your family been attacked Kennedy? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Yes. 
It would dishonour this seminal speech made by the Chief Justice and risk nullifying its purpose if I were to turn it into a political item. Suffice it to say that the Green Party welcomes Dame Sian Elias’ reflections and endorses her right to advance such views in an annual lecture organised by the Law Society. We find much in common with our own criminal justice policy. But there is scope for a reasoned debate on all these issues. We call upon the Government to respond to the address made by the Chief Justice in the same constructive and thoughtful spirit in which it was advanced. 
I seek leave to table the speech given by the Chief Justice at the 2009 annual Shirley Smith Address in Wellington on Thursday 9 July. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 What a shocking week Labour has had! The Hon Phil Goff the Leader of the Opposition has struggled to get any oxygen with this good Government which is doing a great job and which is now in its seventh or eighth month since being voted in by the New Zealand public with an overwhelming majority. Phil Goff is out there thinking up hare-brained schemes that are not even costed and that he has not run past anyone to see about their feasibility and practicality—for example allowing people who unfortunately find themselves unemployed to be able to receive the unemployment benefit even if they are in a couples situation with a partner who might be a millionaire. Phil Goff the leader of the Labour Party is out there promoting that these people should be getting welfare on the New Zealand system; I think that is shocking. When Phil Goff was challenged in the media and in the New Zealand public eye about this proposal he did not know whether or not there should be a cap on it. Phil Goff has been out there proposing one thing but when challenged he has been unwinding it as well. 
In my electorate of Otaki we can see how Labour is panicking because all around Kapiti this week people have been getting jammed in their letterboxes a glossy brochure from Phil Goff saying “Give us your thoughts. We haven’t got any policy; you should tell us what we need to do.” In essence that is exactly right. Labour Party members are out in my electorate talking to my constituents and trying to get some decent ideas because Labour does not have any. I think that is absolutely shocking. Labour does not have any policy as opposed to National’s successes that are coming in on the back of the worst recession since the 1930s. Labour is not proposing anything apart from a gold-plated welfare system. 
We can think about what National has been able to do in the last 7 or 8 months since it has been in Government. It has delivered $3 billion into the health system and that is forecast over the next 4 years. We will allow 800 more health professionals in order to increase elective surgery. Just last week in my electorate we rolled out a programme to help paramedics look after people for 24 hours a day. The scheme is an extremely successful pilot that allows paramedics to treat people in their homes which is fantastic. There is $103 million to increase maternity services. The list goes on. There is $245 million for upgrading the health sector infrastructure which is a very important component of our health budget. 
We heard just before from the Minister of Education the Hon Anne Tolley that an extra $1.68 billion—the biggest investment ever—is going into education to raise achievement. We are out there talking to parents up and down the country about numeracy and literacy standards to ensure we have clear reporting through to the family kitchen table so that parents know how well their kids are doing in the classroom. Putting an extra $1.68 billion into education is absolutely fantastic. 
We will have 600 more police looking after communities to try to help make communities safer. There will be 246 more probation workers to help improve public safety. The list goes on. There is $81 million for the Fresh Start initiatives. This is a busy Government that in its seventh or eighth month has already delivered a Budget against a backdrop of pretty bad economic times given the recession we are in but the Government was able to get on and do the business for its New Zealand constituents. 
Let us think about what we will focus on in the future. Business confidence remains positive. This Government is working with businesses and with the unions as well. We have a good work stream ahead of us so that we can crack on and do some things. Let us think about what the Government will do next. We have to focus on regulatory reform. We have a huge investment in infrastructure. We have seven corridors—roads of national significance—where we will streamline the Resource Management Act and put more money into roading. We will unclog the arteries to ensure we can lift productivity capability in this country. I think that is fantastic. We have better public services. The list goes on. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 That was yet another National member who is so bereft of ideas to make our country better that he has had to survey his constituents to tell him what the answer is because he has no idea. Nathan Guy is from a party that is so worried about superannuation that John Key has had to write to every superannuitant in the country to tell them that he will find pixies at the bottom of his garden to pay for their superannuation. 
But wait! It gets better. The lightning flashes in the National Party boardroom the thunder crashes and darkness falls the tomb shudders and out comes “Dracula Don”. “Dracula Don” rises from the crypt the garlic of the lost emails wears off the crucifix of  
The Hollow Men 
 loses its power the stake of the 2005 election is thrust from his heart he crawls out of the crypt and he says the immortal word “privatisation”. It is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood transfusion service. That is what bringing Don Brash back from the political crypt is like. 
