Volume 615 Week 47 - Wednesday 11 February 2004 
Volume 615 Week 47 - Wednesday 11 February 2004 
[Volume:615;Page:10861] 
Wednesday 11 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Malaysia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Datuk Dr Jamaluddin bin Jarjis Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Malaysia accompanied by the Minister of Consumer Affairs is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Hon Datuk Dr Jamaluddin bin Jarjis accompanied by the Minister of Consumer Affairs entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Responses 
Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 161 to 163 on the application of Mr T R Harrison BEM JP relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on 26 August 2003. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Personal Explanations 
Prime Minister's Statement—UnparliamentaryLanguage 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 During the course of the debate following the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday afternoon I raised a series of points of order with the Speaker at the time and in so doing I consider that I used language that was unparliamentary and put the Speaker in a position that I would consider to be somewhat invidious and unacceptable. I have apologised to the Hon John Tamihere who was speaking in the debate at the time and I now apologise to the House for any poor reflection that that comment and the raising of that question may have brought on other members of Parliament. I have apologised to my own caucus. I wish to assure the House that in no way does the questioning line that I pursued yesterday indicate my usual intent on those matters. It is out of character for me to resort to that sort of behaviour. Once again I sincerely apologise particularly to the Maori members of the House who could easily be in a position of taking offence and indeed to all members on whom that matter could reflect poorly. 
Questions to Ministers 
Health Services—International Comparisons 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has she received any reports comparing New Zealand’s health system internationally? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The Commonwealth Fund the philanthropic independent research organisation based in the United States has just released its latest report which compares patient satisfaction with the quality of health care in Australia Canada New Zealand the United Kingdom and the United States. New Zealand came out top overall. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports comparing New Zealand’s health system internationally? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. Despite the obvious pride the rest of the country rightly takes in our health system—particularly patients—the Opposition persists in referring to our health system as a Third World system. If New Zealand is part of the Third World what does that make the four countries—Australia the UK the United States and Canada—that were rated below us overall? 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why does she take credit for the fact that we scored first out of five countries on patient-centredness and access to general practitioners—scores totally due to our dedicated New Zealand doctors—but fails to tell New Zealand that we were fourth in long waits for hospital admissions third and fourth on equity scores and fifth on the wrong medications being given in the last 2 years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will table the report when I am finished. I tell the member that on timeliness—the waiting time—New Zealand came out first. We came out first in patient-centredness and we came out second on safety efficiency effectiveness and equity. Although the member may not like it the New Zealand health system is doing well because—yes—we do have good doctors nurses and health providers. New Zealanders like the system that we have. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister tell us whether this is the same report that states that 75 percent of our hospitals have insufficient funding to maintain current levels of service; if so will the Minister outline how she plans to address that shortfall? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No there is no such report. This report is one that is carried out each year. It first started in 1998. I vividly recall the 1999 report in which New Zealanders rated the health system we had at that time as the worst of the five countries. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given that the report highlights the high quality of New Zealand medical staff is she concerned that Medical Council of New Zealand data shows that only 58 percent of New Zealand medical graduates are still practising in New Zealand 3 years after graduation and will she be talking to the Minister of Education about reducing the burden of student loans and how to address this particular problem; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have already spoken to my colleague about reducing student loans and we have a number of very innovative things happening in terms of district health boards helping students to reduce their loans. But perhaps the member would be interested to know that the latest Medical Council figures of the number of doctors in New Zealand show that 391 more doctors are practising than were practising the year before. 
Judy Turner 
: With reference to the primary question does the Minister agree that recent Clinical Training Agency figures indicate that New Zealand is significantly short of World Health Organization standards for numbers of practising psychiatrists with a deficit of 118 psychiatrists for the general population and 55 child and adolescent specialists highlighting a gaping hole in New Zealand’s psychiatric services and this leaves open the potential for the system to fail more clients like it has failed Mark Burton Lachlan Jones and Lesley Parr in recent years; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealand like most countries in the world does not have enough psychiatrists. This has been acknowledged by the Mental Health Commission for a number of years. The member may know that this year we increased the number of medical students by 40 and we are targeting them towards mental health and general practitioner services because we recognise that more psychiatrists are needed. Unfortunately we needed to start some time ago; they take 15 years to train. 
Barbara Stewart 
: I seek leave to table the two pages of the 2003 Commonwealth Fund international health policy survey measuring the current financial situation of the hospitals. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister wish to table something? 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table the report. [ 
Interruption 
] I am happy to oblige Mr Prebble. In fact I will deliver one to him. I am happy to table the report. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Leader of the Opposition—Orewa Speech 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will the Prime Minister now reconsider her reported claim that Dr Don Brash’s Orewa speech was “divisive” following last night’s record  
Holmes 
 show poll showing that 90 percent of responding viewers agree with Dr Don Brash and will she now concede that one law for all is a policy that unites the country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 “Divisive” is the mildest way of describing a desperate campaign by a beleaguered party. The Government will get on with meeting the needs of the needy in ways that get the best results for New Zealand within the law of the land. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House why she is telling 90 percent of all New Zealanders that they are wrong to oppose race-based law and they are wrong—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the only warning I am giving today. There will be no comments during the asking of questions. Every member has a right to ask a question in silence and that is the only time I am warning. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House why she is telling 90 percent of New Zealanders that they are wrong to oppose race-based law and they are wrong to be concerned about Labour’s never-ending treaty grievance industry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree with the close to 100 percent of New Zealanders who do not want our country divided and want equality. The ones who do not make up the 100 percent are sitting opposite. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Prime Minister admit to the House and to all New Zealanders that her Government is creating a racially divided nation with two sets of laws and two standards of citizenship or is she telling 90 percent of New Zealanders that they are wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would no more agree with that than previous National Prime Ministers would have agreed that that was the effect of the 28 statutes in which they inserted reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Reserve Bank scholarship scheme for Maori and Pacific Islanders introduced by the last Governor was a need-based scheme or a race-based scheme and will she advise the House whether that scheme was an initiative of the Reserve Bank or a demand by the then National Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that the Governor at the time felt there was a need to endeavour to increase the numbers of Maori and Pacific peoples coming into the bank. That is the sort of thing he said when he was in a position of authority not when he is in Opposition. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given that New Zealand has had race-based legislation for most of its history that has denied Maori the same level of entitlements as other New Zealanders across a range of health education and particularly welfare services does she agree that that has contributed to the unequal situation in which most Maori now find themselves and that basic fairness requires policies to overcome that disadvantage? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think we could find examples of specific statutory discrimination against Maori up until the 1950s. I think the inequalities that Maori experience in the land of their birth arise more from unsuccessful attempts to make one size fit all. To the credit of Governments of both shades over the last 20 to 30 years there has been an effort to meet needs in ways that will actually succeed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to her answer to Mr Brown’s question can the Prime Minister confirm that the former Governor of the Reserve Bank not only set up the scholarships but after evaluating them for their success doubled the number? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister does not have any responsibility for that particular question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Prime Minister in addition to the 28 pieces of legislation the National Party passed in this respect— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Supported by New Zealand First. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No and the member knows it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber please. I have warned members. I am not having any further interjections. Questions are to be asked in silence. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Prime Minister in addition to the 28 pieces of legislation— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to register with you the National Opposition’s real disappointment at your decision to ask one of our members to leave the Chamber. The reality is that Mr Peters started his question of the Government by attacking another Opposition party and the Government is going to then have an opportunity to stand up and for some minutes sway in on that particular answer. It is not for me to suggest that there is current collusion between Mr Peters and the Labour Party but it sure looks like that and it certainly looks worse when one of our members giving a pretty simple sort of interjection and comment that might in the normal course be perfectly acceptable ends up being slung out of the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You will recall that I began by asking the Prime Minister about her reference to the 28 pieces of legislation that the National Party passed in this respect. That is as far as I got. It is drawing a very long bow to try to pretend—which no one believes—that I am in conclusion with of all people the Labour Party. It is inexcusable for Mr Brownlee to be a soothsayer and try to predict what I was going to say next. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say in relation to that is that I have made my decision and I announced it very clearly to members. I suppose the first person is unlucky but there was a very specific interjection and it interrupted the member in the flow of his question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you are establishing order in this new session of the Parliament around question time I wonder whether you could explain to the House how the question by the Hon Trevor Mallard to the Prime Minister was out of order because the Prime Minister had no responsibility for the question yet you allowed the question from Mr Peter Brown on exactly the same issue for which the Prime Minister had no responsibility either. Obviously we do need consistency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course we do and I listened to Mr Mallard’s question which was not in order and I did not allow it. When I heard Mr Peter Brown’s question I thought it was in order. I will have a look at the  
Hansard.  
If I am wrong I will come back to members. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to particularly get into a tit for tat with the right honourable gentleman but I have actually told the House that I did object when those matters arose. It is true that I had to go through the lobby which is the requirement of the Labour Party but if we are going to do that then that honourable member ought to record to the House that he has voted four times in the last 3 years for bills that contain principles of the treaty. It is the ACT party that has a 100 percent record on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point but it is not a real point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question: why is this Government persisting with policies based on race not need and persisting with a never-ending treaty grievance industry when 90 percent of New Zealanders do not support her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government happens to agree with the sentiment that “the treaty that was unique in the history of the world—a treaty between two peoples agreeing to share a nation—was signed in 1840.” Those were the words of the honourable member in his maiden speech some time ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will now ask the Prime Minister to come to the actual question that was asked. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: To the extent that I recall the question there is one law of the land. The question is— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can repeat the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Thank you I cannot have the Prime Minister refusing to answer because she does not remember the question. Will the Prime Minister now answer the question: why does this Government persist with race-based law rather than policies based on need and a never-ending treaty grievance industry when 90 percent of the nation does not agree with her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is one law of the land and the question is how within that law we respond to the needs of different communities and regions in a way that will work. I agree with the honourable member when he said back in his maiden speech implicit in that treaty is an acknowledgment of the equality of the two peoples. We want equality we want unity we accept that there are needs that have to be met in a way that will succeed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: If my maiden speech is now being used as the basis for Government policy I seek leave to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I had thought of seeking that leave myself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. 
Schools—Closures 
3.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why is he closing or proposing to close dozens of schools up and down the country despite strong community opposition to those closures? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I suggest that the member consults members who have been involved in the reviews—in attending meetings or making submissions—including Messrs English Power Carter Peck Peters Sutton Duynhoven and O’Connor and Jill Pettis. She may then be better informed. In being better informed she will know that this Government wants to ensure that all our children have access to strong sustainable quality schools into the future. We have had a substantial drop in population in some areas and it is projected to continue in those areas and in some others. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why does the Minister expect that families will now choose to move to Southland to contribute to the significant population growth and economic boom in that area when there are now significantly fewer schools for the children of those families to attend due to his school closure campaign? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In Invercargill there are 3500 spare spaces in schools. There is one school where the student numbers have dropped by 340 in 2 years. Invercargill agrees that it needs change; it is just a matter of what change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been asked by Television New Zealand—to help contribute to the sound feed—to ask members to please remember to turn the microphone towards them when they speak as we lose the audio on the broadcast when they do not. That information has just been handed to me. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was thinking of writing a letter about this matter as it would also help if the sound technicians realised that it is parliamentary for members to speak towards the Speaker. Yesterday I noticed that they were switching on microphones that were facing the other way. It would be very unparliamentary for a member to speak like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a new system and there are a few teething troubles although it is a much better system. I appreciate receiving comments such as that. People can contact me afterwards and I will make sure that those sorts of comments are followed up immediately. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister decide that the merged school comprising Grantlea Seadown Washdyke and Marchwiel schools should go on the Marchwiel site rather than the Grantlea site as recommended by officials; and can he confirm the widespread rumour in Timaru that it is because the principal of Marchwiel School and his wife are Labour Party activists? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is there because I consider it to be the most logical place. I was not aware until informed by the  
Timaru Herald 
 of the activities of the principal and his wife. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has the Minister had any suggestions for alternative methods of identifying schools for review? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have seen two newspaper articles that suggest that reviews should be done on a different basis. They suggest that all 126 one-teacher schools should be subject to review all 129 schools that receive an Education Review Office supplementary review should be subject to review and over 400 schools with more than 30 percent of spare capacity should be subject to review. I will not adopt Bill English’s policy. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why did the Minister ignore the call by Ngati Hine for a school that they could call their own and instead lump them in with Ngapuhi in his recent decisions on schooling in the mid-north; and how does this decision honour the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that I looked at the needs of the young people. In fact the majority of children at the kura—Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Taumarere I think from memory—are Ngati Hine children. Therefore if the parents of Ngati Hine want to get in behind that school—they want to make some changes that I think most people who know about the school know are necessary—then it is up to them. 
Rod Donald 
: Why is the Minister planning to drastically reduce the choices available to parents for their children’s education by closing for example Watlington Intermediate the only intermediate school in Timaru or Salisbury primary a rural school south of Timaru or for that matter Grantlea or the Ngati Hine school in the north and will he heed the petition tabled today from the Mayor of Invercargill and over 7000 citizens of that city calling for a halt to his network review programme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will not run through all the cases. There was a clear call from people in Timaru for full primary schools—a call that I heeded. On the question of the mayor’s call for a delay in the review process it is my view that there is enough stress in Invercargill now and that we are better to come to decisions and have good schools there from the beginning of next year rather than to stretch out the agony and have more and more poor Education Review Office reports and have schools that have drops of 340 over 2 years the way that that member seems to want things to continue. He just does not care about kids. 
Mike Ward 
: Why did the Minister not consult with the Minister of Transport the Minister of Health and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development before embarking on the network review process that is likely to impact on their portfolio responsibilities? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I look very carefully at transport issues as part of this exercise. I think it is fair to say that the Minister of Transport the Minister in charge of school buses and I have had a very good look at that. It is likely that the dog’s breakfast that is the school transport system in many areas will be improved as a result of these changes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given the Minister’s avid interest in school transport can he identify for this House how many walking school buses will now be cancelled because children live too far from their nearest school to walk and how that accords with the Government’s own transport and energy strategies? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Very easily—none. 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take strong personal offence to the Minister’s claim that I do not care about kids and I would like to ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister made that comment. I cannot hear every single comment that is made and we have to consider comments in their context. I did not find that comment other than a debating comment and I really think that we have to allow some cut and thrust in debate in this House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually considered raising that matter myself under Standing Order 370 at the time that the comment was made but I took it that the member did not object. In terms of the Standing Order a member is not to include discreditable references. To say that someone “does not care about kids” is abuse. It does not meet the requirements of Standing Order 370 which states that replies have to be concise and confined to the subject matter. I think perhaps the member is out of order in a different matter in that he should have raised that earlier. But I would not like you to tell Mr Mallard at this early stage of this year that he can end all his questions with a piece of abuse. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It would probably help if I did withdraw. We may get some peace out of that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister for doing that because I was going to rule in that way in favour of the member. I think Mr Prebble’s comment was sensible. 
Seabed and Foreshore—Customary Rights 
4.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her statement that the Government’s policy proposal for the foreshore and seabed was about “acting in the best interests of all New Zealanders” with the statement made by the Solicitor-General at a Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the policy that it “does accord real rights to those who hold customary titles and customary rights. They are not with respect simply in the position of any other person.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Easily. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely you are not going to accept that answer from the Prime Minister as being consistent with the public good. It leads us to believe there are some aspects of the answer that she does not want to give the House. Although you cannot direct how a question is answered you do frequently ask Ministers to return to the subject of the question or perhaps to elaborate when the House has not had as satisfactory an answer as possible. A one-word answer to a question relating to a very significant Government policy does seem somewhat trite. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to quote Speaker’s ruling 145/4: “If some information can be given in addition to the bare facts asked for in a question information which would supplement the reason for the answer giving such information would comply with the spirit of question time.” I think the Prime Minister should add a little to her answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said “easily” because it is in the best interests of all New Zealanders to preserve both the general public’s right of access to and enjoyment of these areas and the State’s sovereign right to regulate with the recognition of Maori ancestral connection and legitimate customary rights. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week that there was no difference between the Solicitor-General’s statement to the tribunal and her own position does she agree with the Solicitor-General’s statement that the proposed policy gives power to customary rights holders including in some circumstances a veto over the proposed activities of others; if so how is that in the best interests of all New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member represents a party that puts a lot of store on property rights. A customary right is a property right and is expected to be respected. It may be in the member’s interest to blur the distinction being made between customary title which gives rights of participation and customary rights which are property rights. I think it is important that the two are clearly distinguished here and now. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr Brash that Maori should be treated just as any other person is or does she accept that the treaty accords tangata whenua a right to be involved in decisions about their ancestral land? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document for New Zealand and that it is a symbol of unity trust and partnership between Maori and the Crown—so did the National Government in 1996 when it put it on the Government website. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports from Dr Brash or any other National Party person seeking to abolish the Maori Land Court a court that follows different laws from those for the rest of our country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question could be answered in relation to the Maori Land Court as she could be responsible in that area. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I have not received any such request from that particular member which only suggests as I think the question implies that his campaign is somewhat selective. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does a view that Maori are not “simply in the position of any other person” before the law in relation to seashore explain her view expressed on Radio New Zealand on 2 February that “any attempt to end the Maori Television Service would land the Government back in court” and are there any other areas where she thinks the judges can overturn laws passed by the elected representatives of the people? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member may not be aware that there is a long history of legal action and court decisions that preceded attempts by this Government and the previous Government to establish Maori television. The previous Government attempted in good faith to do it earlier in the 1990s. That ran into trouble and on the eve of the election in 1999 it made another offer and in fact signed a binding contract. This Government came into office with essentially that binding contract to proceed with Maori television over its head. But what preceded all of that were court decisions stating that the language of Maori was a taonga and that the Government had a duty to promote it and through the medium of broadcasting. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister made no attempt to answer the question. The question was very simple: are there any other areas of law where she believes that unelected judges can overturn law passed by the elected representatives of the people? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I think the Prime Minister did address the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the event that the Government does not secure a parliamentary majority for its proposals on the foreshore and seabed issue is it not a fact that the status quo that will be returned to is not one where as she said in her original answer a reasonable balance is struck between the interests of various New Zealanders but the position that was arrived at last June or July where the Maori Land Court will be able to entertain applications for exclusive title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That has been precisely the Government’s concern from the outset. Were the Maori Land Court to find that an area was to have the status of customary land that is exclusive possession and that is what we cannot agree to over these areas. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the law under which customary rights exist is the common law that we are all equally subject to that common law and that it derives from English legal tradition? 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question is objectionable because it calls for a legal opinion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It could conceivably call for a legal opinion but I will allow the Prime Minister to comment on it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is certainly my understanding that it is exactly the English common law that we are talking about here. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the Solicitor-General’s statement that “The customary right holders interests become paramount.” when existing resource consents come to an end and in the light of that statement what advice does she give to the holders of existing consents that become subject to a claim for customary right or customary title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member endeavours to obscure and blur the two concepts again. Customary title is a recognition of ancestral connection which then obliges planning authorities to ensure that those with that ancestral connection can participate effectively in processes. A customary right annotated on a title is a property right which will be respected. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If a person is of half-Maori and half-Scots or half-European extraction which part will hold the customary right and which part will observe it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I imagine I can infer that the member is talking about himself but he comes from a proud people in Northland the Ngati Wai who have continued to live in that area for many hundreds of years where they may have continued to exercise a customary right. They may well wish to go through the procedures established through the Government’s statutory framework for these areas to have that right recognised and that would be a right that would then be upheld. 
