[Volume:656;Page:5907] 
First of all I will touch on the financial side of what the Minister has just said. Every morning Bill English gets up and thanks God that the previous Labour Government never followed his advice when he was in Opposition which was to spend the surplus. Mr English inherited from a Labour Government—a responsible Labour Government—a zero net Government debt situation and one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world. That is why New Zealand is weathering the recession as well as it is. It is because of the very situation that Bill English inherited. 
We have major concerns about the direction that the Budget took and about its ineffectiveness in countering the soaring levels of unemployment. In the last quarter of the household labour force survey unemployment went up at the fastest rate in 20 years—the fastest rate in 20 years—and Mr English has done nothing in the financial appropriations that will turn that situation round. We are concerned about the lack of fairness and the poor priorities in this Budget. 
We are concerned that Mr English can bring in legislation that slashes the funding for therapy for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged kids in schools. We are concerned that he can bring in legislation that kills adult education with its proud history of more than a century of delivering to the needs of continuing education although the Government somehow has the money—$35 million—to fund private education and kids who are already advantaged. 
We have concerns also that this Budget lacks any real plan to seize the opportunity that will be created by the upturn in the international economy. Ironically our economy will do better probably out of the stimulus packages of Australia and the United States than it will do out of anything that Bill English has moved through this House. We know that there will be an upturn and surely this Budget should have prepared New Zealand for that with investment in research and development and investment in skills and training so that we approach that upturn able to take advantage of it and able to improve the standard of living and the well-being of our people. 
I come back to the amendment I have moved to the motion. It is about our concern that once again this Government has refused to consult genuinely with people and to listen to what people were trying to tell it. It is no wonder that the personal relationships amongst the members of the National Government and the coalition parties came apart in the outburst from Tau Henare yesterday. His calling the leader of one of the parties that gives the Government supply and confidence a “buffoon” and a “jerk-off” underlies the frustration of people in the National Government—including I believe Georgina te Heuheu. I read her speech back in 2001 in which she supported the creation of Maori seats in the Bay of Plenty. National which was then in Opposition gave her the right to vote for that legislation but it is currently denying that right to its members. 
It is no wonder that Tau Henare was as angry as he was. He was given the job of going around the Auckland marae talking to people about the bill on Auckland City telling them that they would be listened to and telling them that the Government would take account of what they were saying to the select committee. I believe that Tau Henare did so in good faith. But the good faith was not followed by Mr Key and his Government who pulled the rug out from under the select committee said they had already made the decision on Maori seats and did not even want to hear what the select committee was considering what it might deliberate on and what it might report back to the House. 
It is no wonder that the  
New Zealand Herald  
stated that that was an abuse of the due process of democracy. New Zealanders and Aucklanders turned up to a select committee to give their submissions on what the Government might decide to do only to find out that the Government had already made the decision. The Government did not want to know about their views. Rodney Hide had promised earlier in the process that he would respect the select committee. He did no such thing. He threatened to throw his toys out of the cot and resign if there were to be Maori seats and John Key who had made it clear to Pita Sharples and Rodney Hide that he was supporting Maori seats caved in to that pressure backed down and left Tau Henare in an impossible position. 
Maori representation is not a new concept. There are seven Maori members of Parliament here and they were elected in precisely the same way that we would have Auckland councillors represented from Maori seats in Auckland. In 2001 Labour passed a bill that gave Maori people the chance to have representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The chair of Environment Bay of Plenty came out yesterday and said that that situation has worked well not only for Maori people but for all the people of the Bay of Plenty. If we get people involved get them participating and ensure their representation then we will have a strong democracy—and it is not just about the issues themselves; it is about consultation and this consultation programme was an absolute sham. 
Ngarimu Blair is the spokesman for Ngati Whatua. He called the process a masquerade a sham and a farce. For political reasons the Government had already decided what it was going to do regardless of what the public said. I have a quote here from John Key. He promised that “The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions that are made before or during the select committee process.” That statement is sheer hypocrisy and is not sustained by what the Government actually did. 
The submissions were 60 percent in favour of having Maori seats; 20 percent were opposed. Mr Key said he would listen and would not be arrogant. He did not listen and he was arrogant. The Government disregarded entirely the submissions that were made and the process through which those submissions were put forward. 
I recall that straight after the royal commission’s report John Key and Rodney Hide made a decision about where Auckland was going without any consultation at all. I recall that a bill was rammed through this Parliament—on a Saturday night under urgency—without being referred to a select committee. What did Government members tell us at the time? They said that there would be consultation and that there would be a second bill on which people could have their say. It was to be the showcase of National’s consultation on Auckland City. What did we find? We found—again—that it was a sham and a fraud on the people of Auckland. There has been much rhetoric about the select committee process but it has not been taken seriously. 
I will finish by mentioning a quote from the other major tribe in Auckland Tainui. Tuku Morgan said of Mr Key that “He says the relationship with Maori is a significant relationship. Well clearly that’s amounted to nothing.” The Maori Party went into a coalition with National on the basis of a mana-enhancing relationship. The decision by National not to have Maori seats has stripped that relationship of any mana. The decision by National is contrary to democratic process. The decision by National shows that it is utterly contemptuous of and arrogant about the right of people in Auckland to be heard on what will happen to their city.