Let us consider this joke a bit more seriously. What is the politics of National’s being so desperate that it had to reach to “Dracula Don” to give it some forward motion on something even if it is back to the future? Putting Don in charge of the 2025 Taskforce is very appropriate because that is his centenary. Why not give him a century gong and call it the productivity agenda? I think it is beautiful. But of course it is part of a wider pattern. John Whitehead is the skirts for his boss the Minister of Finance saying everything that is brave and that he thinks might need doing but that Bill English is too afraid to say; an old ACT Party acolyte like Graham Scott is being paid 2000 bucks a day to sit at home and pore through the Government’s accounts because the Minister does not have the nous; and now Don Brash is rising from the grave to resurrect the 1990s which—in his words of course—were wrong because they “did not go far enough.” Now “everything is on the table”. National needs momentum and we can guess where it will find it. 
This Government was elected on a centrist ticket that many called “Labour-lite”. We found that pretty insulting but John Key at least is lite. Those members were going to be kinder gentler Tories who would not harm our benefit system— 
Brendon Burns 
: Yeah right! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —yeah right—but they are bringing Don Brash back the man who thought that education should be privatised and that there was no reason for the State to own the welfare system the hospitals or the schools. He would let the private sector do it and then tell people to sell their own houses and live in rentals because that is tax-efficient. That is the kind of out-of-touch bloke he is. 
Why has National done this? Let us look at last week. On Tuesday morning the “Mood of the Boardroom” feature had Bill English confronted by the feedback of a hundred chief executive officers. My favourite quote from one of them was in reference to the Job Summit: “Eighty per cent of the country’s GDP was represented and the best you can come up with is a cycleway.” Joke! John Key told them not to worry about that; he had a major speech on productivity coming up. On Wednesday he gave it and on Thursday Fitch Ratings downgraded us. Is that not fantastic? It was so inspiring that Matthew Hooton said on Radio New Zealand National—he is no friend of ours by the way—that there was absolutely nothing new in that speech and that it was bereft of ideas. He made Laila Harré look tame which is not an easy job. 
On the weekend the word went out from the National Party boardroom that it was time to open the crypt and bring back “Dracula”. “Dracula” has risen from the crypt and said: “Privatise it all! Enough! Doom! Doom! The Government has failed. Just turn it all over to them!”. John Key is saying that that is an idea; he can probably weave that in. But the big debate that the country is having with itself and the essence of the politics of this is that New Zealanders have not made up their minds whether John Key is shallow or deceitful. They do not know whether he really is “Labour-lite” and really is as clueless as he looks. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 What a week in politics eh—what a week in politics! It is only Wednesday afternoon and if a week is a long time in politics it has been a heck of a couple of days for Mr Goff. We started the debate today with Mr Goff talking about the failed policies of the past. Mr Goff talked about the failed policies of the past. Well he announced a policy on Monday; it is now Wednesday and his policy has already failed. What does that tell us? The failed policies of Mr Goff are shown by the 3 days that his policy has lasted so far. 
Mr Goff started the week with his grandiose plan for making welfare payments. We have just heard about a great dramatic scene that might have happened in the past but I am envisaging Sunday afternoon or early evening when Labour members are sitting there hand-wringing and going “Ooh another week of the gloom of Opposition. Another week of not being able to do things. What shall we do?”. So they plucked that plan out of the air—absolutely plucked it out of the air—and threw it to the  
New Zealand Herald.  
There was no thinking done and no consideration given to the cost. They just thought: “Let’s give this a go. Let’s see whether we can put hundreds of thousands more New Zealanders on to welfare. Let us see whether we can find people who make $80000 a year $90000 a year $100000 a year or even $200000 a year and put their husbands or wives on a benefit.” That is the grandiose plan of “Whack-it-on-the-welfare-bill” Phil Goff. That is the plan of the Labour Party. 
But let us be fair about this. The Labour members were not talking about everyone going on to welfare—or that was Tuesday’s plan anyway. By Tuesday they were saying “Maybe not the millionaires. The plan hasn’t quite gone down as well as we thought it might so let’s try to put a cap on it now.” or “Let’s change it.” or “Let’s just backtrack with regard to what we actually meant when we started it.” It is sort of like “On yer bike Phil Goff and let’s start back-pedalling as quickly as we possibly can.” because Phil Goff saw his blunder completely. Then Wednesday came along and today it is as though he would put a cap on who could actually get that welfare assistance. He talks about job search as if that is not happening. Actually New Zealanders who need job search can get access to it; that is what Work and Income is there to do. 