Murray Smith 
: Given the Prime Minister’s last answer does the Prime Minister agree that the Solicitor-General’s statement does not mean that individual Maori New Zealanders will receive special rights from the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposals but rather that Maori communities particularly hapu that have historical connections to part of New Zealand’s coastline will have those recognised and that to state that individual Maori New Zealanders will somehow have more rights than the rest of us is disingenuous and plainly divisive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes. I agree with that judgment entirely. It is not about individuals. It is about groups of people. It is about communities who over many hundreds of years had a connection with these places and in some places and in some cases have continued to exercise a customary right to this day. 
Prisons—Management 
5.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Is he satisfied with the management of State prisons; if so why? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
Generally yes. As I have said before the department’s primary job is to keep the public safe and it has consistently performed well when compared with other countries. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Minister have confidence in the State management of prisons when at least three of such prisons report that one-third of their inmates tested positive for drugs with department officials having conceded that preventing such drugs from getting into prisons was unlikely; and in light of such poor management why will he not reconsider allowing privately run prisons which have a much better management record to continue operating here? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are a lot of debatable points in there but can I talk about the drug issue first. The member will recognise that drugs in prisons is a difficult issue. That is true of all prisons around the world. I have visited all the prisons and what I do know is that for example drugs can be taken into prison in tennis balls across the fence and can be carried in in babies’ nappies. I know that in one case the drug P was carried in under the fingernails of a partner yet at the same time the department has made extraordinarily good efforts to try to bring the numbers down. The figures the member reports are 2002-03 figures. The latest figures I have show that in the last 6 months the average across the country was about 18 percent. In Wellington over the three prisons it has dropped from about 18 percent down to 10 percent. This is an enormously difficult area and it cannot be resolved overnight but the Department of Corrections is doing enormously good work to try to bring the figure down. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Further to the primary question could the Minister comment on how New Zealand’s prisons compare internationally? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Very well indeed. The total inmate cost per day for example is lower than in Australia England Wales and Canada. We fare very favourably on measures such as the staff to inmate ratio and the department’s integrated offender management system is considered to be a world leader. 
Richard Worth 
: In the context of prison management why is the Government opposed to private prisons given the stunning success of the private remand prison in Mount Eden—stunning in terms of the department’s audits on prisoner activities assaults positive drug tests justified complaints escapes; just name the measure? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There is a range of measures. One of the things often quoted is that it is cheaper with remand inmates. That is not the case when we compare— 
Brian Connell 
: It is the case. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is not the case when we compare remand inmates in State prisons and remand inmates in the private prison. The basic reason in answer to the member’s question is that we consider incarcerating people—putting people in prison taking away their liberty—is the role of the State. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not know that the reason he is now receiving such wonderful news of a drop in positive drug-testing is that his corrupt Department of Corrections management is instructing people to randomly sample selectively in order to make sure that the numbers of positive tests are driven down and that the Minister and his Government have good figures and good news for the country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is one word in that question that I cannot allow and it is the word “corrupt”. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw the word “corrupt” and leave in the rest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. The rest of the question can be answered. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start I take great offence at the claim the member has made and put out in a press statement. What I will say though is that if that member has evidence he should bring it forward. The member is known for this of course. He claimed last year that Chubb prison guards had been bashed by a person on home detention and taken to hospital. That is absolutely not true. He claimed that Ukrainian farm workers were involved in a scam in Canterbury. That is simply not true. That member cries wolf all the time. He never has any information. He goes for the headline. He had better front up with some information before he loses all credibility in this House. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to rebalance if I may. My accusations about an inmate dying from a P overdose while on home detention were true. The questions I raised about the Ukrainians were true. The questions I have raised about the “goon squad” were true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is debating material. It is not a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a different matter. Could someone indicate to the technicians that they have turned the knob and we are being blasted out by the sound system? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes we are. It is our second day. We are trying to get this right. Please be patient. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table written material published by the media demonstrating the aversion of the Minister to the “goon squad” inquiry and his final acceptance after pressure from Ron Mark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek some guidance from you. Is making a personal statement in this House my only recourse in respect of those incorrect statements? Is that the way I have to do it? If so I seek the leave of the House to make a personal statement right now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is the Prime Minister’s statement which we will debate very shortly and there is the general debate coming up. I am sure those answers can be given in debate. If the member wants to make a personal explanation he can ask for leave to do so. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: About? 
Ron Mark 
: To counter the allegations levelled right then by the Minister of Corrections about my misleading the House or making incorrect statements. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is where we get into some difficulty with personal explanations. This is not properly speaking a matter for personal explanation. It is really a matter for debate. If we are to allow that kind of personal explanation then we will simply have a whole series of debates occurring under the guise of personal explanations. We reached that stage at one point in the past. I do not think we want to get back into it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that leave has been sought which the member is entitled to do. It is up to the House whether to grant it. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of yesterday’s report—that a third of prisoners at Rimutaka Prison tested positive for drugs—would the Minister tell the House what level of positive drug-test is he prepared to accept; if it is not a zero tolerance to drugs why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start the figures the member is quoting are from the financial year 2002-03 and the latest figure I have for the last 6 months for the Wellington region is 10 percent. I just want to put that matter straight. Of course we would like to see no drugs in prison. The reality is that it is a problem all around the world. We are doing our very best to try to bring the numbers down. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister in any way surprised at reports of State prison mismanagement of servicing given that the Department of Corrections reports that it has not received a funding increase since the mid-1990s despite a 30 percent increase in prison population size; and why has this Government done nothing about that for 5 years? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance nodding. It is true that the Department of Corrections has had huge pressures on it mainly due to increased numbers in prison—some of which have been brought about by tougher sentences due to this Government having listened to what the public said in the referendum in 1999. There are some important issues that have to be addressed and I am currently engaged in very fruitful discussions with the Minister of Finance about that matter. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why should the public continue to have any confidence in the State management of prisons when since Christmas alone three guards at Paremoremo have been arrested for offences including fraud corruption smuggling and engaging in improper relationships with gang-member prisoners; and why will the Minister not remove his ideological blindfold long enough to see that well-managed private prisons like the Auckland Central Remand Prison ought to be allowed to continue? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are always bad apples in the barrel. That is unacceptable and we are doing everything we can to minimise it. 
Foreshore and Seabed —Customary Rights 
6.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Has she been advised of the statements of the Solicitor-General to the Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the Government’s foreshore and seabed policy in which he said “Those who have a customary right do have a right to stop activities that will have a significant impact on that customary right. That is a real power a real ability.”; if so does she believe this is a fair and accurate representation of the Government’s policy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes and yes because a customary right is a property right. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Minister now saying that in reference to the property rights that Maori allegedly have over seabed and foreshore they—to quote Dr Cullen—“have got the power of veto” over activities on the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Customary rights of course have to be established through a process in the Maori Land Court but if they are established as a customary right then the same rights and consequences would attach to any property right. For example if I had an easement over a property and someone wanted to develop over my easement then I would have the right to be able to say no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been asked by the technicians as we are trying to get a new system developed to ask people not to go quite so close to the microphone as they used to. This is a new set not 16-year-old ones. 
Tim Barnett 
: Can the Minister give an example of where an activity that will have a significant impact on a customary right may be changed following determination by the Maori Land Court of a customary right? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. If someone has a customary right for example to launch a waka and someone else wants to put up a jetty that would significantly impact upon the ability to launch that waka then the iwi would need to be consulted and an accommodation found. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister accept then that Maori owners of customary title and rights will be able to undertake commercial activities including the extraction of sand access to fishing and the erection of boat ramps and will not some of those activities inevitably lead to exclusive use of foreshore and seabed and limit every other New Zealander’s access to the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think the point has to be made that because there is one law that applies to everyone property rights that apply to Maori in this situation are the same as property rights that apply to others in other situations. So that is the fundamental premise—one law for everyone. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Minister confirm that that answer is a “Yes” to the proposition that Maori customary right-holders will be able to limit and control access to the beach and foreshore? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No because as we have said there are public rights of access and they prevail. But the member must also realise that if there is to be any use by whomever it must go through the Resource Management Act process. 
Television New Zealand—International Travel Costs 
7.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: How many employees of Television New Zealand Limited were sent to international broadcast conventions and trade fairs in 2003 and what was the total cost including all fares accommodation entertainment dining and transport costs of this? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am advised that for the financial year ended 30 June 2003 TVNZ employees made 28 trips to international conventions and trade fairs at a cost of about $380000. In the time available TVNZ has been unable to provide information for the entire 2003 calendar year and I will undertake to supply that information to the member as soon as possible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I take it the Minister is saying that although the year that he has taken ended in June 2003 TVNZ could not on 4 hours’ notice provide him with this information but had the greatest of ease in making false allegations about someone having a free meal and at the same time gave Ross Armstrong carte blanche to do what he liked—to massively overspend and not account for money—and would not show that on television one night? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know the member is feeling wounded about those issues but I can confirm— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I’m not. It’s my turn now. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Well I am sure he will enjoy it—scamper around. Now if I can go back to the issue. Yes TVNZ can provide the information up to 30 June 2003 and yes it will provide information for the rest of the year and I will give that to the member. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does the Minister consider it appropriate for employees of TVNZ to attend international broadcast conventions and trade fairs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do. TVNZ is a very successful broadcaster with revenue in excess of $300 million off waiting at arm’s length from the Government. For the company to fulfil its dual objectives of the charter and of being commercially successful its employees do need to attend those kinds of events to contract business and they will continue to do so. 
Rodney Hide 
: On the subject of free dinners does the Minister think it was appropriate for Dr Ross Armstrong to wine and dine Ministers of this Government including Dr Armstrong’s very good friend the Prime Minister and Government MPs all on TVNZ’s expense account while Dr Ross Armstrong was under intense inquiry firstly by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and secondly by the Privileges Committee—and is that one scandal that we do not expect to see on Government television? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Dr Armstrong over many years has worked for both the National and Labour-led Governments and undoubtedly he has been to a number of dinners during that period of time in the course of his duties. His activities that are being referred to by the member were the subject of an investigation by the independent Auditor-General who gave the comments that we have all read in his report. As far as we are concerned that is the end of the matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to get the Minister to address the question which was this: does he think it was appropriate for the chairman of TVNZ to be wining and dining Ministers and MPs while he was under inquiry by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Privileges Committee? Why can he not answer that question yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did answer. He did address that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: He did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. He did address that question. If he is asked for an opinion he can give an opinion if he wishes to do so. The answer he gave definitely did address that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be your view that he answered that question because what we have here is the view that any old words or excuse will do. The question was quite simple: yes or no—was it appropriate? What this Minister has done is to dodge it entirely with your help. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he has not. Now the member will stand withdraw and apologise for those last three or four words talking about my help. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have not finished ruling yet. Please be seated. As far as I am concerned I have to ask myself whether the question was addressed. It was and that is the issue. The answer may not satisfy the member and it may not even satisfy me except to the point of whether the question was addressed. It was. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What standard will you apply to your judgment of whether a Minister addresses a question? It seems to members on the Opposition side of the House that whenever it gets tricky any set of words will do without actually addressing the question which was whether it was appropriate. There has been an Auditor-General’s inquiry report. The Minister said he has read it. My question to that Minister was whether that was appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister I thought in his last sentence said there the matter would rest in his opinion. I thought that answer addressed the question quite specifically— 
Rodney Hide 
: Well what was the answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is really going right to the edge. As far as I am concerned the Minister addressed the question. 
Free-trade Agreements—United States 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: 
 When will negotiations begin on a free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the United States now that Australia has completed its own deal with the United States? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Trade Negotiations) 
:  
The starting date for any negotiations depends on the United States’ agreement to enter such negotiations and the relative priority it sets between countries expressing an interest in this area. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade correct when he said on Monday that there was now a risk of investment and trade diversion from New Zealand; if so what steps is the Government taking to minimise the consequent economic damage to New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I speak with some authority when speaking on what the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Trade said. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade said that it created both opportunities and risks. The downside risk was that there was the potential for diversion of investment in particular but maybe also of trade. The upside was that growth in the two economies that are our first and third-largest markets would be of benefit to New Zealand; and as the meat industry has said new opportunities will be open if Australian trade is diverted to the American market. What we are doing about it of course is taking every reasonable step to try to enter into such negotiations. But more than that we are working very hard to try to ensure that the Doha development round recommences. That will provide far greater benefits for this country and the world. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What steps has the Government taken to promote prospects for negotiations with the United States of America on a free-trade agreement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The New Zealand Government has worked very closely with the private sector to build a constituency in the United States in favour of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand. As a result of the work we have done and work the business councils in both countries have done 314 leading US companies have come out publicly in support of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand and 21 senators and 50 members of the House of Representatives have written directly to President Bush urging that such negotiations commence. 
Dail Jones 
: Will the Minister ensure that any trade negotiations between New Zealand and the United States will not involve a quid pro quo similar to Australia’s—where there was a trade between armed servicemen—such as New Zealand armed servicemen serving in Iraq in return for beef sales to the United States? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can absolutely give that assurance and I must add to that that I was appalled at the implication in the Leader of the Opposition’s comment that the reason we had not achieved it was that we had not sent troops to Iraq. This country under this Government will never trade the lives and the safety of New Zealand personnel for a commercial advantage. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the economics editor of the  
Australian Financial Review 
 who wrote: “By the traditional standards used by economists to rate these sorts of agreements the Australia - US free-trade agreement at the best would be given a bare pass. As likely as not it will be judged a net cost to Australia.” and would he be prepared to trade away Pharmac the Overseas Investment Commission our nuclear-free status our GE labelling regime or any of the other things on Robert Zoellick’s wish list in order to get a free-trade agreement with the United States of America? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are several points in answering that question. Firstly the member needs to be corrected. The pharmaceutical purchasing arrangements between Australia and the United States were not part of the agreement reached. Secondly while disappointment—and strong disappointment—has been expressed in many quarters in Australia about the fact that the trade agreement did not progress as far as was hoped for and anticipated in agriculture clearly the Australian Government anticipated there was a net benefit to Australia. That is why it has signed the agreement. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will he acknowledge that the main reason New Zealand is not on an equal footing with Australia in achieving a free-trade agreement with the world’s most powerful and prosperous economy is his Government’s bungling of foreign affairs and defence issues; and if he will not acknowledge that what is his explanation for New Zealand being left behind? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I certainly will not acknowledge that because it is simply not true. While the ACT party and the National Party have said they wanted to trade off our nuclear-free status for such an agreement I note the comment made by the US deputy chief of mission David Burnett this morning. He said the nuclear issue has “been overblown. I don’t think it plays much of a role frankly.” He added: “We’ve certainly never directly linked the two issues—nor would we ever put forward a quid pro quo.” So the net answer is that they would trade away New Zealand’s right to make sovereign decisions as an independent nation and not get what they are looking for anyway. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I specifically asked the Minister if he could not acknowledge the fact what is his explanation for New Zealand being left behind? He has given the House no explanation for why New Zealand has been left behind. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is prepared to make a brief comment. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am happy to add to that briefly if I could perhaps refer to David Burnett again. When he was asked why Australia got it he said that Australia rated highly as the United States’ ninth-largest trading partner. The two-way trade between Australia and the United States is $41 billion; the two-way trade between New Zealand and the United States is only $8 billion. Clearly size played a significant and probably the crucial role. Size does matter in this case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why does this Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade continue to hide behind the diplomatic politeness of foreign countries when commenting on other countries and refuse to acknowledge that relationships between New Zealand and the United States are in fact at a serious level; because if they are not why after the Prime Minister explained to President Bush in her pull-aside at APEC on October last year the seriousness of investment diversion to Australia should New Zealand be excluded from a deal has it continued to refuse to include New Zealand in a deal; what is the reason? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Far from the assertions of the Opposition spokesperson the relationship between New Zealand and the United States is very very very good. I deal regularly with the Secretary of State and his deputy and they in turn have talked very positively both about the role that New Zealand plays internationally in security and stability and in terms of the role that New Zealand plays as a good international citizen. The reason the United States is entering into agreements with other countries is sometimes strategic—but most often in its own interest in terms of size of trade. In that area it is hard for New Zealand to compete. 
Immigrants—Deportation Orders 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many people who have been served with deportation orders since February 2003 are still here and why? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call on the Minister she did advise me before this question was asked that her answer would be a little longer than usual. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that since February 2003 17 deportation orders have been served. Five people have been deported. The remaining cases are either under appeal or have been overturned by the Deportation Review Tribunal or the person is still serving a prison sentence. In case the member actually meant removal orders rather than deportation orders I have been advised that there were 1117 removal orders served on people unlawfully in New Zealand between 1 February 2002 and 31 January 2004; 953 people were removed which means that 164 remain. These include people awaiting travel documentation as well as those individuals whose removal orders have been cancelled on humanitarian grounds or by order of the High Court. For example the recent Haji case is a case where the High Court has effectively prevented the removal order from being executed at this stage. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I tell the Minister that I was referring to deportation orders which is the original 17 and I want to know how Saied Ghanbari an Iranian illegal immigrant who has had a deportation order since June 2003 who has had trespass orders and a protection order placed on him for violent abusive and threatening behaviour and who is an alleged P user and a carrier of weapons is still residing in this country when the Immigration Service has been given all the details for him to be arrested but has said that it cannot do that until the police are free to help it obtain this man and send him home from whence he came. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have often told that member that if he provides some information ahead of a question in the House I can come down with actual information. The member also knows that immigration officials do not have the power of arrest; they need to have the police arrest someone for them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the Minister said there were 17 deportation orders five of which could be subtracted and none of them includes this person. I do not think it is my job to do her job; otherwise give me the car and the house and I will start doing it properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave an answer that was within the Standing Orders. 
Social Development—Reports 
10.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the impact of Government measures to ensure all New Zealanders have opportunities to achieve their potential? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Last week I released the latest “reducing inequalities” monitoring reports which showed improved outcomes for Maori Pacific peoples and New Zealanders generally. The reports show improvements in core areas such as disposable income employment and unemployment rates proportion with school qualifications and tertiary education participation. The reports also demonstrate that programmes targeted to meet particular needs of particular groups are having a real impact leading to improved circumstances for all New Zealanders. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How are “reducing inequalities” programmes targeted? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They are targeted to address particular disadvantages and need—for example programmes to boost school libraries in low-decile schools housing programmes to address dangerous rural housing and adult literacy programmes to upskill adults. These programmes are very similar to ones run by the National Government when it spent $19 million on a Maori employment strategy $6.5 million on Pacific peoples employment initiatives and employed people in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to get the right balance of people there. 
Judith Collins 
: How can the Minister support years of race-based funding when his own ministry’s report that he has just referred to shows that 26 out of 48 relative trends for Maori and Pasifika peoples in those indicators are getting worse not better despite the extra funding or is this just another example of a Government’s spin being a case of lies damn lies or statistics? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comment is marginal but the Minister can comment on the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This Government supports needs-based policies. We target our policies to address the needs of people on the basis of age gender region ethnicity and disability and we have found that if we do that we have a great deal more success. Right now after 4 years of this Government we are cleaning up the social deficit left to us pretty well. 
Larry Baldock 
: How has the Government ensured that all New Zealanders have the opportunities to achieve their full potential in light of a recent report that documented cases of child prostitutes as young as 10 years of age universal drug abuse amongst those who start younger than 16 and the comment by the Commissioner for Children in today’s  
Dominion-Post 
 that the problem has become worse since the passage of the Prostitution Act—the Act that was supposed to eliminate all child prostitution? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On the last comment I want to say that we need to be careful about how we measure something that once was criminal and now is not. It is going to be talked about a lot more now than it used to be. This Government is the only Government in the history of this country that holds itself accountable by measuring its progress on social issues. We can tell we are doing better because we measure the progress. That is what the social report is about; that is what “reducing inequalities” reports are about. No other Government has done that. We hold ourselves accountable and we are doing better. 
Maori Health—Spiritual Healing 
11.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she believe spiritual healing offers a better health outcome for Maori than improved access to elective surgery; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Funding of elective surgery is a key priority for this Government. Although I have no personal experience of the value of spiritual healing I do not believe that spiritual healing and conventional treatment are necessarily mutually exclusive. I am aware that there are some people who get great strength from prayer for example or from traditional healing methods be they Chinese European or Maori. I am not prepared to mock spiritual values that people believe add to their overall healthiness. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As the Counties Manukau District Health Board has a lower intervention rate for cataracts compared with other Auckland district health boards and has raised the bar to get general surgery orthopaedics gynaecology and ear nose and throat surgery does the Minister think it is appropriate to use scarce health dollars—and the Counties Manukau board had a deficit of $47 million last year—to fund a Maori health strategy that includes alternative Maori medicines and spiritual healing which has never been shown to improve health outcomes? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am pleased to say that the Counties Manukau board is one of the Auckland district health boards that has received an additional $5 million for elective surgery and come the new orthopaedic project will receive more. But I do not think I could do any better than quote from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who in 1999 as Associate Minister of Health said: “Having health services Maori feel comfortable with in using is an important part of addressing health statistics between Maori and Pakeha. If the value of traditional Maori healing clinics encourage people to seek advice early that is a very good thing for everyone.” 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you have already said this to members but I think the Minister of Health should take some notice on the basis that it is a health issue. She should turn her microphone towards herself and speak into it. What she does at the moment is she turns it away rocks in her seat then moves towards it and blasts us out. I am sure Occupational Safety and Health would be quite concerned about the voice level when she does rock towards the microphone. It should be turned towards her and then she should speak in a nice calm way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a valid point. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister clarify whether the Government currently funds spiritual needs in hospitals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. This Government like its predecessor provides funds towards the hospital chaplaincy service—a Christian-based healing service that provides spiritual help to everybody who wants it. We fund it to the tune of about $1.2 million a year. That is slightly more than the amount we fund Maori traditional healing which was first funded in 1995 and was funded every year that National was in power right until it left. 
Heather Roy 
: Will the clinical efficacy of Maori massage and prayer be assessed using the same standards demanded of doctors; if not why should Maori accept sub-standard health-care? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not believe that Maori would accept sub-standard health-care. However like those who like acupuncture naturopathy or maybe osteopathy they will decide whether there is some value in it. But I can tell the member that traditional Maori healing was assessed and reviewed in 1996. On the basis of that assessment the previous Government believed it was worthwhile continuing to fund it every year. The outcomes of that review were interesting in that doctors themselves—I think it was 61 percent of doctors—said that they would be prepared to refer their patients to traditional Maori healing services. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As Maori are overrepresented in the hospitals’ top ten conditions including asthma and diabetes will the Minister explain how Maori getting taxpayer-funded massage spiritual healing and karakia will reduce the number suffering from the effects of diabetes and asthma? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not believe that it would necessarily reduce the incidence of diabetes and I do not think anyone is claiming that. But I think there would be many people in this House who believe that the power of prayer for example helps a lot of people feel a lot better about the condition they have. I find it strange that the member would want to mock that. 
Petroleum Exploration—Reports 
12. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 on behalf of  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: Has he received any reports on recent interest in petroleum exploration in New Zealand? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 On Thursday I was pleased to announce that 13 petroleum exploration permits have been awarded in the Taranaki region involving over $130 million in new investment. This was a competitive bidding round with 23 bids received and exploration permits awarded to local and international companies including some that are new to New Zealand. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What other work is the Government undertaking to ensure New Zealand remains an internationally competitive destination for petroleum exploration? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Although comparative economic reviews show New Zealand’s permit allocation and royalty regime to be one of the most favourable in the world the Government is actively involved in dialogue with the Petroleum Exploration Association of New Zealand and other potential explorers to identify and to consider additional changes to the broader investment framework that may increase petroleum investment. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Report of Auditor-General—Dr Ross Armstrong 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under what is now Standing Order 373 the report of the Auditor-General on expenses incurred by Dr Ross Armstrong as chairperson of three public entities. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The report was released on 19 December 2003. This is the first day on which it can be considered and it involves the ministerial administrative responsibility of the Government. The inquiry was initiated in November 2002 following Dr Armstrong’s resignation on which the House held an urgent debate. There are implications in the report for corporate governance in general that the report identifies though it does not address. I consider those issues can be considered by Parliament in a number of ways—in particular through the financial review process. I do not consider that a report on an inquiry into events that occurred as long ago as 2002 requires the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. The application is accordingly declined. 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 10 February. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 As the Prime Minister indicated in her speech this Government has been extraordinarily active in conservation and will continue to be so. We have seen some flagship achievements in recent months. One of the most beautiful high-country stations in the South Island—Birchwood Station—has been purchased by the Government and established as a permanent conservation and recreation area for all New Zealanders. Molesworth Station New Zealand’s largest single farm—the size of Stewart Island—has also been permanently protected as a vast and unique reserve that National and ACT will never be able to sell. 
However there have also been many other achievements in conservation recently that have not attracted as much attention. Take the success of the Department of Conservation in wiping rats off Campbell Island in the southern ocean as an example. The Campbell Island operation was the largest rat eradication effort ever attempted in the world. It will allow some severely threatened bird species to thrive in that natural home for the first time in over 100 years. This success places the Department of Conservation at the forefront of international conservation and it was only made possible by the Government’s commitment to funding the restoration of our native biodiversity. 
It has been estimated that we have lost 32 percent of our indigenous land and freshwater bird species and 18 percent of our seabirds in the 800 years or so that humans have lived in this country. Gone too are vast tracks of native forest and most of our wetlands. This Government said: “Enough!”. Unlike the National Party and ACT which want to sell dig up or flood New Zealand’s natural environment the Labour-Progressive Government has committed significant resources to the conservation of our landscapes and the ability of New Zealanders to enjoy them. We have placed $187 million behind a new New Zealand biodiversity strategy which has dramatically boosted the resourcing of species and habitat preservation. The Department of Conservation’s budget has grown by a whopping 40 percent. 
More than any over Government we have recognised that the conservation lands of our country are a massive economic and recreational resource. That was a key reason why we invested $349 million in the Department of Conservation’s visitor facilities. This funding announced in 2002 has enabled the Department of Conservation to begin to revamp and to reorganise its network of huts tracks and campsites in our conservation areas into something that more effectively meets the modern demands of New Zealanders and of our growing tourism industry. This was unprecedented funding and it will bear fruit. It will have social and economic reverberations right around our country. Expect more from this Government this year in conservation. We are unswerving and unapologetic about our commitment to saving our native species. We are not prepared to see all of our important iconic landscapes lost to New Zealanders. We are keen to see the careful integration of tourism into conservation areas to continue. 
It may interest members to learn that in a recent UMR survey of public support of Government departments the Department of Conservation was top of the list. It was the most popular Government department. Over 70 percent of respondents had a very positive view of the Department of Conservation compared with just 16 percent who had an unfavourable view. There are some who cling to silly old myths about the Department of Conservation that are now long-since disproved but the clear majority do not. The majority of those see the Labour-Progressive Government and its support of the Department of Conservation as a very important step forward. Most New Zealanders do not share National or ACT’s view that the Department of Conservation is a bad neighbour. They recognise that the Department of Conservation spent huge sums of money time and effort this summer fighting fires right across Canterbury. They recognise that in doing so the Department of Conservation saved surrounding farmlands and rural communities from devastation. Does the House remember the predictions of doom and gloom from National when it was announced that Molesworth Station was to be managed by the Department of Conservation? Apparently the Department of Conservation had an appalling relationship with farmers and farming on Molesworth Station was finished as a result. Landcorp continues to farm Molesworth Station. Its general manager Bernard Card had this to say in  
Countrywide 
 magazine recently: “The increasing emphasis on conservation on Molesworth is not a problem and does not threaten the farming business. It is just a case of sorting out the new lease and working out how the new arrangements will be put together. I am comfortable because we have a good past working relationship with the Department of Conservation.” It makes one wonder where the Opposition gets its information from does it not? Consider this: National and ACT claimed in relation to Molesworth Station that the Department of Conservation had an appalling record on weed control. Actually the Department of Conservation’s record on weed control is very good. On Molesworth Station it has been doing weed and pest control for a number of years despite the fact that it had no legal obligation to do so. 
The Department of Conservation has good relationships with landowners communities and iwi the length and breadth of this country. Members of the public know that because they have experienced it first hand. Members should ask those involved for example in the Kaharoa KÇkako Trust a community-based organisation that with the help of the Department of Conservation is managing the recovery of kÇkako in the forest near Rotorua. Members should ask those involved in Project Kiwi north-west of Whitianga in the Coromandel. This is a project that in consultation with the Department of Conservation has been running stoat control over 4100 hectares of rugged terrain covering 20 different properties including the Department of Conservation - administered land. Members should ask those involved in the Otago rail trail—a 150 kilometre - long cycle ride through central Otago that attracts up to 15000 visitors a year. After the railway line between Middlemarch and Alexandra closed in 1990 the community created a very attractive and accessible recreational opportunity that has promoted the economic regeneration of small towns in central Otago. All that was done with the Department of Conservation’s help and cooperation. There are numerous examples of Department of Conservation community work and of it being an outstanding neighbour. 
Conservation lies at the heart of New Zealand. It is what defines us as New Zealanders—our landscapes and our unique species. Communities will continue to support the Department of Conservation. This Government has funded the Department of Conservation more than any other. We see the value in conservation for future generations of New Zealanders. 
A really remarkable thing is happening at Parliament this evening—that is a reconciliation process is taking place with the Chinese community. Many hundreds of descendents of original Chinese gold miners and settlers came to our country—people who were forced to pay a poll tax. First it was £10 and then in 1891 it was £100. That is the only example of overt racism that ever happened in our country where a racial group was penalised because of the group that it belonged to. This evening the Prime Minister will announce a reconciliation package for the Chinese community that will be greeted with applause all over the world. It will attract international attention. It makes me very proud to be a member of Government that is committed to valuing diversity and that sees that all New Zealanders are not the same. We are all equal before the law but we need to celebrate and affirm our diversity. Tonight Parliament will take on a Chinese flavour. It will be a different flavour to the usual flavour we have here but it is part of the many faces that now make up our country. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement and I have to say her speech lacked considerably any real regard for one of the greatest crises that face our nation today—that is law and order. Our law enforcement officers our courts and our justice system are facing a crisis. 
Indeed it is with sadness that I tell the House that while I have been sitting here I have received a text message telling me that my nephew whose 21st birthday party I helped celebrate over Christmas is now lying in hospital—the victim of a senseless bashing in Christchurch City. It is only when a member of one’s family is lying in a hospital with a fractured skull—a young man with so much promise hoping to try out for the Canterbury colts team this year—that one realises that this country is being governed by a party that does not on the face of the Prime Minister’s statement seem to share the concerns of New Zealand First about our young people about law and order and about lawlessness. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and political claptrap from this Government over the last 5 years and with the bumbling incompetence of the Minister of Police the naivety of the Minister of Corrections and the political correctness of the entire Cabinet of this Government we have seen no progress on law and order as demanded by 92 percent of New Zealanders in the last referendum on the issue. The sad facts are one violent crime is up and unfortunately today my family has become one of thousands of families that are faced with this issue. The rate of violent crime is up clearance rates are down and public confidence in the New Zealand Police is falling rapidly. That worries me because I like four other members of the New Zealand First caucus have family who are in blue who are in uniform and walking the beat. 
I ask myself the same questions that every other New Zealanders asks: why are we in this situation; why are we facing this crisis? The first answer I guess is that the Prime Minister does not seem to care and that is why her speech had only one paragraph on the issue. The second answer is that the police seem to be lacking any strong direction or determined resolve to stamp out crime effectively and to nail those individuals who choose a life of crime as their career path and lifestyle. I easily justify that statement by pointing out that despite all the promises of members opposite over 9 years in Opposition and 5 years in Government they have failed to nail the gangs. We read that in Wairoa Taneatua Palmerston North and all over this country the gangs still thumb their nose with impunity at the law and get away with it. Even worse we are bending over backwards to deal with their “sensitivities” and their “cultural needs”. What a lot of humbug and claptrap! 
This Government is failing to deal with those issues. Look at the policing priorities. We saw that over the Christmas period. The Government says that officers are out there on the roads trying to save lives but statistics show that fatalities increased—right alongside revenue collecting. The Government has police officers out there hiding behind bushes with radar cameras nabbing normally law-abiding citizens because this Government wants to increase its $6 billion surplus. 
If this Government wants an indication of where we are going in the future it should take note of what the Manchester bobbies are saying. Everyone says that New Zealand is 5 years behind the rest of the world; well we should take note of what the Manchester Chief Constable Michael Todd is telling his officers. He is telling them to stop targeting speeding drivers and to start catching hardened criminals. He has warned staff that continuing to pressure motorists through the use of speed cameras will see many law-abiding people develop an anti-police feeling. Guess what! That is precisely what I warned against months and months ago and it is precisely what is happening here in this country. Should we be surprised that when a police officer called for help to apprehend a violent offender people refused to go to his aid? Should we be surprised in the light of recent revelations and allegations that there is growing scepticism towards explanations by the police as to why they are out there ticketing motorists? 
No one believes the Government. No one believes the police. No one accepts that the Government’s priorities on law and order are the right ones. People want to see hardened crims caught and locked up. That is a Government responsibility. That is George Hawkins’ responsibility. That is Helen Clark’s responsibility. They need to sort out their priorities and help the police get on with the real business of catching real crooks. 
But when we do catch them we put them on home detention. The Minister tells us that the system is tight and controlled and that the Government has a good grip on those on home detention. Well I warned the Minister that these guys are gambling on dope and living the life of Riley. Then I told the Minister that a man on home detention had died of a P overdose but he knew nothing about it. He accused me of making it up and we found out it was true. Home detention is a rort; so is parole. Now we have another example of another man who was paroled out into the community—supposedly rehabilitated. We get all “touchy-feely” and cosy but he has offended again and been charged and arrested. So the story goes on. 
But that is not new. We had a case the week before of a man who had been convicted not only of murder but of two counts of attempted murder and within months of his being accepted as having been rehabilitated and put out on parole he was recalled to jail because of a sexual offence. What is wrong with this Government? Do those MPs and Cabinet Ministers not have children not have families? Do they not understand the trauma they are wreaking upon victims and their families? How many times does the Sensible Sentencing Trust have to come to Parliament to plea for parole to be tightened up? The sad fact is we have politically correct puppets appointed to the Parole Board including members of the Labour Party who share the Government’s own “touch-feely” philosophies. So they approve the parole of these people and let them out into the community. 
Well enough is enough! This country is sick of it and has had a gutsful. Over this year New Zealand First will hold this Government to account on its failure in law and order its failure to address lawlessness its failure to deal with the gangs and its failed priorities. We are going to make sure of that. I will continue to deal with the Minister of Corrections who is at best very very naive. I told him what was going on in Canterbury prisons. He refused to accept it. Now we have a “goon squad” inquiry. He can stand up and make all the allegations he likes about my putting out inaccurate information; nothing I have put to this House has been inaccurate. Denying me a personal statement in the House will come back on the Government because I will not allow one Labour MP to make a personal statement so long as I sit in this chair. Those members have denied me my right of reply. And I am not going to use this debate to do that. We have told this House. 