Then the second blunder for Mr Goff happened just today when he decided to stand up all righteous all ready. Mrs King was involved in doing this as well earlier in the week when she stood up for that constituent—the one who has you know been treated absolutely disgracefully and cannot get help—without checking the facts. I mean goodness’ knows Mrs King has been in politics long enough— 
Hon Annette King 
: Which one? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well we could name a number of constituents who might happen— 
Hon Annette King 
: Which one did I name? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I believe there was correspondence earlier in the week about a particular constituent. Let us be clear that without getting their facts right politicians who have been around this place for longer than I can remember have decided not to check their facts and they have run around advocating for people in circumstances where any decent New Zealander would turn round and find that to be quite unfair. We have come to blunder No. 2 and which day are we on? We are on Wednesday. It is Wednesday and we are already seeing back-pedalling like we have not seen before from an Opposition party that is desperate to find a voice but instead is clutching needlessly at straws and trying to turn New Zealanders into long-term welfare dependants. 
Let us be really clear that that is the message New Zealanders should be hearing from that Opposition party; it is not one that this Government is going to give them. In the worst recession ever we have a welfare system that this Government is proud to support. More than a billion dollars a year is going into welfare. It is going into those who genuinely need it and going into helping people when they need it the most. That is what National has always been about that is what we are about now and that is what we will be about in the future—genuine help for those who genuinely need it. We will step up and support those people to the hilt with over a billion dollars a year. But what does Labour want to do? It wants to pick another billion dollars out of the air. It ain’t magic beans. Labour cannot take the cow in and swap it for magic beans. It is real money and there is not another billion dollars sitting out there for us to spend. So is Labour just going to whack it on the bill and have another bit of deficit for New Zealanders? Whose taxes would Labour put up? Whose taxes does Labour want to put up in order to pay for the billion dollars more that it wants to put on the welfare bill? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me no pleasure to criticise a former member of this House. Indeed on this side of the House I think we have been very careful not to criticise many of the former members of this House who have been appointed to important positions by the new Government. I am talking about people like Roger Sowry a very able man who was appointed to the Electricity Commission. 
But I have to say that the appointment of Dr Brash to the productivity task force is in a different category. We really have to ferret under the veneer of that appointment to consider what lies underneath it. Dr Brash is an economic fundamentalist he is a zealot and he is a proven liar. It does not reflect well on the National Government if it thinks about the fact that just a small number of years ago Dr Brash had to resign having secured what was a very good election result for National. He had brought National back from the abyss of terrible polling and just about won an election for it yet he had to resign because he was caught lying. He was caught lying in the most important contest that we ever have in this country and that is when we have an election. He told lies in order to try to win Government. When that was exposed in the book  
The Hollow Men 
 he was forced to resign because it was such an embarrassment to National and he was an albatross around its neck. He did what he did then because he has always thought that the ends justify the means. 
His political career started when he became to all ostensible purposes the independent Governor of the Reserve Bank. He did a despicable thing when he was there: he politicised that office. Whilst he was Governor of the Reserve Bank he was in negotiations with the National Party to get himself an electable place on the National Party list and he corrupted that office through that action. He then did despicable things when he was leader of the National Party. This Parliament 5 years later is trying to clean up some of the problems with the foreshore and seabed. Who was the person in this House who fuelled the fires of racism in this country in respect of the foreshore and seabed? It was under the leadership— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a well-known convention about the sort of language one uses when referring to a former member of this House. 