What of youth crime? Well now we have the police coming out today expressing their frustrations about youth crime and I am saying here today that I will be putting in the ballot a member’s bill to lower the age of criminal responsibility to make these young people realise they do know the difference between right and wrong and they will be held accountable for adult crimes as adults. That bill is drafted. It will be in the House. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What age? Should it be 10 or 9? 
RON MARK 
: I am offering 10 as the age; that is what I am going to ask the select committee to consider. We will talk that through and we will lower the age. I want to see these young recidivist offenders locked up as they should be. We have had enough of the family group counselling sessions. The police are at their wits’ end. I have heard this time and time again. Today’s article tells me that this Government will not act to help the police and will not deal with the nonsense of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act and the Crimes Act which allow these young offenders to do as has happened to my nephew—to bash him over the back of the head and drop him on the ground with the result that he is in hospital with a fractured skull. Well I am sorry but that is it—endgame! My member’s bill is in the ballot and my challenge to the Government is to take it out and itself introduce it into the House as a Government bill and help these families deal with these wayward youth offenders. It should help the New Zealand Police by giving them the tools to do the job; either do that or sit there and rattle on like Clayton Cosgrove do nothing for anybody and be held accountable for it on election day which is coming sooner than those members think. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The sign of a good Government is that it has a heart; that it can hear cries of distress. In some areas as in employment relations the Government does have a heart. It is trying to make things fairer for working people. But in the Zaoui case Labour is heartless. It has no empathy whatsoever for a fellow elected-MP and his family who have been suffering terribly since a military coup in Algeria 12 years ago. Instead of showing compassion for Mr Zaoui Labour has imprisoned him for over 14 months. 
For all that time Mr Zaoui has not been told of the accusations against him. At last he may get a summary of the accusations but to achieve that he has had to win a case in the High Court. Now the Government is appealing the other half of the High Court ruling in favour of Mr Zaoui—that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should take human rights into account in his determination of the security risk certificate applying to Mr Zaoui. That is shocking. 
The Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel has said that it is the inspector-general’s task to determine whether Mr Zaoui is really a threat to “national security”. First it should be noted that the Government chose to use the “national security” clause not the “terrorist” clause when applying the security risk certificate. That is convenient for the Government because national security is capable of any number of definitions. Around the world many political dissidents are imprisoned for “national security” reasons often without access to an adequate legal process. Algeria is a case in point. 
Endangering good relations with other Governments is often seen as a threat to national security. In fact according to our legislation the Security Intelligence Service is supposed to pursue those who “impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being”. Given that the Algerian regime is unhappy that Mr Zaoui continues to criticise the lack of democracy in his homeland it could be argued that letting him stay here would undermine New Zealand’s diplomatic relations with Algeria and thereby affect our national security. SIS director Richard Woods could be putting diplomatic interests ahead of Mr Zaoui’s human rights and by extension the human rights of all of us. 
Auckland academic Paul Buchanan has been lambasted by Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark for arguing that Mr Woods’ previous posting as our ambassador to France and Algeria could have a bearing on the case. But it could. France has collaborated in the suppression of democracy in Algeria and may also be upset that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority has given refugee status to such a prominent opponent of a regime that is so friendly to France. 
Keeping Mr Zaoui here may affect our diplomatic relations with France as well as Algeria and that could concern Richard Woods. He could also be giving greater credibility to French intelligence than it deserves. French intelligence operations are shaped by political objectives as we found out when they sank the  
Rainbow Warrior 
. The French intelligence services have a history of helping the Algerian regime portray its democratic opponents like Mr Zaoui as terrorists. Of course the comments about Mr Woods are in the realm of educated conjecture. Unfortunately that is all we are able to do given the secrecy and lack of accountability that surrounds the SIS including in the Zaoui case. 
Because there could be a bias in favour of the Government’s perceived diplomatic interests it is critical that the inspector-general take into account Mr Zaoui’s human rights particularly his right to criticise publicly the Algerian Government without suffering any penalty in the determination of his case. Other obvious human rights for the inspector-general to take into account are the rights of Mr Zaoui to a fair hearing not to be unreasonably detained and not to be sent back to torture or death in Algeria. 
Taking into account these human rights is integral to the inspector-general’s determination of the case which is why it is so wrong for the Government to appeal the High Court decision in favour of Mr Zaoui. Lianne Dalziel’s argument that she can take into account Mr Zaoui’s human rights in her final determination of the case is patently absurd. By law the immigration Minister has only 3 days to make a decision after an adverse report by the inspector-general. That is simply not enough time to get to grips with the fine points of the case and the law. Unlike the inspector-general the Minister would not have heard all the witnesses been part of all the cross-examination in the hearings or heard all about the situation in Algeria today. In any case as the Minister who originally applied the security risk certificate to Mr Zaoui she would also have a vested interest in not being proved wrong and thereby in not being blamed for Mr Zaoui being unnecessarily detained for many extra months. There is also a problem in a Government Minister making the final decision. Mr Zaoui has been a political embarrassment for the Government and it would like to get rid of him. 
This is where the Zaoui case ties into the international debate on how Governments are conducting the so-called war on terrorism. Led by the Bush administration Western Governments are asserting their right to deal with alleged terrorists by secret administrative measures and not through open judicial processes. However there is a legal fightback taking place such as in the current court challenges to the US Government’s ongoing detention of alleged Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. 
The Clark Government seems very fearful of such matters being pursued here in relation to the operation of the security risk certificate procedure in the Zaoui case. That is one of the reasons why it has been so hostile to Dr Michael Kidd’s draft report for the International Commission of Jurists. Without getting into a debate on whether Dr Kidd is right or wrong in all his legal argumentation he does raise two very important points. Is it right that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority’s judicial decision in favour of Mr Zaoui could be overridden by a Government-administered security risk certificate procedure? He thinks that Mr Zaoui could be successful in a habeas corpus suit that he was being illegally detained. 
Section 114O(3) of the Immigration Act does provide for a person subject to the certificate to be released even before the inspector-general reports. It also allows him or her to be moved from a prison to other forms of detention such as the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre or home detention. The section specifically contrasts a “prison” and “other premises” of detention. Ms Dalziel is quite wrong on both legal and humanitarian grounds to refuse to move him out of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. 
Most thinking people believe it is just not acceptable for Mr Zaoui to be detained for so long. It is now over 14 months and for Mr Zaoui it is hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Mr Zaoui’s detention has been and is being prolonged by several months by the Government’s forcing Mr Zaoui to go to the High Court to get a summary of evidence against him provided and then forcing him to wait around while the Government appeals the High Court decision that the inspector-general should take into account Mr Zaoui’s human rights. 
I visit Mr Zaoui regularly and he is suffering terribly as this test case goes on—the test case of this abominable and anti-democratic security risk certificate procedure. 
The Zaoui case has tested many Government departments and they have been found wanting. It is good that the Ombudsman is now investigating the conduct of the Immigration Service the Customs Service and the Department of Corrections in this whole affair. We also need to look at the role of the police which got it wrong from day one accepting at face value the warrant the Algerian regime had out for Mr Zaoui and the fact that he had been sentenced to death in Algeria. 
In particular we need a serious review of the SIS how it collects its foreign intelligence and whose interests it is serving. We know from the inquiries now begun into the British and US intelligence services that such services cannot be automatically trusted to get things right behind their walls of secrecy. 
Mr Zaoui is the sacrificial lamb of crazy undemocratic procedures and a stubborn unfeeling Government. He and his family are hurting. We must release him now. In the Prime Minister’s address she said that New Zealand will be engaged internationally with human rights issues but the Zaoui case is putting a severe blot on New Zealand’s good name as an advocate of human rights. We cannot go openly and honestly out into the international community promoting human rights in countries like Zimbabwe Tonga or anywhere else if we keep someone like Mr Zaoui in prison for so long—unjustly. As a Parliament we should have sympathy for a fellow MP. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 Can I start by saying how pleased I was that my colleague Mr Gerry Brownlee apologised to the House for the language that was used here yesterday. That kind of language is no part of the tradition of my party nor should it be any part of the tradition of debate in this House and I hope never to hear it again. But I think it does reflect a profound disappointment in the speech we heard yesterday which is after all what this debate is about and that is the speech made by the Prime Minister. 
New Zealand’s recent history in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi can be viewed very simply. National sought and obtained a mandate from the public for treaty settlements. When the Government changed Labour continued very slowly with those treaty settlements but moved into a post-settlement phase. It has never sought a mandate for what it is doing and Helen Clark has never explained to the people of New Zealand what the Labour Government’s policy is in respect of the treaty and its role in New Zealand and certainly she has never explained to the public what she believes New Zealand will look like in the future if we go down the path she is going down. 
I therefore offer her a challenge. I challenge her to do what Don Brash is going to do. He will be going around the country talking to the public as I did myself when I was in that role explaining to them the implications of what is happening now and the choices that New Zealand faces. I believe that Helen Clark should do the same. I believe she should run a public meeting in Invercargill and get up and explain what she means by “partnership” and “principles” and the various policies that her Government is following. I find that she is much keener to turn up to the openings of art exhibitions using Air Force One to fly to out-of-the-way airports like Gore than she is to explain to the public this matter that lies at the heart of our nation. 
The issues are complicated but they are vital. In the end it is not so much about the amount of Government expenditure involved but the fact they are constitutional issues. What does it mean when we say there is a partnership in the Government of New Zealand? What is the role of iwi— who are now assuming a semi-constitutional status? What will be the role of the courts particularly the new Supreme Court? I warned this House about this last year because the judges are full of international indigenous law precedents many of which I believe have no place in New Zealand. What does it mean to have a big proportion of our citizens having their rights determined by their genetic ancestry? So Helen Clark has more than enough to do in providing the answers to those questions let alone the foreshore and seabed issue. 
It has been somewhat satisfying to see that Helen Clark’s tactic of name-calling—a tactic that is several years old now—has been overwhelmed by the tide of public opinion on this issue. The same has happened with the media. They have generally dealt with these issues in a glib and ill-informed way but the tide of public opinion which has been apparent even to the media—even to them!—is forcing them to take the issue seriously. Frustration is at the base of that public feeling. Frustration is felt by 80 to 90 percent of New Zealanders who have never felt part of the treaty debate—and technically they never have been because it has been between the Crown and Maori. 
But today as we speak—in the ivory towers of Wellington—the politicians civil servants and judges are nattering away to each other about “treatyology”. It has its own secret little language that no one else understands but it will never stand the light of day. That is what I want to say to the Labour Party. I have always believed that if Labour members were to go out there and try to explain what they are doing the public would reject it. I believe that no matter what credibility Helen Clark has and no matter what economic conditions apply the public would reject it. I suspect that is why Labour members will stay behind closed doors heads down whispering to each other about how terrible it all is. 
That is why we end up with the kind of Waitangi Day we had this year. I have probably attended at Waitangi more often than most politicians. I have been there 13 times. 
Jill Pettis 
: Unlucky for some. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes unlucky for some—including me sometimes. What I see there is a basic problem of respect. It is a group of people who show no respect for their own customs and their own culture. It is a family who think they can hold a whole nation’s celebration to ransom. That is ridiculous. If Nga Puhi thinks that that earns them the respect of the public they have to be joking. It is a rabble; it is a shambles. Even the best-intentioned people like myself who have persevered year after year have given up because there is no respect shown for the nation of New Zealand. 
If Nga Puhi cannot deal with the Harawiras then we should not have to be paraded in front of Nga Puhi and its shambles and its disrespect every year. In fact the marae could be a useful metaphor for this debate. People greet each other form a bond of respect then dispute as vigorously as possible. But at Waitangi there is no respect. 
I now hold the job of Opposition spokesperson on education and just as the whole public sector is soaked in “treatyology” so is education. Steve Maharey has written a letter saying the treaty is at the heart of tertiary sector reforms. Did anyone know that the treaty is at the heart of what the Government is trying to do to tertiary education? Those tens of thousands of students who are borrowing money to get an education have now found out that what the Minister believes he is doing to reshape tertiary education is all about the treaty. I intend to find out what he means. I suspect I will get a whole lot of sociological hogwash from someone who could not even cut it as a sociologist. 
I have came across another little beauty which shows how we sometimes get ourselves wound into knots over this stuff when it is actually quite simple. Listen to this. I have here a piece of research about the education of Maori in our schools. I must say it is an excellent example and I am referring to Te Kotahitanga project led by Russell Bishop at Waikato University. This is an extract: “The research process used in this exercise is based on a kaupapa Maori theoretical and methodological approach in that it seeks to operationalise the tino rangatiratanga of the research participants by using a sequence of semi-structured in-depth interviews as conversations in order to produce narratives of experience.” 
Do members know that that simply means: “We asked the kids”! How clever is that! That is what parents do every day to find out any problems with the teacher and with education. They ask the kids because the kids know. Well at Waikato University—the alma mater of the Attorney-General—this bit of the research stretches out to about 40 words and it is all about rangatiratanga and treaty relationships. Why not just say: “Let’s ask the kids.”? It works. The kids told Mr Bishop the problem with the teachers and that too has a great name to describe it—“deficit theorisation”. It simply means: “Teachers do not expect Maori kids to learn and if we can change those expectations it makes a big difference.” My 10-year-old told me that is the case with some of the kids in his classroom and he did not need to go to university to find that out. So education is going to be a battleground just as many other portfolios are over this issue of what direction the Government is going to take. 
I want to finish by talking about school closures. Today the Minister of Education lost his closest ally. He had done a dirty little deal with the New Zealand Educational Institute to the effect that it would not oppose any change. As of yesterday the president of the educational institute said that he wants the network reviews to stop and I agree. They are savage. They are unnecessary. They are taking away from families something they treasure—that is an education in a community they know from a teacher they know. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis who is trying to interject is going to lose her seat over this. The member for Invercargill has already lost his seat. So will the member for Aoraki. Destroying good schools makes parents angry and they are going to stop it. And I am going to help them. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 This afternoon we are debating the Prime Minister’s statement to the House and the purpose of that statement is to foreshadow the work programme of the Government for the coming year. The statement is also an opportunity to illustrate the policy framework within which the Government is advancing its programme and the means through which it is achieving its primary goals of economic growth through innovation and social cohesion which can be implemented through an involvement of all the people in the decisions that affect them. So it is an opportunity for us to debate to reflect upon the programme that the Government has been advancing over the past 5 years and will continue to advance in the forthcoming year because of the success it has had so far. 
As the Prime Minister stated the Labour-led coalition has taken a longer-term strategic view on the reconstruction of New Zealand’s economic and social well-being. New Zealanders were sick and tired of the self-serving political decision-making of the late 1990s that placed self-interest of political parties ahead of the well-being of the country as a whole. This Government has provided not only purpose but also a firm direction on its core mission to build a confident and dynamic nation. We know that rhetoric and political stunts are no substitute for the serious business of Government. We also know that we cannot build an innovative growing smart economy that will deliver jobs and opportunity for all and higher standards of living unless we involve all the people who will be affected by those policies. 
That is why this Government is so different from those that preceded it—because it has engaged all sections of the community in that debate and discussion. We have done this through a variety of means. One example is partnerships with local government and local community organisations—consultation processes that not only see officials going out to talk to groups but involve Ministers meeting face to face in dialogue with all sections of the community. This does not mean that everyone agrees with the decisions that are made but at least it means that everyone knows why the decisions are made and the reasons for them. As the previous speaker said that has been a distinguishing feature of the Minister of Education—his willingness to engage face to face with the communities to explain why in the current review the well-being of all pupils in New Zealand is important. This is the reality of an open government policy. This is fundamental to the way in which this Government thinks that democratic government can be implemented in practice and not only in rhetoric. This Government respects and values people and recognises they must be part of those decisions that affect them. 
Our approach to responsible Government has produced results as can be seen by the fact that the Government is on track with its economic programme to meet the goal of lifting New Zealand into the first half of the OECD ranking. Last year our growth rate topped the OECD. The New Zealand economy has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters with gross domestic production up 3.9 percent in the last 12 months. Every region in New Zealand is experiencing growth. We see that as we travel around New Zealand. The villages and small communities that once looked depressed are now thriving with new enterprises starting and we can feel the sense of confidence in the future that people have. My own region of the Bay of Plenty has experienced a 3.6 percent increase in economic activity in the past 12 months. 
For me however the most important indicator that the Government’s policies are working has been the dramatic decline in unemployment. Not being in paid employment has left many people without hope in the future or any ability to improve their economic and social well-being. That decline has been I believe the distinguishing feature of the success of the Government’s policies. 
And we have achieved that success in reducing unemployment at a time when we are also experiencing amongst the lowest number of work stoppages on record. Normally in periods of high employment and low unemployment we get an increase in strike activity. That has not been the case in this country simply because we have put in place an employment relations framework that is based on good-faith bargaining and negotiations and that has a much more rational approach to the well-being of not only employees but employers so that we can all benefit from the economic growth that we are now experiencing. 
We also see the success of that policy which has been much derided by the Opposition and its political lobbyists in the fact that average weekly earnings are up from $668 in 1999 to $752 today. Although we have experienced that deriding and continue to do so we cannot ignore the fact—neither can the Opposition—that these policies have been succeeding. 
We hear much about compliance costs which members opposite have heard are being experienced yet that does not equate with the facts. The facts are that in the period since the Employment Relations Act has been in force there have been over 25000 applications for mediation and 80 percent of those have been resolved in 8 weeks. But what is more significant on the compliance cost issue is that we have seen a halving in the number of cases that have gone to the Employment Court. This not only has saved time and expense for employers and employees but also has introduced a level of certainty into the relationship. All of this has been against a background also where we have seen the birth of small to medium enterprises exceed the death rate of those enterprises and that shows that there is certainly a confidence amongst people within New Zealand to be able to start small businesses and to have a go in ensuring that they also can benefit from the economic success that the Government is providing. 
What Government policies are doing in effect is provide an environment where the value of labour is at long last being recognised. This is not only because it is the humane and decent approach to take but also because it recognises that New Zealand is facing as is the rest of the world a labour shortage particularly a skilled-labour shortage. We as a Government have been preparing for that future. We have been doing that by increasing the skill base through both our education policies and the apprenticeship programmes and also through the practical steps we have been taking to encourage people into those sectors of the economy where skills are needed and we have been doing it through a sensible innovative immigration policy as well. We are also doing it by facing reality and through hard work to ensure that we can face the future with confidence. It is the economic base that then enables us to go on and provide the social cohesion that must accompany any economic programme. That social cohesion is based upon the valuing of people no matter what their position is—no matter what their gender their ethnicity or the region they come from. No matter where they are and what they are doing everyone in this country is valued and important. 
That has been the basis of how we are building the nation that the Prime Minister foreshadowed in her statement to Parliament. They are the programmes we will continue to do despite the distractions that are created by Opposition parties in order to get attention. That is not what New Zealanders want; they want the sort of economy and social cohesion that this Government is producing through the policies it is pursuing and it will steadfastly do that because we have a vision for the long term not the short term. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Speeches are frequently more telling not in what they say but in what they do not. The address by the Prime Minister yesterday illustrates that very point. She spoke smugly of her perceived achievements but she arrogantly avoided the subject that all of New Zealand is talking about—showing how out of touch the Labour Government has become. The Prime Minister does not want to debate “one law for all”. She does not want to talk about colour-blind laws. She does not want to discuss equity for all New Zealanders before the law. She is avoiding the subject. 
When we on this side of the House talk about one law for all we are accused by the Deputy Prime Minister of being racist. We are accused by the Prime Minister of encouraging separatism and of being divisive and her MPs and Ministers join in the chorus. What we have in this country are race-based policies. Today Richard Prebble asked the Prime Minister to concede that one law for all is a policy that unites the country. She avoided the question—not once not twice but repeatedly. The  
Holmes 
 poll last night showed that 90 percent of the 35000 people who called in to give their opinion agreed with Don Brash’s “one standard of citizenship” message but the Prime Minister wants to avoid the topic completely. 
Of course the most talked-about speech recently has been Don Brash’s speech in Orewa. In that he asked what sort of nation we want to build: “Is it to be a modern democratic society embodying the essential notion of one rule for all in a single nation state? Or is it the racially divided nation with two sets of laws and two standards of citizenship that the present Labour Government is moving us steadily towards?” The responses in this House over the last 2 days show exactly where people stand. 
If we look back on what people have said over the last 6 months or so with regard to the “one law for all” policy we see that it is very revealing. I refer to my own area—that of health. We are seeing not one law for all at all but two streams of funding two standards of care for New Zealanders and two standards of accountability. Tariana Turia wrote an article entitled “Tribal health policy in New Zealand” which was published in the  
British Medical Journal 
 last August. In it she explains that conventional Western medicine has been unable to close the disparities in mortality and health revealed in official statistics. She goes on to justify the Labour Government’s “for Maori by Maori” health policy based on Dr Papaarangi Reid’s type of analysis. I will come to Dr Reid’s comments in a moment. 
What we are seeing here is two streams of funding and two standards of care—one for Maori; one for other New Zealanders. But the killers contributing to today’s mortality figures are cancers heart disease and obesity and those are problems for all New Zealanders not just Maori or Pacific peoples. The rates may be down for Pakeha but those conditions are still the most common causes of death. The answer to closing the gaps—the words we are not supposed to utter anymore—is not separating the races but targeting those big killers and tackling them disease by disease for the benefit of all. New Zealanders must have health services based on need not on race or location. Isolating Maori from the scientific Western tradition of medicine puts their health gravely at risk. 
Dr Papaarangi Reid made some comments last year of which I will remind members. She was complaining on National Radio that life expectancy in New Zealand had increased 6 7 or maybe even 8 years. In essence what she was saying was that Pakeha life expectancy had increased but Maori life expectancy had not. She said that Pakeha had stolen the life expectancy of Maori. Quite how one steals anybody else’s life expectancy is beyond me but she is head of the Maori unit of the University of Otago Wellington School of Medicine so I suppose she must know. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Paid for by the taxpayer. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. Dr Reid’s implication was that the gap between Maori and Pakeha life expectancy has increased but in fact if one takes a careful look at the statistics one sees it has reduced over the last 50 years from 16 years’ difference to 8 years’ difference. That was quoted in a 1999 Ministry of Health report as being a spectacular improvement. 
I come back to health and two streams of funding. If we look at the Government’s new population-based funding formula we can see that it is based again on race. Some district health boards get only $585 for a 40-year-old white male while other boards get $1536 for a 40-year-old Maori or Pacific Island male on the same income but living in a poorer area. If we look at the funding for primary health organisations we see that a sole-parent beneficiary living in a middle-class area will get 20 percent less assistance than a sole-parent beneficiary on exactly the same income in a poor area unless that person is Maori or a Pacific Islander. There is a 20 percent discrepancy. Where is the fairness in that? 
I come to two standards of accountability. Last year I brought to the attention of the House the Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust. It was found that Mr Apera Clark the man in charge of the trust who had received $800000 over a period of 6 years had decided that half of the money was actually his: “Half for me” he stated in a newspaper report “and half for the trust.” He spent his half on rates rent a gardener and cases of muttonbirds. Who missed out? Some people would say it was the taxpayer but the people who really missed out in that case were the Maori people who were supposed to be getting health care as a result of that funding. 
I would also like to draw to the attention of the House today my concern about a misappropriation of health moneys through the Tihi Ora Maori health provider. That is a central Auckland organisation that is supposed to contract local Maori providers to provide services for their local communities. It receives about $1 million per year from the Ministry of Health. The Ngati Whatua have recently contracted a private investigator Mr Michael Crawford of Advanced Investigations to investigate Tihi Ora’s Chief Executive Officer Mr Kere Cookson-Ua who is currently on sick leave and has been for many months. In fact he is still on the payroll but no one can find him. He is not on the phone. It seems that $250000 of taxpayer money has gone missing. The problem for the private investigator Mr Crawford is that he is receiving absolutely no cooperation from the people in a position to help him. For some time now Mr Kere Cookson-Ua—who cannot be contacted—has refused to release two laptop computers that are owned by Tihi Ora. Mr Crawford believes that there is compelling and incriminating evidence on those laptops. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What did the Minister of Health do? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Nothing. She has known about this since October last year and the ministry is conducting “internal investigations”. Ngati Whatua’s concerns are about the money. There is sufficient concern to contract a private investigator who believes that there has been serious misappropriation of funds. Most important the police have not been called in. No search warrant has been executed to secure the incriminating evidence. Why have the police not been called in? We do not know. Why can they not be called in now? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Two laws. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. There are two streams of funding in health and two streams of accountability. 
I ask the Government why Maori should miss out—because they are the losers in this story. It is Maori who are missing out and I challenge any member of the Government—one member on the other side of the House—to stand up and tell me what is acceptable about that situation. In health there are two types of funding two types of care for New Zealanders and two types of accountability. What we need in this country in order to give Maori and New Zealanders top-quality health-care is one law for all. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have a question for the House. Why will Don Brash not debate with Michael Cullen on the economy? Why the sideshows? Even a cursory glance will give the answer to that question. Even a quick look shows the success that keeps Dr Brash well and truly away from the economy. The Government is on track to meet its goal of lifting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. Last year our growth rate topped the OECD. We had 13 consecutive quarters of positive growth and that is why Don Brash does not want to debate the economy. The member was supposed to come here with some expertise and some credibility but he does not want to debate the economy with anyone. 
Gross domestic product (GDP) has increased 3.9 percent in 12 months. We have seen the lowest level of unemployment in a generation in the last 4 years. There are 176000 New Zealanders in jobs that did not exist before—the highest participation rates ever in the New Zealand workforce. That is why Don Brash does not want to debate the economy with Michael Cullen. Every region in New Zealand is sharing in that growth. We have seen the sort of economic activity and excitement in the regions of New Zealand that has not been there for a generation. It has happened because we are a Government that is determined and committed to working in creative and innovative ways with creative and innovative New Zealanders because we know that in doing that together we are a world-beating country. 
I say to members opposite that in the end New Zealanders understand that sort of progress. They understand that we cannot be dragged backwards as a nation by divisive and destructive policies or politicians. New Zealanders will simply reject that because they are just too sensible to buy into it. 
The Government has built the foundations for change and improvement. We can see the results emerging and as Minister of Tourism nowhere can we see that more than in the tourism sector. We see growth for potential economic return in this sector as huge. As a Government we have got alongside the industry and worked with it. 
Despite everything that was happening in the world and everything that one would think would undermine the opportunity for positive tourism growth 2003 was the best year ever for New Zealand. We topped 2100000 visitors. That was a 3 percent growth in actual numbers—an all-time high—in a year that saw the severe acute respiratory syndrome virus and the war in Iraq. That performance is virtually unparalleled anywhere in the world. 
Most important visitor expenditure increased at twice the rate of the numbers coming in and that growth is projected to continue for the next 5 to 7 years. That is the projection that Tourism Research Council New Zealand offers. So most important we have the numbers and steady growth but the growth in yield means that the commitment to high quality and high yield—the sort of tourism that gives New Zealand not only economic benefit but the opportunity to manage tourism growth in a way that is good for New Zealand’s economy good for jobs and good for growth—is also managed in such a way that we can protect preserve and even enhance the environments. It is the physical natural environments and the cultural qualities that we value and should want to protect; and indeed that is what the very sorts of visitors whom we are increasingly targeting want to come and share in and experience with us. 
This does not happen by accident or pure chance. It happens because we have a Government that is working constructively and collaboratively with an industry. A little over 4 years ago I had the privilege of being appointed as Minister of Tourism. I walked into a portfolio characterised by a legacy of disunity and distrust left by the outgoing National Government. That is the only polite way of describing the relationship between the Government and the industry. That was the McCully legacy in tourism. It is not surprising that a relationship in that condition was not nurturing the sort of growth nor the quality that can now be seen. 
So my first job as Minister of Tourism was to get alongside as so many of my colleagues have done with their respective portfolios and sectors to build the relationships and trust and to work collaboratively with the tourism industry. From that in the first year we saw the creation of the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010. We did that together—the Government and the industry—and together we are as a result attracting the high-yield high-value visitors I talked about before. 
I meet regularly with the stakeholders in this industry. I work closely with agencies like Tourism New Zealand on trade missions both here and overseas. I have attended the Trenz conference and the tourism conference here. I have worked alongside really innovative Kiwi business people who go to places like Kiwi Link a trade fair in Los Angeles last year working with 50 or so key business people alongside key players in the US market. The outcome of that as we have done it all over the world is that our trading partners see a Government and an industry that have a collaboration that they can trust rely on and can have confidence in. 
We are seeing the benefit of that as a country. We are seeing the contribution that tourism makes. It is now almost equal to the dairy industry. I do not think many members in this House understand yet just how significant this industry is. It is second only to dairy and I predict that within 2 years it will be the single biggest contributor of export income to New Zealand. Over $15 billion is generated for the New Zealand economy by domestic and international tourism. It is a colossal contribution. Nine percent of gross domestic product (GDP) or one in 11 jobs in the New Zealand economy—directly and indirectly—are generated by this industry. Yet the outgoing Government the supposedly business-friendly National Party had trashed that relationship. 
That seems to be those members’ style and their way—whether it is with business tourism or any other sector of New Zealand society they are divisive and they are destructive. That is not how to build good business relationships any more than it would build any other sort of relationship. This Government is committed to building a constructive New Zealand. It is committed to working with New Zealanders of every walk of life so that the benefits of economic growth and developments are shared equally among our people and shared fairly so that the benefits of growth and development go to all parts of our country. That is the sort of nation that the Labour-Progressive Government is committed to achieving not division or destruction of social relationships. 
Members opposite will be able to raise these nasty little issues with monotonous regularity because they are the issues that desperate Opposition politicians raise. They are the nasty little issues and sores that get picked at by Opposition members. Let me tell those members they will be doing that for a long time to come because the Opposition is where they will remain. 
Tourism is committed as an industry and a sector to playing its part. This Government will work with that industry because we know that out of that sort of working relationship and partnership we can contribute to the growth of our nation for the benefit of all New Zealanders—of all creeds and colours and of all walks of life. That is why I am proud to be part of the Helen Clark Labour-Progressive Government. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The last speaker said that there is excitement in the provinces. Well I can tell members the only excitement in the provinces is that Don Brash has had the courage to stand up and say what 90 percent of New Zealanders are thinking; that the political correctness on Maori issues has gone too far. That is the only excitement in the provinces. That Minister said the  
Holmes 
 poll last night—35000 people responded to it—is a little nit-picking thing. No it is not. It is an issue that touches the hearts of New Zealanders because it is about where this country is going. Those members can sit over there on those Government benches but New Zealanders are extremely concerned about the issues. 
 The issues are defined by the seabed and foreshore claim. This Government rather than choosing to legislate and make it clear right from the beginning has chosen to try to find a way through the middle of that claim that will please nobody. That seabed and foreshore legislation it is developing is only going to create massive bureaucracy and dissension in this country. It will achieve nothing to solve the problems. National has made it very clear what we would do. We would legislate straight away. 
So there is no excitement in the provinces only an absolute sense of being fed up with a politically correct Government that is destroying democracy. You cannot disagree with this Government—that is what people thought. We are. We are standing up to it. We have put a line in the sand and I tell you watch the opinion polls because 90 percent of New Zealanders agree with our leader Don Brash. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: We have got rather used to the Prime Minister’s speech being boring but this year really topped it off. Even her own people were having such a hard time trying to feign some sort of attention. But where was the vision? There was none. It was tired and staid. Nothing new was said. The Prime Minister should take a look at some of the issues affecting the electorate of Kaikoura which I represent. It is a beautiful electorate—stunningly beautiful. Of course the tourists will come. They will come no matter what Government is in power because we have the best and most beautiful country in the world. When I go on holiday I go to the Sounds because I think that is the best place in the world. It is a wonderful spot. 
But let us take a look at the aquaculture industry. What has happened to the aquaculture industry under this Government? It was growing at 20 percent—that was phenomenal growth. It was growing because we kept out of its way and let it get on with things. But no this Government has absolutely shackled it. It is being affected now by the high dollar. Lower returns are coming in. It is being affected by the increased bureaucracy. When the Government came in it said that it would get the Aquaculture Management Bill through. Now it has delayed it because of the seabed and foreshore claim. The moratorium has been extended. 
Then we have the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. What will that do to the ability to produce? It will be a disaster. The bureaucracy the increased legislation the high dollar—all of that is affecting the electorate that I represent and that brings uncertainty. In the latest aquaculture magazine there is a line where a writer says: “See you later I’m off to Chile.” That is right. That is where they are going—somewhere they can actually work and earn for their country and themselves. 
But the line in the sand with the foreshore and seabed is the Marlborough Sounds. Members should not forget that. That is the claim where this line has been drawn. 
Dr Brash talked about having one law and one standard of citizenship for all. How can anyone disagree with that? New Zealanders do not. Most New Zealanders are extremely fair-minded people. When one travels around the world that is one thing one really notices—New Zealanders are very fair-minded. They looked at past grievances and wanted to settle those claims. There was quite a level of acceptance of the Waitangi Tribunal and having past grievances brought out into the open and documented and then having those claims settled. But it is the contemporary claims that send a shiver down the spine of New Zealanders because they do not know where this is going to end. There is a level of fear that a country they may have been in for five and six generations is no longer going to welcome them. 
I will never forget coming into this House the angriest I have ever been when Tariana Turia said to me that I was a visitor in her house. I am a fifth generation New Zealander and I consider myself a New Zealander. I think I have every right to be treated as a New Zealander. I am not a visitor in her house. That sort of extreme attitude is what has put fear into the minds of New Zealanders and it is why contemporary claims send a shiver down their spine. 
But I want to talk about health actually. I am National’s health spokesperson. The Prime Minister talked about some things in her speech to do with health. As a doctor and a nurse I am very privileged to be in this position and I think I can bring some expertise to this House. The Minister of Health was quoting the Commonwealth Fund’s “mirror mirror on the wall” looking at the quality of American health-care and comparing it with Australia New Zealand Canada and the UK. In that one has to say that we rank No. 1 for patient centredness and the reporting of that was all about doctors. 
Do doctors make the goals clear? How do they interact with patients? Are they accessible? We rank No. 1 and I have to say “Congratulations” to New Zealand doctors because they are doing an extremely good job. This Minister of Health does not like them. She does not value them. We see general practitioners demoralised all over the country but I say “Congratulations” to them because this report shows that compared with all those other countries they are doing a very good job in the eyes of their patients. 
But doctors have been extremely concerned about primary health organisations. Nobody disagrees with the primary health strategy that is putting more money into primary care. But the implementation has been appalling. The Minister has completely messed it up. She sticks her head in the sand. She will not listen to the problems. The Audit Office is going to do a review this year the ministry did a review and showed massive problems but this Minister does nothing to try to sort out those problems. 
One of the cruxes of the problems is that the funding is based on race and location not on individual patient need. All over the world the indicators for poor health and high mortality are poverty and previous poor health. It does not matter what race one is those are the indicators. Whether one is a poor white a poor Chinese a poor Maori or a poor Pacific Islands person poverty and previous ill health are what affect mortality statistics. 
Primary health organisation funding has meant that in Auckland we see what we call pepper-potting. They take a location they say that because it has 50 percent Maori and Pacific Islands people in that area people will pay only $10 to go to the doctor. I know somebody in this House who pays only $10 to go to the doctor. Yet a poor person—whether it is a white person a Maori person or a Chinese person—in the Wairarapa or the South Island still pays $35. 
That cannot be right. We have to base the funding on individual patient need not on location and not on race. Also we must base our health decisions on evidence-based medicine not on political correctness as we have been seeing in Manukau. Sure we might all like a massage but should the State pay for it? Is it effective? And should only one group of people have access to that? No of course not. We should support evidence-based medicine. 