Moana Mackey 
: No there isn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjections while I am listening to this point of order. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I have been told that on many occasions when I have erred by getting stuck into former members of this House. I have been told that not only by the previous Speaker but by the Speaker before that as well. I suggest to that member—and that you should tell him—that those who have served in this place have no recourse other than to write a letter to you and ask for their position to be put before the House. I think it behoves us to be careful what we say about former members. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No such convention offering protection to former members is recognised in the Standing Orders or the Speakers’ rulings other than what the member himself said. If former members or members of the public listening feel that something that has been said casts aspersions on them they have direct recourse to you in terms of privilege. But the member himself during the debate has been interjecting about a former member and saying that that person is a liar. The member himself has been engaging in a breach of the convention he is bringing to your attention. I think this is a robust Wednesday debate and the flow of the debate must continue. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not hear anything further on this matter. I accept the point made by the Hon Darren Hughes in that I do not believe there is a Standing Order that prevents members from attacking former members of this House. But I say that the privileges in this House should be treated with respect. I do not wish to hear ugly attacks on people who cannot defend themselves. I ask members to think carefully before they make vicious attacks on people who are not in this Chamber and are not able to defend themselves. It is perfectly within the member’s rights to do so; I just ask him to reflect on how much dignity he brings to this place by doing so. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. We have freedom of speech in this House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague; I thought he was taking a point of order. With all due respect Mr Speaker I think you have actually entered the debate of the House with your last ruling. I do not say that to challenge you in any way. You have expressed an opinion about the quality of the debate not about the nature of the Standing Orders and the procedures that govern the debate; your job is to referee on that. In your initial ruling you said that there are no Speakers’ rulings or Standing Orders that govern that and I think you did—well I think I have made my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes but I am just trying to make the point that I do not believe it does this House good to make a vicious attack on a person who is not inside the House. It is perfectly within the rights of members to do so and there is nothing wrong with robust debate at all but we should think of the way in which we do it. New Zealanders outside this House cannot defend themselves and it reflects on all of us. I accept the point that the Hon Darren Hughes has made. It is a perfectly good point and I do not wish to go any further than that other than to ask members to reflect on the fact that it reflects on all of us when we launch an attack. There is nothing wrong with an attack it is just the viciousness of it. I ask members to think about that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No more serious lie can be told in this country than a lie told during an election to win Government. That is a very proper thing to say. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a convention in this House about using the word “lie” and I ask you to reflect on that convention. To be calling people a name of that nature is uncalled for and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I note that I have freedom of speech in this House. You have ruled that what I am saying is in order. My speech which is on an important issue has been broken up and I hope that I am protected by the Speaker in my right to free speech and that this time is not being deducted from the time of my speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I absolutely assure the member that the time is not being deducted. The issue around the accusation of lying applies to members in this House and therefore I will not be asking the member to withdraw and apologise. But I repeat what I have said. The privileges we have in this House are very precious to us and we should not abuse them. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. The privileges of free speech are dearly held. I do not abuse them. I am recounting facts that are on the public record. Dr Brash lied in order to try to win the election. He politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The person the member is referring to was the leader of a political party the National Party during an election. It is my belief that David Parker has not only besmirched the name of Dr Brash but also by implication— 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s the point of order? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Well if the member would just shut up and listen— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should come to his point of order quickly. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: To explain the point of order takes a bit of time. My point of order is that by implication that member has called members of the National Party a pack of liars as well. I take offence at being by implication referred to as a liar. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I do not believe a valid point of order has been expressed to you at all Mr Speaker. One cannot take offence on behalf of somebody who is not even a member of the House. The member himself once famously referred to the United States Secretary of Labor Mr Robert Reich by using another pronunciation of that word that referred to Nazi Germany. There were several points of order about it because it was so offensive to a man of Jewish descent. Mr Henare was absolutely unrepentant about that outside the House. At question time the Prime Minister has refused to answer questions about a former member of Parliament on the basis that the former member is now a private citizen. The only point of order here concerns that fact that there is a deliberate strategy by the Government to break up a member’s speech despite you having laid claim to our freedom of speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe there is a deliberate strategy; I believe that members are concerned to hear a respected New Zealand citizen attacked in a vicious way. It is the absolute right of members to have freedom of speech in this House and I will uphold that right. But the member must be careful not to impugn the integrity of other members of the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order but it is similar to the one I raised before. In your last comment you entered the debate. You called someone a respected New Zealander and you referred to something that had been said about him as a vicious attack. You made a debating point in your ruling. I think you are entering the