We heard there were going to be some improvements in the breast-screening programme. The evidence has been there for the last 3 years that we should expand that programme and that women of 45 to 70 years should also get access to that. New Zealand statistics when compared with Australia’s show that 28 percent more women die in this country. They cannot get access to radiotherapy in a timely manner. It just demonstrates the rhetoric of this Government which has continually harped on about doing something—doing something about Auckland roads and that has not been achieved; doing something about business compliance costs and that has not been achieved; doing something about breast cancer and mental health and other areas of high need like the workforce and none of that has been achieved. It is all talk with no achievements. 
This Government must do better. The Government’s own report on waiting times for elective surgery shows quite clearly that in a comparison between 1999 and 2003 less cataract surgery is being done fewer hip replacements are being done and fewer knee replacements are being done. The access to elective surgery is poor under this Government and it is elderly people who are affected by that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
:  
I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. Four years ago the Labour-led Government came into power against the backdrop of what was then called quite rightly a social deficit. People had said that after the 9 long years of the previous National Government—9 long years of creating social breakdown personal isolation and a range of social issues that we had not seen before in this country since at least the last Depression—they did not want more of that. They said they did not want to see more of that deficit. They said they wanted to see a Government that would put social policy at the centre of its programme. So that is what we have done. 
 The question we have to ask ourselves as a Government made up now of Labour and the Progressives and given support for supply and confidence by United Future is how we are doing. Let me tell members this: no other Government in the history of this country has held itself as accountable as we do. We have begun to produce a social report that tells us how we are doing. We have produced reducing inequalities monitoring reports that tell us how we are doing with regard to Maori and Pacific Island people. We report on ourselves; we do not need an Opposition for that. The group of people on the Government side of the House holds itself more accountable than that on the Opposition side does because we did not come here to sit around saying that we were not making progress and that we had not cracked the social deficit. We came here to get up every single day that we are in Government and say we will make a difference. And we do. We make a difference and we measure it. We can say after 4 short years of Government under Labour that we are now healthier that we are better educated and better housed that the regions are blooming again and that we are more creative more optimistic and socially better off than we were 4 years ago—and we can prove it. 
The previous speaker reminded me of an old joke about the National Party: how do we tell the National Party’s plane has just stopped? The whining continues. That person during her 10-minute harangue did not give one single policy about how she would make a difference. She talked about evidence. We are concerned about evidence on the Government side of the House. We settle for nothing less than the evidence of progress. 
I want to say too in the light of the debate about Maori and Pacific Island peoples that the indicators show we are improving there as well. There are more jobs more education and more health care for Maori and Pacific Island peoples. We are seeing ourselves improve in those areas. I tell the House that this Government will carry on investing in Maori and Pacific Island peoples because that is what we must do. Why is that? Because when we ask questions about education health and housing we find that Maori and people from the Pacific Island nations are in those groups that are not doing as well as other New Zealanders. The social deficit was bigger for them than for other New Zealanders. We are going to spend money on addressing that deficit because we are on about equality. We are on about making sure everybody is going forward together so we will make those investments. 
I tell this House another thing: we will tailor those investments to those groups of people and we make absolutely no apology for doing that. We do that for women for regions for young people for old people for new migrant groups and for men. We differentiate between people in every way because we know that one size does not fit all. I am stunned that the National Party wants to run one policy for every single person in the country. One can have whatever one wants as long as one fits the one size and if National does not mean that what on earth are its members talking about? Will they close kura kaupapa Maori? Well I guess so because there are no Maori according to the National Party. Unless one is full to the brim of what National members decide is 100 percent Maori blood one does not exist. I remember somebody who lived a long time ago in Europe. He used to say the same things about Aryans. The same kind of stupid thinking about ethnicity was in Europe just as it is on the Opposition side of this House at the present time. We will fund those programmes and we will make them different from other programmes because then they will fit the needs of Maori and of the Pacific Islands peoples and they will therefore improve circumstances like employment and health faster than other programmes would. I tell Dr Smith that we make no apology for doing that. We will do it and we will keep on fighting for that. The notion is that a future National Government would come back into this House and start saying it would have no kura kaupapa Maori would have nothing to do with Pacific Island peoples and would no longer deliver health in a place like Manawatu in a way that matches Maori needs. That is the vision from the National members—one size fits all. People must fit the model that Don Brash wants or they will get nothing. That is the model. 
On the Government side of the House we say that we do not intend to rest on our laurels and that we know we have a lot of progress to make yet. Four short years is not enough to turn around the social deficit that National created. We know that we have a lot more to do in education. We know that the deficit we had in education was one of not having access not having high standards and not having people in skills. 
The deficit we had for example is symbolised by the 1992 repeal of the apprenticeship legislation. What has been one of the most popular successful policies of this Government? The Modern Apprenticeships scheme which has now reached 6000-plus young people. We have just put some more money into it and we will put more money into it. We will ensure that it is tailored to the needs of Pacific Island and Maori people as well as to the needs of other New Zealanders. We will carry on investing in that scheme and overcome the deficit that was created by the previous Government where for nearly 10 years industry training—skills training—did not go anywhere. That is why Dr Smith can walk into businesses in his area and find that the average age of tradespeople is about 45-plus and that it then starts to go down again to those in their 20s. Where did those people go? I will tell members where they went. The industry training programme of the National-led Government added up to nothing. National collapsed industry training and we have had to rebuild it. We have invented the Gateway programme—the most popular programme for brokering young people into industry training—and the Modern Apprenticeships programme. We have increased the number of people in industry training from 48000 to 108000 and we will make it 250000. We will have the most skilled nation in the world. That is the goal of this Government. That party over there on the Opposition benches—National—and the people who support it were involved in a race to the bottom. They wanted nothing more than for us to be the cheapest lowest-skilled nation in the world. That is what its policies are about. 
Let us turn to paid work. We are on about successfully getting more people into paid work than at any time in the history of this country. We have 4.6 percent unemployment which ranks us 6th in the OECD. We have Maori and Pacific Island unemployment coming down and we will not stop there. Unemployment will get better. This Government is committed to having New Zealanders in paid employment and not on work for the dole. That was the symbolic policy of the National Government—people working for the dole. It is no wonder National members invented the policy; they put so many people on the dole that they had to get something for them to do. That is why they had the policy. Well I am not interested in having people on the dole working for it. I want them to be off the dole working for a real wage and getting on with their lives. That is what this Government stands for. 
Let us look at what we are doing with welfare policies. We have revolutionised those policies. If we look at the domestic purpose benefit under National we see that nothing ever happened to anybody on the domestic purposes benefit. Now every single year those people will at least have one interview. They will plan their future get educated get trained and go to paid work. Under that Government nothing happened. Those beneficiaries just sat there until their youngest child was 6 or 14 when there was a little flurry of activity—there was no help; just lots of flurries of activity—and then they went back to sleep again. I tell Dr Smith that we are on about that. We are on about making sure that we make a difference. 
Communities and families will get stronger under this Government and we will work with United Future on that. We will do some good business on that this year to make this country better for families. That is our commitment. We will make sure that we have less family violence. We will do something about the housing deficit. National sold 13000 houses. It created a $5 billion deficit in housing. We will fix the deficit. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am pleased to join in this debate in response to the Prime Minister’s statement and I particularly want to focus in on some of the family issues that that member parrots on about and bring him into the reality of some of the things that are going on in New Zealand society. 
It was so rich yesterday to read on the front page of the  
Dominion-Post 
 the Prime Minister of New Zealand asking how dare the National Party bring the Solicitor-General into politics. If there is any member for whom that is rich it is myself because in 2 weeks’ time I will be dragged across the road into the High Court because the Solicitor-General—this Government’s top law enforcement officer—is making me front up. What was the crime that I committed? I said a boy should be with his mum and dad. That is what I said and members of this Government want me to front up in the High Court. They are saying to me that somehow I have committed an offence and that they stick up for families. 
What is even worse is that it is a Maori family and I have not had one iota of support from any member on the Government benches for that Maori family which has been deprived of one of the most basic things: the right to raise their son in this country. I say to members opposite that I will be vigorously defending families and the rights of members of Parliament to stand up for their constituents—as their officer drags me before the High Court of this land. 
But let us come to the issue of what the Prime Minister was objecting to about the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General told the Waitangi Tribunal that the Government’s policy on the foreshore and seabed gave real power to Maori. That was interesting because the Prime Minister has told the people of New Zealand the opposite. I can understand why the Prime Minister would not want the National Party to publicise what the Solicitor-General was saying but we will and we will continue to do so because the people of New Zealand deserve to know the truth of the separatist policies that this Government is using to divide New Zealand. I stand by those 90 percent of New Zealanders who in a survey last night backed the comments and the leadership provided by Don Brash on those very issues. 
This afternoon I want to give some practical examples in this Parliament of those separatist policies and the way in which they are dividing New Zealand. Firstly I come to the issue of primary health organisations mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech. These are the great flagships of this Government in terms of that basic service—and let us call it what it is: this is about general practitioner services in communities like mine in Nelson. The primary health organisation that took effect on 1 January in my community of Nelson is run by a board. The board—would members believe it—has to have half its consumer representatives appointed by iwi. Let me share with the House the population figures for the area the primary health organisation will service. We have 84000 people who will be serviced by that organisation. Would members know what portion of the population to be served is affiliated to the iwi that will appoint half the representation? Nine hundred and thirty people— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Where did you get that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs. I am happy to table these figures from the last census. Yes in the Nelson region there are 6000 people of Maori descent but fewer than a thousand local iwi. I have more Ngai Tahu people in the Nelson region than there are from the eight iwi that are to appoint 50 percent of the representation—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to the smart-arse from Waimakariri who has just chipped in does he support— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows he must refer to members by their correct names. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Point of order— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just a minute please I am ruling on this. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When the Prime Minister gave her address the Speaker of the House said there would be no interjections. Why is it that you have allowed repeated interjections from members opposite all the way through this debate? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was not the rulinggiven. The ruling was that there would be no interjections during the leaders’ debate. I point out to the member that a reasonable amount of interjection has been tolerated including fairly constant interjections from him in the course of the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge the member for Waimakariri to debate the issue and to tell me why the primary health organisation set up by his Government will have 50 percent of the consumer representation automatically appointed by iwi. If that is not separatism I do not know what is. I say that a primary health care organisation should be appointed on the basis of merit and skills not on the basis of race. 
It is really interesting that when I raised this issue at the beginning of the year Damien O’Connor the Associate Minister of Health said it was because of a Government directive that there be representation. He defended it. But then the heat got a bit strong and when Dr Brash raised the issue in his speech the Minister of Health Annette King said: “Oh it was nothing to do with the Government. It was the doctors who provided for this.’’ 
At the end of my speech I will seek to table a document I received when I asked the district health board why 50 percent of the representation for the organisation controlling general practitioners in my area was granted to iwi. I was told that it was because of a memorandum of agreement between the district health board and the iwi health board. The document was faxed to me from the district health board—and I will include the date on which it was faxed. I say to members opposite that they cannot tell one story and have their little bureaucrats beavering away engineering the separatism they want for New Zealand then when the issue is made public disown it and blame the doctors. Government members should not blame the doctors they should take responsibility. 
There is another example of Government separatism. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Benson-Pope that right now the Canterbury Regional Council is considering submissions in respect of Lake Ellesmere. Lake Ellesmere as those from Canterbury will know is a large lake. Do members know what the regional council has said? It has said that under this Government’s Local Government Act it has to discuss the consent with Ngai Tahu. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Absolutely! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Righto! But will it consult the Fish and Game Council? No. Will it consult the adjacent farmers? No. Will it consult the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society? No. I ask members opposite why is it that when the Canterbury Regional Council is considering an important resource consent in respect of Lake Ellesmere and the potential for pollution from a large new dairy farm that iwi are to be consulted but nobody else? Is that fair? Is that right? 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Absolutely! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is interesting that the member for Te Tai Tonga says yes. Does Clayton Cosgrove agree with the Government? He is silent. That is because the Government is singing two different tunes. I will be interested to find out whether Labour will stick to its policy of saying that Forest and Bird Fish and Game or the neighbouring landowner will not be consulted but one would be consulted if one were Maori. That is wrong. Members on this side of the House say that we should consult all or none. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge Mr Tamihere to contact the Canterbury Regional Council and find out why Ngai Tahu is being consulted but nobody else. 
I want to turn to a further issue to show just how nutty the Government’s treaty policy has become. Many members will be aware of the large traffic jams that occur around the Kopu Bridge on the main road through to Coromandel. Do members know that Transit the authority responsible for that State highway wanted to get consent to drill two 2-inch diameter holes to be able to design a bridge to replace it? Do members know how long it took and how much cost there was to get consent for two 2-inch diameter holes for that bridge? There was a 2-year delay and it cost $200000. 
Members opposite somehow think that is sensible because the local iwi said that drilling investigation holes for the bridge was like drilling holes into the heart of their iwi. That spiritual argument was allowed to result in delays of 2 years. That sort of nonsense is holding back this country. That sort of cost means that thousands and thousands of New Zealanders put up with long delays every Christmas holidays and not just on that bridge. I could give 100 examples just like it. Members on this side of the House say enough is enough. People have had a gutsful of that sort of political correctness that is holding back this nation and dividing us. 
I want to compliment my colleague Lynda Scott who rightly highlighted the nonsense of Counties Manukau Health paying for massage and Maori spiritual treatment rather than getting on and providing quality health services. Ladies and gentlemen we want to have quality health service for all New Zealanders and to end this treaty nonsense. 
In the course of my speech I referred to the memorandum of understanding between the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and the local eight iwi that was the forerunner to the equal representation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Furthermore I seek the leave of the House to table the 2001 census data that was questioned by Mr John Tamihere. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
:  
E mihi kau ana ki a tatou katoa mai i te motu i a koutou e rongo ake ano i ro Whare e mihi kau ana i a koutou.Nga kanohi Maori o tera tino ra i puta e mihi kau ana tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to all of us New Zealanders including those listening in to the House greetings indeed to you. To those of Maori descent who celebrated that great day just past greetings to you 
.] 
Greetings to members of the House and to all the other New Zealanders listening to this fine speech. I am pleased to be able to stand in this House and support the Prime Minister who is leading a Government that is passionate about the future of New Zealand. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership she has shown in determining this Government’s key priorities for this year. 
The priorities for me as the Minister of Maori Affairs and for my Maori caucus colleagues are quite simple—to continue to strengthen communities to provide opportunities and to build partnerships in the true Kiwi fashion. In the current climate it would be easy to be deflected from our priorities for Maori but that will not happen. We are now getting the returns from our endeavours. We will continue to seek new and innovative solutions that work for our people. 
Making progress for Maori is never easy but we are determined to consolidate the work achieved so far and into the future. What is good for Maori surely is good for New Zealand. If we have not grown up as a nation by now then some people—especially those who are still stirring the sort of nonsense that is going on at the moment—should grow up. Maori as a people and Maori culture exist. There is a tangata whenua in this country and that is us. That is recognised by both Maori and other people. It would be a tragedy for New Zealand—not just Maori—if that unique part of our national life not found anywhere else in the world was undermined damaged or lost. 
This Government is about evening the odds and accelerating progress. Historically the situation of Maori has dramatically transformed. Let me remind people that in the 1950s 1960s and 1970s most Maori over the age of 16 were working. They paid a lot of tax—more tax than the other people who are now kicking up a ruckus about us being benefit-dependent and wasting tax. Maori were loyal to this country. They were loyal to the capital engineers of this country. They were loyal to the employers and they are still loyal to this nation and especially to themselves. They moved for jobs and were an integral part of the workforce. 
A major proportion of Maori live in urban areas but our people are increasingly looking to their roots through a range of mediums such as sports or ta moko. Even that joker who sings over in England has got one on his arm. Maori did that. 
John Key 
: Robbie Williams. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes that is his name. Rapata Wiremu. A great man! Look at how great Maori have been. They have travelled to the international stage. Millions of people have seen that ta moko on his arm. That is great marketing. The Opposition should get its act together. We are on the international platform. 
This Government is committed to meeting the needs of all New Zealanders while recognising their diversity. This puffery about racial policies is a lot of nonsense. This Government bases its policies on needs. If it is so correct that the needs of Maori are no different to those of other people then we are up the pole. If that leader over there is saying that women Pacific Island people or disabled people should not have needs then God forgive the leadership that might try to lead this country. Our policies are based on need and Maori have a lot of specific needs that need to be accelerated. 
The economy—dare I mention it—is stronger and more balanced than at any time in the last 30 years. New Zealand has one of the best performing economies in the OECD. We posted the fastest growth rate at 4.4 percent and that has created an environment of opportunity for everybody. My colleague the Minister John Tamihere is doing great things with small business around the country. They are rushing to him to be better informed. They want partnerships with this Government. Commerciality and enterprise are well ahead as Mr Tisch knows from being an accountant for a few years. 
In 2003 over 40000 more Maori had jobs than in 1999. The number of Maori receiving the unemployment benefit has dropped by 30 percent. We have knocked a third off the number of unemployed. That is positive. Businesses are thriving and providing employment opportunities and the increased income is adding to the richness of life for all New Zealanders. The Maori business facilitations service has successfully assisted 654 clients and there is a turn-around strategy. 
John Key 
: Unemployment is up today. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: May I remind that member that unemployment is hovering around 10 percent. That is the best for a long long time. 
The passage of the Maori Fisheries Bill heralds a new era of Maori participation in the fishing industry. It will enable the beneficiaries of the 1992 fisheries settlement to receive the assets and use them for the economic and social benefit of all Maori—and dare I say Maori ownership is providing a lot of jobs for a lot of New Zealanders. The settlement is worth more than $700 million. It has taken more than 10 years for this dynamic Government to come along and to sort it out with the great fisheries commission that we have. 
Through our economic prowess New Zealand is certainly a nation on the move and Maori are playing a key navigational role in determining that direction. Yes we are overrepresented in the negative statistics—therefore highlighting the need for policies. As a society we must all be proactive in finding solutions. Our achievements are based around investing in our future. What is good for Maori is good for the nation. 
I am a 53-year-old fine-looking Maori. I am the last child of manual-labouring parents. Maori aged from 70 to 80 made up a lot of our leadership. They were neither close to academia nor involved in management nor did they have the capacity to ensure that they had entry into enterprise. This 53-year-old Maori can tell the House that we will make sure that the huge demographic of young people accelerating in academia and gaining qualifications are coming along. So watch out—join up with them. They certainly want to run the businesses and own them. 
Maori are a young dynamic population. Members opposite are ageing. We are on the move. Maori have shown that they are eager to take up the opportunities to increase their skill base and education. In 2002 almost one in six Maori over the age of 15 participated in tertiary education. Last year 27 Maori graduated with doctorates compared with four in 1984. These things do not happen by accident. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. There are 800 more young Maori in apprenticeships. Almost one-third of the schoolchildren taking part in the Gateway programme are Maori. Theactivities and education in that programme will certainly be proof of greater advancement. 
On 28 March Maori television will start. It is a great medium to ensure that our language is consolidated. In the 1970s—the same time that Nga Tamatoa was pushing for constitutional change—the Welsh Language Society began to campaign for a Welsh language radio and television service. But it did not happen until 1982 when the fourth channel for Wales was launched. Many people in Wales—which some members opposite can trace their heritage to—now believe that had it not been for that initiative the days of the Welsh language would have been numbered. 
Te reo Maori is important and there are a whole lot of other things that are going great in Maoridom—for example the arts.  
Whale Rider 
 is putting us on the national scene again. We have Temuera Morrison Cliff Curtis Lee Tamahori and Keisha Castle-Hughes. We all own them as New Zealanders but they are great Maori who have really achieved. 
Pita Paraone 
: Kura kaupapa Maori. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is right and they all come from up Waitangi way—where we had a headache the other day. Maori have a place in this society and mad leadership is not a thing that should prevail. I am reminded of when I was a kid. I watched “Tom and Jerry”—the cat and the rat show. They were chasing round and round because they were after that bit of cheese in the middle. There are incredible similarities with that and the lineage of members opposite. They have the “Don and Gerry Show” but they are not too sure who the cat is or who the rat is. But we also know what they are because they fill themselves up with unnecessary power that does not help the people of this country. I say to them: “Watch our leadership watch what the Prime Minister did and watch these Ministers over here—especially the Maori faces.” 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Madam Speaker a tena ano koe ara tatou katoa mo te tau hou nei. Tenei te tau e ki nei wa tatou whanaunga hou mai i Haina te tau mo nga makimaki. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Madam Speaker. Greetings again to you and indeed to all of us in this new year which our new friends from China refer to as the year of the monkey 
.] 
Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister outline a blueprint of the Government’s plan for this country over the next 12 months. She also alluded to the Government’s achievement to date particularly when she said: “We built the foundations for change and improvement and now we can see the results emerging from the seeds sown much earlier in our first term.” Can I say that the seeds that have been sown are the seeds of discontent. If that is not enough they have been added to by comments made by the National Party and may I say with some passion. 
I want to refer to an example of these seeds of discontent. In today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 coverage is given to the review of schools in an area of the mid-north that I am quite familiar with. It is an area occupied by a sub-tribe that I belong to—Ngati Hine. We have been led to believe by the Minister of Education that all of this is being done to improve the quality of education for our children. I point out to the Government that the education that has been provided through these schools—from the past to the present—has seen many of their former pupils gain academic success to a level that has far exceeded that of their parents. Today we see many occupying senior positions of responsibility in our society and even overseas. Politicians dare I say it are also included. One school even produced a knight of the realm.  
As an aside members of this House might recognise some of the names that appear in the photograph of the honours board of one of the schools affected by the Government’s review.If those former pupils are able to achieve in the way they have on the basis of the education they received then I have to ask how are we going to improve on that education. I am therefore suggesting that the quality-of-education argument for these school closures is rather weak. I suggest that the underlying reason is pure economics but with no assurance whatsoever that the so-called fiscal savings from these closures will be utilised to provide the quality education spoken about.  
I also want to pose this question to the Government: how will this quality education that the Minister talks about help those students who will now have to spend an extra hour getting to school and another extra hour returning home? In no way will they be able to learn due to fatigue. With regard to that matter I want to quote the Prime Minister’s answer to a question during question time. She said the Government would get on in terms of meeting the needs of the needy. It is true that my fellow tribesmen of Ngati Hine are in need but the closure of the three schools in their area is not one of those needs.  
I want to comment briefly on Waitangi Day. First I want to take the opportunity on behalf of my elders to apologise to those members of this House who were treated in a way that was outside the protocols of our tribe in the north. I want to apologise for that treatment because it is not typical of the way we treat our visitors. But can I also say that the difficulties that we have at Waitangi have their genesis in this House and I remind members that I made that very point in my maiden speech. If we want to do something about it then we have to look at ourselves. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Tamati Waka Nene one of the 500 signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi said and I will translate it myself: “Kare e tarea e matou te whakamutu te taenga mai o te iwi Pakeha ki waenganui i o matou whenua engari me wahia e tatou i etahi o o matou taonga ki a ratou. We cannot stem the flow of the British coming to our shores so we need to share what we have with them as long as those things which we hold dear to us are respected.” In fact it was he who persuaded Hone Heke to sign the treaty but before he did so he said: “The moment we do and agree to this we will lose our land.” History has proven through legislation since 1840 that he was correct. In 1863 there was the Suppression of Rebellion Act; in 1865 the Native Land Act; in 1865 the Native Land Court Act; and in 1865 the Oyster Fisheries Act. In 1871 there was a Government stipulation that instruction in native schools had to be in English and there were many other Acts designed to alienate land. In 1880 there was the Maori Prisoners Act. 
I wonder what people over this nation think about Mr te Heuheu of Tuwharetoa of the central North Island who gave to the people of this nation the first national park at no cost to us the citizens. Where there is no dialogue what do we have? We have antagonism towards each other. Words such as “racism” have been kicked around in this House like a rugby ball and it has been said that a certain group of people are being held in special favour. Is that not the result of the policies put into place by present and past National and Labour parties? Previous speakers have used such words as “divisive” when referring to the identification of one’s nationality in filling out forms. Well hello! Who put the policies in place? If there is a pathway to self-destruction this is it. 
Most New Zealanders grew up in a country that was steadily improving—always and measurably. New and better roads bridges motorways and railways were being built continually. Smart new air terminals were opened to serve mass air travel. New manufacturing industries flourished transforming an economy whose prosperity was formerly based on sheep and cows. We had never been healthier and wealthier. 
I say to Labour and National to look to their past and to what they created because their policies have instigated division between the citizens of this nation. New Zealand First will put the people of this nation first protect their democratic rights to live as a nation and recognise their cultural differences. I say to the National Party that New Zealand First has always promoted equality in all things—through education health employment housing and non-divisive policies that put all New Zealanders first. We will not allow the race card to be used; it will be trumped. Under Crown ownership there was equality and legal title to the foreshore. The concept of public domain as announced creates legal uncertainty. 
United Future firmly believes in high moral virtues so I ask why it did not include in its supply and confidence agreement with the Labour Party a condition that the Prostitution Reform Bill would not be part of its coalition agreement.Members will see on pages A3 A17 and B1 of today’s  
Dominion Post 
 the results of the law that United Future supported and could have stopped. United Future members should look at it. They have supported the things that are causing degeneration in our families. I tell the people of this nation that at the next election they should look at the things that were never said and that have now been fulfilled. With regard to prostitution we should look at our people: 10-year-olds are on the streets and into drugs. The Government says that it is building the economy of our nation. it is not because our people are suffering. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Rubbish! Explain yourself! 
BILL GUDGEON 
: That member should look at the situation. She has been there before so she should not talk to me. The time will come when the Government will be accountable for the deprivation of the people of this nation. Yes I still believe in what I am saying and I will support it to the hilt. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 It has truly been a pleasure to serve as part of this Government. I reflect on the times we have had over the last 4 or 5 years and contrast them with the times basically through the 1990s when I was a member of Parliament in Opposition and before I came here and I have to say that the way in which this Government interacts with the people of New Zealand is completely different. Through the miserable 1990s the Government of the day seemed to have a cold celluloid soul. It had a miserable view of human existence. It seemed to believe that the only way it could get people in this country to do anything was by threats sanctions and coercion. 
It also perpetrated deceptions upon the people of New Zealand. I give as an example none better than the Employment Contracts Act. Prior to the election the National Party told the public of New Zealand that the Employment Contracts Act or its legislation would not cut penalty rates or overtime. The sad fact of the matter was that it did—and it created misery. It meant that it slashed and hacked into workers’ conditions and as a consequence many fine New Zealanders went overseas to Australia to find better jobs and conditions. It is ironic that today the National Party including Mr Don Brash is complaining that New Zealanders are going overseas when it was the National Party and the then Governor of the Reserve Bank who helped to create the conditions that saw those people go away. 
New Zealanders are working overseas as builders for example because they get 4 or 5 weeks’ annual leave. They get guaranteed contributor superannuation schemes better health and safety protection and a whole range of other things. That is why we do not have tradespeople in New Zealand. The Government recognises we have to do something about that and that is why we are helping to improve labour market conditions in New Zealand and giving workers 4 weeks’ annual leave. 
The other area of great concern to me through the 1990s was the rising level of unemployment. Unemployment seemed to rise and rise without stop and nothing could be done. The National Party had a traditional right-wing extreme response to that. It was the work-for-the-dole scheme straight from the Wisconsin Works project in the United States. National said to people on the domestic purposes benefit that once their children got to a certain age it expected those people to participate in work regardless of their circumstances. It set punitive sanctions if that were not done. National believed that people would behave in a particular manner only if sanctions were imposed upon them; it did not believe in a positive approach to people who were on the domestic purposes benefit. 
That situation was in stark contrast to that of this Government. This Government has changed the system completely. We engage with people on the domestic purposes benefit asking them what they intend to do so that they can build a better life for themselves. We let them develop their plans about where they want to go. We are getting towards the end of interviewing nearly everybody on the domestic purposes benefit and the results will astound the Opposition. I am sure that Opposition members will cast a Nelsonian eye on the results just as they did today in the House when the announcement was made that New Zealand rated No. 1 in an overseas survey on health systems. The National Party could see only wrong; it could not celebrate our success. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr Tisch bleats on. I tell him that when this Government came into power the National Party had left us a legacy of 158227 people on the unemployment benefit. That was the Tory legacy and that callous Tory party did not care. It said that it cared but it did not. I am proud to be able to say that the number of people on the unemployment benefit today is 94000. That is a reduction of 60000 people. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Wayne Mapp can diss that but that figure of 158000 registered unemployed was quite a low figure for the National Party through the 1990s. 
However the figures get better. The level of unemployment for Maori in 1999 was 14.6 percent which was grossly disproportionate to the number of Maori in our community. The reforms of the 1990s had affected Maori much worse and the National Party did not care. Why did it not care? That lack of care is reflected in the comments of the leader of the National Party at the time the Prime Minister who talked about islanders coming in through the window. There has been a tinge of this underneath all that National has stood for. That Prime Minister did not care about unemployment levels amongst Maori; this Government does. 
The level of unemployment for Pacific Island people was also another disgraceful story. Of the unemployed 12.3 percent were Pacific Islanders. This Government has done a very good job in reducing the level of Pacific Island unemployment to 8.8 percent. That is a 30 percent improvement from what the situation was. The story gets even better: only 2 percent of Pacific Islanders were in training; now the percentage is up to 5 percent. We have a fabulous story to tell. 
Why are we doing this? We believe that we should have equality of opportunity in New Zealand and that disadvantage should not be visited upon a single group. It was very clear from all the statistics that Maori were overly represented in the lowest quintile of earnings in this country and that poverty could be described by one’s race. Pacific Island people were overly represented in the lowest quintile of income in this country. Again poverty could be described by one’s race. That is the legacy of a Tory National Party. It does not care about Pacific Island or Maori people as long as its own members are well off. The National Party is about cementing opportunity for its members and for people like themselves but not about building a quality society. 
If those figures had continued then the legacy of this Parliament would have been to institutionalise disadvantage and poverty. Members can look all around the world for many examples of that and there are numerous countries where poverty is described by race. What is the gift to those nations? It is division bitterness riots theft and violence. Their societies fall apart because the simple fact is that democracy and society only ever hang together because people want to hang together. If they do not want to and see no advantage in being together then riots and all sorts of other bad violence will occur. 
We do not have any sign of that this day. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Mapp the only sign we have of it is because of the divisive politics preached by his party—the politics of rage the politics of fury and the politics of envy. I say to Mr Mapp that when he gets to the end of his political career he will reflect upon these heady months. He thinks he is heading for glory but he will come to see that this is most probably the worst policy option National ever promoted. I guarantee that Mr Mapp will regret those speeches. I promise him that. 
 What we want in this society is a sense of hope and opportunity. I have never seen such a sense of hope and opportunity in this country as I have on this day. When I grew up as a young man in the early 1970s there were lots of job opportunities for me and I was really impressed. I left several jobs because the morning tea was not up to my standard—a person could have standards in those days. Through the 1990s people had no option but to accept a job because there was no other. Young people today have options about what they want to do. They have the option of going to university or polytechnic or of getting an apprenticeship—a system the National Party abolished. People are falling over themselves to get into apprenticeships. There are over 7000 young apprentices and—boy—every one of them loves his or her job. They want to get on learn and make a future for themselves. 
Young people are in vocational training and they are taking up jobs. I personally know several young people who have more hours than they can work. One of them turned up and showed me that the soles of his shoes had fallen off because he had done too many hours’ work. That is fantastic. That is not the life we had in the 1990s when we had deprivation and misery and when every parent in this country wondered about and despaired over their children’s future. They despaired because youth unemployment was at stratospheric levels. It was an extraordinary event when a young person got a job. To leave school and go to a job was an extraordinary event; the usual thing was for the young person to leave school and go on the dole. This Government has turned that round. 
This next generation has hope and opportunity. It has realistic options about going to tertiary institutions realistic options about getting an apprenticeship realistic options about getting into vocational training and realistic options about getting a job. New Zealand is an entirely different place. It is remarkable how much it has changed in 5 years and the good thing about it is that we are going to have even more change for the better. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Equality—that is the word Labour members fear. That is what has them rattled. We have seen it in the House today—the first real time they have had to answer questions—and we see they fear the notion of equality. That is the reality. They fear the obligation of dealing with people on the basis of need not ethnicity. They cannot confront that reality so what do they do? Basically they do not tell the truth. I have been listening to a number of speeches and frankly they are distortions. It is quite clear based on what they have to say that virtually none of them read the speech made by Dr Brash. If they had they would not be misrepresenting it in the way they are. There is a word for that. I would like to be able to use it but I cannot. It starts with “l” and we know what it means. They need to tell the truth. 
Equality is the absolute heart of our democracy: the right of all people to be treated equally. The Maori members on the other side of the House know that their forefathers went to war 60 years ago and one of the things they were fighting for was the right to be treated equally to every other New Zealander. That is what the great challenge is today: the right to be treated equally under the law. 
So there is a dramatic contrast and that is why the country has been seized of this matter. At the depth of this issue people know there is a matter of fairness involved: the right of people to be treated equally under the law and the right for Government services to be based on need and not on preferences distorted figures or the respect to be given to people. Members on the other side would demean people—they would look first at the colour of their skin rather than at their need. 
So we say this and they are undertakings we give to the people of New Zealand. We will abolish the separate Maori seats under the Local Government Act. We will abolish the separate Maori seats in this House. We do that because their time has passed. The Government is living in the past. That is why it has these ideas dragged up from last century and from two centuries ago. That is why Government members think that the best response to equality to representation is to look back to 1867 and think: “There’s the answer!”. Well it is not. They should know that under MMP under modern theories of equality the time for those kinds of measures is past. 
Surely Maori do not really believe they should have special rights to be consulted on everything. Surely they would prefer to be treated as ordinary New Zealanders—the same as everyone else—on the issue of consultation. We acknowledge that people have a right to be consulted on specific issues around Maori land language and culture and those sorts of things. But beyond that there is the cardinal principle that underpins our democracy—and it is equality. 
That is so clearly revealed in Labour’s foreshore and seabed policy. Labour launched that policy on 17 December last year precisely because it did not want to be challenged at the time. Labour members knew it was explosive. They knew they had gone far beyond anything contemplated by the Court of Appeal and they did not want to account for their actions. Today is the very first time in this Parliament nearly 2 months after the launch of that policy that they have had to come to account. And they have had to come clean. 
So what are they saying? There are rights of veto. Yes that is true and those rights of veto will compromise the issue of access. That is what the Attorney-General had to admit in question time today. One cannot have commercial developments like sandmining like jetties—and who knows how far that will extend; perhaps there will be hotels over the waterfront in the Bay of Islands and marinas of all kinds—because those developments must compromise access and those members know the truth of that. Dr Cullen admitted it on radio when he said: “If you have a property right then you have a right of veto.” To my mind—my untutored legal mind—I would have to say that property rights mean exclusivity. That is the essence of a property right: it is the right to say “No” to other people. [ 
Interruption 
] That I say to Mr Cosgrove is what the word “veto” means. He should look it up in the dictionary. 
That is why this policy of the Government is dividing the country. The Government knew that back in July because the very first response of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General was to say: “Oh no. We are going to confirm this as Crown title.” That was their instantaneous response. That was their gut reaction. But what did other members do? They rolled them and now they are in a domain of division and divisiveness. For 130 years since 1870 we had the settled law on this issue. We had the settled law of Crown title with access to all New Zealanders on the basis of equality. Let us think what generated the Court of Appeal decision in any event. It was actually the issue of aquaculture licences. Well if that was the serious intent behind those cases in Marlborough the issue could have been dealt with at that level. But no this Government has gone out to divide New Zealanders. 
Maori members may not like to hear that but it is the result of their policies. Their single-minded focus on their separate rights has had the effect of dividing this country. They are responsible for that. They have whipped up a fervour around the country. I have been to some of those meetings on the marae and I saw what happened there. 
There was the correct response and that response was the one the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General articulated in July last year. The issue of aquacultural licences could have been dealt with separately and there would have been the opportunity of producing a harmonious outcome. This Government will rue the day it did not react on that common-sense instinct. 