Wednesday debate when you speak in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. I am quite aware of what I am doing. For some months since I have been elected Speaker of this House I have been concerned about the tone of this House. The tone has improved enormously this term and I do not want to see that lost. But I will uphold the member’s right to freedom of speech in this House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I lost respect for Dr Brash when he lied to the New Zealand electorate in his attempt to win the Treasury benches. That further reinforced my view that he had politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. Further we know he is an economic fundamentalist. He does not favour the minimum wage. He wants flattened tax rates. He does not think we should have compulsory savings. He stands for many things openly and it is his right to do so but the Government should not present him as a person who will come up with new ideas to improve productivity in New Zealand as compared with Australia. He is revisiting his old agenda because he has no other. That is the point and in the context of his background—he lied to New Zealand and politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank—it is an inappropriate appointment to visit upon this country. That is why I am criticising it. It is quite within my rights to point out his actions when he was in this House when he lied to the country when he fuelled the flames around the foreshore and seabed issue and when prior to that he politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. All those acts were disgraceful. This man does not have my respect and he should not be in charge of the productivity task force. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 349 to make a personal explanation with regards to what the Hon Darren Hughes referred to in his point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I want to put on record the other bit of the story that the Hon Darren Hughes gave about Mr Reich. At that time there was great debate around the country about the pronunciation of Maori names— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s not personal. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Hang on! That member has given leave. What bugged me no end was the continued mispronunciation of my name. I think that one needs to put my comments into that context in order to read the whole issue that the Hon Darren Hughes raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When members seek leave to make personal explanations they have to be careful to make sure that they are personal. That was very much on the margins. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in respect of the comments made by the previous speaker the Hon David Parker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It must be to do with order. Is it a matter of order? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is to do with a matter of order I believe. I will stand corrected if that turns out not to be the case according to your ruling. It has been settled that the member is quite at liberty to call Don Brash a liar according to the rules of speech within this House. I ask for your ruling on this matter. I ask whether it is a matter of fairness that if anyone was to refer to the previous speaker the Hon David Parker and for instance his company return that he filed that incorrectly stated— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I urge the member to be very careful. He is introducing matter that is not a matter of order. I think I hear the gist of where the member is going with his point and I do not think that we should take this matter any further. I believe that when members risk disrespecting the freedom of speech we have in this House it can lead to disorder. That is something we should think very carefully about. But as I said I will uphold members’ rights within this House to say what they believe where they are speaking about members outside of the House. That is something that I will do but I ask members to think carefully. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call in this general debate. It is pretty pathetic that the Labour side criticises National for not having ideas yet those members are content to use all of their time in criticising someone who was in Parliament some years ago and whom we have brought in now. But what that action says is that we do not pretend we know everything unlike that party. In Labour’s 9 years in Government the members took all the knowledge from the House and paid no attention to the New Zealand public. They pretended they knew everything and ran this country as though it was their personal party and it was not. Get real; the party is over! They bequeathed to us a whole line of negativity with a long tail of underachievement. Shame on the Labour Party! As I say it is very disappointing that in all their speeches no members came forward with any ideas themselves but are very happy to criticise us. 
I tell those members that we are getting on with the job. We do not pretend to know it all. We have invited a number of people from the private sector to come in help us and support us because that is what New Zealanders would expect. They know that Governments do not have all the answers but they know that some of them have the answers. The trick in my view—actually it is not a trick but the approach is to value the knowledge and skills and experience of New Zealanders and bring those people into the equation if they have something to offer. 
The future of our country is at stake. In Labour’s 9 years in Government it squandered the good times and left us only bad times. If Labour members are of the mind to care about their fellow New Zealand citizens then they should come in with some constructive ideas. National is getting on with the job. We are looking for new ideas we have new ideas and we have announced those new ideas. New ideas have been flowing since the Job Summit. 
I want to talk in respect of the new ideas for Maori for a wee while; for instance this week there will be announcements running regarding 250 new places for training for young Maori men and women. At the end of the week my colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson will be meeting in Rotorua regarding another Treaty settlement and there will also be a housing initiative that will be announced as well. We are getting on with the job and those ideas are just in relation to Maori but they are happening across the board. Someone has to manage this country wisely during this downturn; that is what we are doing. New ideas will not come popping out all over the place. The Labour Government had 9 years and it did not have new ideas. 
As much as Labour wants to criticise us the reality is that the New Zealand public are behind us. Why are they behind us? They got sick of the 9 years of a nanny-State Government thinking that it knew everything and developing all the answers down here in the centre. It bequeathed the country one of the worst legacies ever—absolutely! The good times are the times to lay up and prepare for the bad times. The previous Labour Government did nothing about that—absolutely nothing—and now we have to fix the mess. We are getting on; we are managing the country. 
To go back to what is happening in the Maori area we have a Maori economic task force and there are work streams that fall out of that which will look to boost the participation of Maori and Pacific people in the New Zealand economy. They are a growing part of the economy. When the economy starts to lift we want to make sure that they are prepared to help lift productivity. That is what it is all about. Frankly the growth rate in the good years under the previous Labour Government was pathetic and we have inherited that. New Zealanders have inherited that. Shame on the Labour Party! 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I ask Georgina te Heuheu whether she read the report that came out recently that showed that because of the previous Government’s Working for Families package 130000 children have been lifted out of poverty. I ask that member who stood there and said the previous Government did nothing— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Whatever. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: She says “Whatever.” and walks out. That is typical. The National members sit there and whinge and moan about the fact that we are pointing out that they have appointed the Lord Voldemort of New Zealand politics to head their productivity task force. Apparently that is our fault and we should not complain about it. The reality is that we are complaining about it. 
Georgina te Heuheu said that at the last election the New Zealand public were behind National. That is a fair comment; National won the election. But let us look at the difference between what the National Government promised at the last election it would do and what it has actually done. 
Louise Upston 
: Have you seen the polls lately? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Ms Upston might do very well to just listen for 5 minutes rather than screeching across the House. Let us have a look at National’s promises. During the election campaign we had the smiling mask of John Key and the National Party with its “Labour-lite” policies. It said that it would not change much and that everything that New Zealanders love would be kept with more on top of that. That is what we had during the election campaign. Well the mask is slipping. We are seeing the hard cold right-wing free-market ideologue face behind that mask—and Maurice Williamson is smiling because to him that is a compliment. We are seeing the mask slipping and the reality of this National Government. National has already broken election promises in its first year in Government. It has used the recession as an excuse. Apparently it was the only political party in the whole world that did not see the global recession coming! National deliberately promised things it knew it could not deliver and now it blames the recession as the reason why it cannot deliver on those promises. National knew it had to make those promises to get elected. 
But it has gone a step too far in appointing Don Brash to head the productivity task force. Any credibility that National had in saying that it would be a moderate Government has gone. First Christine Rankin was appointed to the Families Commission and now Don Brash has been appointed to head the productivity task force. If National was serious about productivity it would have put together a task force right across the political spectrum. It would have engaged a whole lot of different competing ideas and had a real debate about this matter. The fact is that National does not want that. It wants Don Brash to come out and say that the best way to increase productivity is to privatise everything and to get the Government out of every aspect of people’s lives. 
The point is that if we look just in the area of research and development we see that Treasury’s own papers to the Government said that if it is serious about productivity it has to do something about private sector investment in research and development. There is no point in talking about productivity when it is doing nothing to address our appallingly low rates of private sector investment in research and development. What did this National Government do? It cancelled the research and development tax credit. We are now one of the only OECD countries that do not have tax incentives for research and development. The Minister for Research Science and Technology Dr Wayne Mapp said at the Education and Science Committee and in this House that we are not at a competitive disadvantage compared with Australia yet the Australian Government has just bolstered its tax incentives and we have got rid of ours. This Minister has his head so far in the sand that only his ankles are visible. He seriously expects New Zealanders to believe that this Government is serious about productivity. If the Government is serious about productivity it needs to bring back the tax incentives for research and development—that would be a good first step—and admit that it was wrong in getting rid of them in the first place. 
Let us look at the issue of wages. Don Brash has made a big deal about the fact that our wages are so far behind Australia’s. He thinks we need to do something about that and the answer is privatisation and less government. Do members think that Don Brash will seriously consider whether the previous National Government’s reforms in the area of industrial relations had anything to do with our wages stalling? Will he consider whether the fact that workers could not bargain or negotiate for increased wages had anything to do with the fact that our wages fell behind our Australian counterparts? Will he consider the fact that Australian workers have consistently received a much fairer share of the economic growth and any other kind of advantage in that area because they have strong unionisation and strong industrial relations protections? Do members think that Don Brash will say that that has anything to do with wages in Australia versus wages in New Zealand? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Let me guess. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Let me guess. I think Don Brash will probably say that what we need to do is get rid of protections for workers get rid of the minimum wage and absolutely crush unionism. I ask members to look at New Zealand. It is interesting that the workforce areas that have had the best pay increases have been the most strongly unionised ones. Does the Government think that is a coincidence? 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I relish the opportunity to speak for a few moments about the selective memory of those members opposite. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition went all the way back to 1990 and stopped right there. He criticised National for everything we did through the 1990s and he forgot for instance that National came into Government in 1990 finding exactly what we found coming in in 2008—that the cupboard was bare. We had to go on to take steps against that in 1991 and we get caned for it week after week and year after year by those members opposite because they do not want to remember that when they got the boot at the end of 1990 that bare and empty cupboard was their legacy to the New Zealand taxpayer. That was the way it was. 
Who was there? We know that Phil Goff—back-to-the-future Phil Goff—was there in Cabinet. We know that Annette King was there. We know that campaigning on the marvellous track record of the Labour Government of 1984-90 was Lianne Dalziel. We also know that not long after that there was the former president of the Labour Party the Hon Ruth Dyson who campaigned on the marvellous track record of the Labour Government of 1984-90. Who else was there? Who was the senior member of the Labour Party and soon to be the next president of the Labour Party? It was the Hon Maryan Street. She was there. She campaigned long and hard on the track record of the Labour Government of 1984-90. This week we heard the Prime Minister John Key remind the Hon Phil Goff of some of the excellent speeches and little turns of phrase that he used in the 1990 period. But of course that is all gone. Since then the Rt Hon Helen Clark has apologised for all that stuff at party conference after party conference so as far as they are concerned it is dead and buried. Well I say to the House that it is not so. We know the faces that were there and we know that they remain on that side of the House right through until today. 
It was very disappointing for me to hear the Hon David Parker go on and on about a former member of the House Don Brash. He referred to Don Brash as a liar and a racist on a number of occasions in the course of that pitiful speech and a number of points of order were taken on it. The irony of the rules of the peculiar and foreign environment that is the debating chamber is this: the Hon David Parker—the aptly named Hon David Parker because he is an honourable member—can talk about Don Brash in that way and call him a liar and a racist yet anyone who could have a little bit of a sense of history could go back to a time when the Attorney-General was a guy called the Hon David Parker and the Minister of Justice was a man called the Hon David Parker. A certain little incident— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s wrong. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I stand corrected. At least the honourable member was the Attorney-General at a time when it was discovered that he had filled in company returns on five separate occasions a number of them while he was a member of this honourable House that referred to dates when company meetings were held which were not in fact held. The defence was of course—it was released in the public domain—that he had a letter exculpating him from actually having to do that. He held it up and said that as he did not have to do it he was not wrong. That was the finding of the inquiry that looked into it. But it does not take away from the fact that company returns were filed that had dates when company meetings were held which were not held. I can outline that to the House but I am not allowed to draw it in and accuse him of being any of those names that he decided to call the former member Don Brash. 
Don Brash was also accused by the Hon David Parker as being racist but Mr Parker forgot for one moment a little catchphrase of the previous Labour leader the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She talked about “haters and wreckers”. These were members of her constituency. These were members who came as is their democratic right to this House to talk about something that had been shafted to them—that is the previous Government’s decision to go past a Court of Appeal decision within the Westminster judicial system to go to the court to seek a decision. And the Labour Government got up and changed the law. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Just about a week has gone by since the Chief Justice made suggestions to the executive—the members on my left—on what it might wish to consider with regard to penal policy. Two issues have been raised following the Chief Justice’s statements. The first issue is the constitutional issue which has been relatively well canvassed. The second issue is the call from a number of people to address the points that she raised. 
I will not spend much time on the constitutional issue as it has been discussed at some length except to say that there are ways and means for the Chief Justice—or indeed any judge—to communicate her views to the executive. She can have a quiet word in the ear of the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice. She well knows the convention in that regard. I have personal views as I am sure does every member of the House on what should properly happen to the odious Mr Weatherston found guilty of murder today. But I will not give my opinion here in the House because that would be an improper interference in the role of the judiciary. I will say no more than that. 
I wish to spend my time doing what commentators have suggested so I will talk about the issues raised by the Chief Justice. She and members of the liberal commentariat have taken as a starting place the supposed axiom that imprisonment does not work. I wish to examine that a bit. Imprisonment has no effect on crime—that I think is what Dame Sian said. Data from US states since 1994 tell us a very different story. The United States because of its federal system and there being 50 different legal systems in 50 different political regimes gives us an opportunity to compare various strategies in anything and in respect of penal policy a wide range of strategies have been followed across the United States in the past 15 years. 
I digress for just a second to note with some sadness that members of the Law Society presenting a submission to the Law and Order Committee on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill seemed unaware that New York state does not have a “three strikes” law. The submitter referred to New York state as having had some early apparently positive effects from a “three strikes” law. New York state is not one of the “three strikes” states. It has followed a more punitive course at the front end of offending. New York is the home of what has become known as zero tolerance or the “fixing broken windows” policy. It has also what is known in the US as sentence enhancement measures of which “three strikes” is the most well known but it is not primarily a sentence enhancement state. 
California of 26 US states introduced “three strikes” laws in 1994 and the result has been dramatic. In that time homicide and robbery rates have reduced in that state by 50 percent and the incidence of house burglary has reduced by 60 percent. At the same time the population of the state has increased some 25 percent. My calculations show that a 50 percent reduction in offending numbers coupled with a 25 percent increase in population equates to a 62.5 percent decrease in homicide. That is absolutely massive; it is absolutely massive. 
It has been very interesting during the progress of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill thus far to see the same hysterical exaggerations thrown about in this country with regard to supposed doubling or tripling of prison numbers and huge increases in costs. I say it has been interesting because exactly the same thing happened in California. There were predictions of a tripling of the prison population and costs of $100 million extra. What has occurred in reality is a 20 percent-ish increase in the early days and it is now about 5 percent greater. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 The last 3 days of mistakes miscues muddling and mugwumpery by the honourable Leader of the Opposition suggest that he runs the risk of becoming known as “Phil Gaffe” rather than Phil Goff. But I prefer to celebrate National’s success— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know the member is fond of clichés but he cannot refer to a member in this House by anything other than his or her name and I think he should get off to a good start in that regard. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member. The member is correct. Members should address members respectfully by their proper and correct name. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Thank you for the correction. I prefer to celebrate National’s success rather than to dwell on the dismal spectre of continuing Labour failure. 
The National-led Government is actively working on many fronts to improve the lot of all New Zealanders. This is of course in the face of the most challenging economic times since the Great Depression. As I have mentioned before as well as a fiscal crisis we have a crisis of confidence and globally no one knows how deep the hole is. John Key’s National-led Government is principled and pragmatic and committed to cushioning New Zealand from the worst effects of the financial turmoil. Not only are we facing a current world economic downturn as we all know we are also having to cope with the ravages of 9 long years of supervised neglect by the last Labour Government. 
The scars of this neglect were all too easy to see in South Auckland when I had the privilege to campaign there last year. The people of the colourful vibrant and diverse Manurewa and Manukau communities are hard-working and ambitious for themselves and their children. Their communities’ concerns were clear. Many houses have screen doors with multiple locks. Behind this is the main door often with two or three locks also. I remember when we were at a public meeting to discuss the issue of law and order and there was an armed robbery a mere 500 yards down the road. 
On a more pleasant note I visited many early childhood education facilities. All of the ones I visited were doing an excellent job of nurturing and stimulating the young minds of the children they had charge of. Significantly all the centres had a large waiting list. 
Let us look at what has happened in the first 8 months of this principled inclusive National-led Government. One of the Government’s top educational priorities is ensuring that every child can take part in high-quality early childhood education. New Zealand’s early childhood participation rates are high overall by international standards but some groups particularly Maori and Pacific Island communities and those from low socio-economic backgrounds have very low participation rates. 
We have announced three new early childhood education centres in Manukau and these will be in the Manurewa area in Weymouth Primary School and Homai Primary School and in the Papakura area in Mansell Senior School. All three will be funded through the education ministry’s Counties Manukau Participation Project targeting areas with a traditionally low uptake of early childhood education. This Counties Manukau Participation Project brings communities and local and central government together to find solutions. 
Increasing participation is not just about the number of vacancies available. It is also about providing the services that particular communities want and that suit those communities. It is about encouraging families and whanau to use those services. These new services that the Minister of Education alluded to earlier will be placed in the schools that have asked for them. The Ministry of Education will be working with boards of trustees to develop the sites. We expect the work to start in the next 3 months and more are on the books. 
We believe that it is a fundamental duty of the Government to protect. A society is judged by how we treat our most vulnerable as I mentioned before. In the Manukau and Manurewa communities many are vulnerable—too many in fact. Too many residents have suffered the consequences of violent crime. More police and more effective policing is just part of the solution but it is a part of the solution. National is keeping yet another election promise. The National Government has committed to increasing the number of police in the Counties-Manukau area by 300 front-line officers by the end of 2010. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How many? 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: It is 300 and a further 300 for the rest of the country by the end of 2011. Already 64 of the 300 extra Counties-Manukau officers have been recruited and deployed. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.