I turn to the issue of distortion by the Government. We have talked a great deal about needs. I was listening to Mr Maharey who claims to be a well-researched academic. Do members know what he said? He said that National would abolish kohanga reo National would abolish kura kaupapa schools and National would abolish funding for language and culture. He is wrong on each and every detail and that was specific and clear in the speech repeated by Dr Brash on nationwide television. The Minister’s claims are fundamentally false and this Government is despicable in the way it is spreading mistruths. 
The issue is whether this House has a responsibility for uniting people. Does this Government have that responsibility for uniting people? The answer surely is yes. If that is the case then this Government needs to do a U-turn and build its policies on the basis of equality for all citizens of this nation. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 That was a very disappointing speech made by a so-called front-bencher of the National Party. I start by wishing New Zealanders who are listening to the debate the very best for 2004. They have a year—and a future—of hope to look forward to under a Labour Government. 
We are debating the Prime Minister’s statement which not only referred to a very successful 4 years of administration and to policies that have seen significant and outstanding economic and social results but also revealed to the New Zealand public what this Labour-led Government’s programme is for the next 12 months and beyond. I am proud of the fact that we have a very competent number of men and women on this side of the House who are committed to doing the right thing for all New Zealanders. 
Judith Collins 
: Name one. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: We have an outstanding Prime Minister in Helen Clark. That is more than I can say about those very desperate members opposite. They are desperate and they have a desperate leader to match. I note that a recent press report by a political analyst states that the National Party has what it deserves. It has a man who has been elected through the party list and who has been rejected by the electorate twice in two elections. The National Party looks to an old man to lead it. I say to the House that no political stunt like the one adopted by the leaders of Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s which misled the German people and played on people’s prejudice will succeed in this country because eventually it will be seen for what it is—nothing more than a political stunt and a dishonest one at that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure you know what I am drawing attention to. It is well known that in this House members cannot compare policies of parties in this Parliament with those of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: He didn’t say Nazi Germany. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes he did—Germany in the 1930s. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I was listening to the member very carefully. The first mention of Nazi Germany came from Mr Mapp in his point of order. There was no such reference in the speech being made by the member on his feet; he simply referred to a period of European history and to policies at that time which has never been ruled out. I think that if we get to the point of ruling out such a broad reference then it will be impossible to say anything in this House. 
John Carter 
: We will get into serious difficulty if we do not abide by the convention that has been set in this House that whether by direct reference or imputation there is no way we compare parties in this Parliament and in this country with those of Nazi Germany or with the history around that party or to communist Pol Pot or to any other authoritarian structure that we find abhorrent in this country. Although the member may have been clever enough not to refer specifically to Nazi Germany anyone listening would have known he was referring to the regime run by Hitler and we take objection to the fact that there was any reference at all in so comparing us or any other party in this country with that regime. Madam Speaker we ask that you ask the member to cease and to not continue in that vein. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: If a member from any party had made an accusation as specific as Mr Mapp suggested I would have objected even if it had been one of my own members because I think it would have been grossly inappropriate. The member referred to a broad period of history a tumultuous time in the history of Europe. He did not refer even to a specific country as I recollect. 
John Key 
: Yes he did. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: In any event that was a period of social upheaval in that part of the world and in that country. Mr Field made no reference to a political party and no reference to a particular political leader. 
Dail Jones 
: I was listening to the speech. It was very clear to me that the Labour member referred to a period of German history—he said “German history in the 1930s and 1940s”. One would have to be a complete idiot not to know what he was referring to and no one in this House is such an idiot. We are absolutely sure about what he was referring to and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise. A member has taken objection to it as well. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: Speaking to the point of order I withdraw that part of the statement. The reference was really in terms of political stunts based on prejudice and that was in reference to a period of German history. That was an example. The emphasis of the statement made referred to political stunts based on people’s prejudice. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think the members who have spoken to this matter have spoken very clearly and I rule that such reference could lead to disorder. I think that the inference was fairly clear so I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I withdraw. It is clear that New Zealanders will not fall for these sorts of political stunts. The real issues that people are concerned about are the economy health care education and the employment of our people. Anybody in this country can work out the fact that Maori have been disadvantaged and disproportionately represented in terms of the poorest statistics. They have the poorest health the poorest educational results and achievements and the poorest employment figures. We can be proud of this Government’s track record in the past 4 years in doing something about it. As the Prime Minister said in her speech as a result of 9 years of disastrous administration by the previous National Government we ended up not only with an economic deficit but with a social deficit that affected certain sections of our community including Maori and Pacific Island people. 
I said before that this Labour Government at the commencement of its administration did not look at the easy-fix solutions we were used to under a National Government; it looked at the long-term solutions and at what had to be established as a foundation to strengthen the New Zealand economy. We can be proud that at 3.9 percent growth we cannot do better than to top the list of OECD countries. The reality is that New Zealand’s economic performance under this Government is the best in the Western world in terms of those countries surveyed on economic performance. We can be proud of that record. I am particularly proud of the social policy that this Government has put in place in the last 4 years. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: Before the dinner break the focus was on the Prime Minister’s statement. I say that this Government can take pride in its achievements. We have a very positive story to tell about how much has currently been achieved in New Zealand and about how much more can be achieved with New Zealanders working together to reach and to realise our full potential. I am proud to be part of this Government which in the last 4 years has led this country and built the foundations for change and improvement. We are now seeing the results of that emerge. 
After many years of seeing sluggish growth and social decay New Zealand has picked up momentum and is moving forward on many fronts. This year’s Budget will bring important changes for families and I acknowledge the role that United Future has played in developing families policy. The new Families Commission will be set up and start to run. It will make major improvements to the level of family income support and assistance and will introduce new initiatives for early childhood education. That is very important particularly in relation to women who need to be encouraged to participate in the workforce when they can. It is also important that we have quality childcare so that we can remove obstacles to employment for women. We have a new mortgage insurance pilot scheme between Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank which is helping a lot of low-income families. That will benefit Maori Pacific Island Asian and European low-income people. It is certainly based on need not on the race nonsense that members of the Opposition are talking about. 
I want to talk about the consultation that has begun in terms of a new housing strategy for Housing New Zealand Corporation. Again that is particularly important in the huge area of Pacific Island and Maori people. In my electorate in south Auckland 800 people are on the waiting list and we are hoping to begin to deal with those issues. We are also seeing an increasing need for recognising and promoting the skills and creativity of our people. We have a lot of talent amongst our young people which if used properly can generate a lot of employment. One hundred and seventy-six thousand jobs have been created since this Government came into power. We can be proud of that record. There are other initiatives that are working because they are focused proactive and relevant to the communities we are trying to help. 
The performance of the Government has been outstanding in the area of unemployment in the Pacific Island community. Unemployment in that community was higher than for Maori over a decade ago at 32 percent. It is now down to 8.8 percent—recently back up from 6.6 percent—which is something we can all be proud of. We are not too far off seeing unemployment in the Pacific Island community being on a par with the rest of the country and that will be a real achievement to celebrate next year when we achieve that. Those are all positive things. It is a positive message for the nation. We should be proud of the achievements of this Government in the last 4 years. Extremism is a luxury for the Opposition and long may it enjoy that. 
This Government’s core mission is to build a confident and dynamic nation based on an innovative growing smart economy that can deliver more jobs more opportunities and higher living standards together with the resources to fund world-class public services especially in health and education and world-class infrastructure. The nation we seek to build is creative; it looks after its environment; it values its diversity and tolerance towards all its communities; it takes its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi seriously; and it is a good international citizen. Those goals are very much something that all of us as Kiwis can be proud of. That is building unity through removing disparities because poverty was determined along racial lines under a National Government for 9 long years. We are fixing the problems so that we can achieve genuine equality from which there can be the genuine unity of a nation. That equality we need to build is based on effective policies that remove those disparities. 
The reality is as I said that poverty was being determined along racial lines. It is a question of effective policies that will work and there have been particularly positive developments for Pacific Island communities. Unemployment levels are coming down and I congratulate the Minister of Education on lifting early childhood education participation amongst Pacific Island children. We have to build a foundation on which our children can succeed in schools. The educational failure of Pacific Island children in tertiary and secondary schools is appalling and until we begin to recognise that—until we lift early childhood development and education amongst our Pacific communities—we will continue to have educational failure and high unemployment as a result and we will continue to see poverty develop amongst those communities. 
Those are the positive initiatives and programmes this Government has put in place in the last 4 years. They are working contrary to the statements made by members on the opposite side of the House. We believe that those positive moves will bring positive results—positive for the whole of New Zealand. It will be to the benefit of every person in New Zealand when we have good race relations because we will have real equality and our people will achieve equally in all facets of New Zealand life. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is always a privilege and a pleasure to rise and speak in this House particularly in response to the Prime Minister’s statement. I would like to carry on from what my honourable colleague Taito Phillip Field was saying. It is worth repeating that particular passage from the Prime Minister’s statement: “Our Government’s core mission is to build a confident and dynamic nation based on an innovative growing smart economy which can deliver more jobs more opportunities and higher living standards together with the resources to fund world-class public services especially in health and education and world-class infrastructure. The nation we seek to build is creative; it looks after its environment; it values diversity and tolerance; it takes its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi seriously; and it is a good international citizen.” 
I would like Opposition members particularly in the National Party to reflect on their so-called glory days in the 1990s. When I shifted to the Wairarapa in 1990 I happened to be unemployed. I entered a Government-funded training scheme and was on a benefit. Lo and behold along came Mrs Shipley the Minister of Social Welfare at the time and savagely slashed the benefits. As a victim at the sharp end of that particular policy development—which led on of course from the “Ruthanasia” days—I can tell members opposite that it was a very uncomfortable time. In the small rural town I lived in and in which I still reside those benefit cuts had a profound effect. 
What did I discover when the good people of the Wairarapa had the good grace to privilege me with representing them here in this House? The Minister of Social Development the Hon Steve Maharey mentioned previously the social deficit that was left particularly in rural and provincial areas of New Zealand. I can certainly cite the Wairarapa as being among those areas. Some of that deficit consisted of—and was born out of—those benefit cuts. What I also saw happening within the social service arena was the depletion of capacity within the very Government agencies in those regions that deserved support and uplifting by their betters for whom they worked. I am talking about the offices of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services particularly in Masterton. 
What have we most recently and publicly experienced in the Wairarapa? We have experienced some of the worst domestic violence – related crime—heinous crimes against our children. In some instances officers of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in Masterton were involved with that. They have been stressed. They never recovered from the gutting that happened during the 1990s. When we came into Government in 1999 we made a pledge to start to rebuild—certainly out in the provincial areas of New Zealand—all that was ripped away. 
Another instance I can cite from my own electorate is the Wairarapa Community Polytechnic which we managed to save when this Government came into power. It was one of the first polytechnics up for the axe. There were a number of those under the National administration but this Government managed to save our one and only tertiary institution in the Wairarapa. It still exists there today under the banner of the Universal College of Learning Wairarapa and I am very very pleased about that. 
In more recent times we have had some wonderful input into helping to build capacity in our area. It irks me that Dr Lynda Scott can sit over there and scoff at the efforts that the Minister of Health under this Labour-led Government has made in providing confidence that we will continue to have a hospital in Masterton when even the former Deputy Prime Minister of the National Government and Minister of Health the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech was unable to provide that certainty. A $27.2 million injection provides certainty that that hospital will develop into the future meeting the needs of the area. Two primary health organisations have opened in my area—in Dannevirke and in January of this year in the southern part of my electorate from Masterton south. That is great news for the health status of people in the Wairarapa. 
As we talk about so-called racially-based policies coming out on the other side of the House might I add that I have never known a Maori health organisation providing services that appeal to Maori to provide them exclusively to Maori. They have been there for all and sundry to access and the only issue might be whether those who want to access them are quite happy to work within the wairua and the context of delivering to Maori. Those organisations never excluded non-Maori from accessing those services and I assume it remains the same today. 
This leads me towards highlighting as some of our national newspapers have done the kinds of policy—in fact the one and only policy the National Party has been able to put out at the moment which is hugely divisive to race relations in this country. Even the  
Sunday Star-Times  
said: “The voice of ignorance narrow political advantage and selfishness: the voice of Don Brash.” Another quote—from the  
New Zealand Herald— 
was: “Nothing would be more divisive now than an attempt to enforce a one-nation charter … responsible leaders must acknowledge the aspirations of all elements of our society. Dr Brash will need to do better.” 
Dr Brash wants to take us back 4 years to the unfairness of the Employment Contracts Act 14 years to the failed economic policies of the 1990s 20 years to before we had a nuclear-free policy and 164 years to when we did not have a treaty. Treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them exactly the same. “If you gave all plants in your garden the same amount of water some of them would not survive” is a very quotable quote that should be remembered by members opposite.  
What are some of Dr Brash’s other comments on these matters? “Primary health organisations are racially funded” he says. A primary health organisation’s funding is based on the needs of the community it is serving. On average Maori life expectancy is 10 years less than that of Pakeha. They will need more health care services and therefore attract more funding. Primary health organisations treating more elderly people get more funding than those with predominantly middle-aged communities and no one seems to be objecting to that. 
I quote Dr Brash again: “Scholarships for Maori are wrong.” Maori have historically been underrepresented in higher education especially in areas like medicine and dentistry. Scholarships have been used for many years as a positive way of getting greater access for Maori to those professions—just as they have been used in the past to encourage other groups such as women. Maori students still have to meet the same standards as everybody else to graduate and practise. There is no exclusivity there. 
Another quote from Dr Brash: “Maori get preferential local government consultation.” Councils have to consult with all major groups in their communities on decisions that will affect them. The fact that councils have to consult with Maori does not mean that they have to consult with the rest of the community any less. No one is disadvantaged by the fact that councils have to consult with Maori. 
The Labour Party is the party of the mainstream the National Party is a party of the extreme and I know which I would prefer. This party respects the name Georgina but I would question very much what that party thinks of the member known as Georgina. From anything we have seen to date they treat her with a total lack of respect. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Today in the court in Auckland a judge sentenced Mark Lyon to 280 hours of community work with the warning that this would be his final chance. It will not be his final chance because anybody sentenced to community work is given every excuse by this Government’s “soft on crims” justice system not to turn up. A judge said in Gisborne last week he was astounded that repeat community work absconders there are being given second and third chances to reoffend. Judge Tony Adeane said that in Hawke’s Bay offenders with a history of two or more breaches would be imprisoned but in Gisborne there was ongoing tolerance. That is because community work under this Government is being run on a Mickey Mouse basis where there is no accountability or responsibility whatsoever. 
Mark Lyon will not do 100 percent of his community service because under this Government’s rort of the system if an offender does 90 percent of his or her community work he or she is given the other 10 percent free. The situation is even worse because if an offender is prosecuted for not turning up for community work and is excused from attending he or she is taken out of the figures to make the percentages look even better. It is an absolute joke. The Government says 69 percent of people complete their community work sentences. I would say that not one person completes a community work sentence and that is another example of the wheels falling off this Government’s justice system. 
There are record delays in the nation’s courts. Today some defendants are waiting more than a year to come before a judge. Over the summer break the National Party released official statistics that show that under Labour the delays in the justice system are getting worse. In the Nelson High Court for example it took 11 days from trial committal to case completion 3 years ago but this year it took 300 days. In the New Plymouth High Court defendants will wait over a year to have their cases heard and settled. It is this Government’s mismanagement of the justice system that is denying justice to thousands of New Zealanders every day. These sorts of delays cause no end of anguish. They put the victims at danger of further violence and prevent the defendants from beginning their sentences or clearing their good names. As we stand here today in Parliament there are more than 32000 cases waiting to be heard before our nation’s courts—up 32 percent during the term of this Labour Government. Providing swift and fair justice should be one of the first priorities of any Government and simply we are failing to see it with this Labour Government. 
The National Party revealed tonight that even more wheels are falling off the justice system with the news that the people who provide judgments in our small claims courts are taking the unprecedented action of taking industrial action from next Monday. The country’s disputes tribunal referees are outraged at the way that this Government has treated them—incompetently and with no respect for judicial independence. I do not blame the disputes tribunal referees for taking this action. This Government has misled them at every turn. We have revealed papers that show they have been given undertaking after undertaking but Ministers were secretly slipping the timetable back further and further and providing empty promises without any substantiation whatsoever. We say that running a decent justice system is pivotal to any democracy. The Prime Minister with her one sentence about law and order in her statement is letting our system fall into disrepair. She was warned that the disputes tribunal referees would be taking action but she has chosen to ignore it. 
What is more I want to alert the House to three examples of the justice system in this country failing people in my region. Eighteen months ago in the Rotorua court a man was sentenced to 3 years for severely bashing his wife. Because of an administrative error in the Rotorua District Court that man was released only 5 months into that 3-year term. Within weeks he bashed his wife again incredibly seriously—because of an administrative error in this Government’s court system. Only late last year a patched Mongrel Mob member who had been involved in a serious assault was given leave to apply for home detention and the court forgot to advise the prison service that he had been given leave to apply for home detention. He was uncovered as being on the run only when he was picked up by the police in December and released again. Desmond Ngaheu is still on the run. He is a dangerous man a patched Mongrel Mob member and he still has not been caught because of an administrative error in the nation’s court system. Only last week the Ministry of Justice implemented yet another review of the way that the courts are being run in this country after another Rotorua man was accidentally let out of jail 6 days into a 3-month prison term because something in the system had failed to advise of the full length of the prison term he should be serving. 
Yet again the wheels are falling off the justice system. The Government cannot even provide the basic bureaucratic machinery to ensure that these sentences are enforced. I have to say the Mongrel Mob runs its businesses better than this Government runs the court system. When we live in a country where we can stand up and say that this Government should be ashamed. The Prime Minister must realise that the country’s justice system is fast falling into disrepair. When violent criminals can be released from jail early because the administration of the courts is failing when they can be released to their homes where they bash their wives again someone in this Government has to take responsibility for the failing state of the justice system. When 32000 New Zealanders are waiting for their cases to be heard before the courts and some judicial officers have to take industrial action to get this Government to deal legitimately with their concerns there is something wrong in this country. 
We are in the grip of a drug-induced crime wave in this country. Not a day goes by when south Auckland police do not go to a P-related domestic violence incident in their area. 
Jim Peters 
: And elsewhere. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: And elsewhere. This Government must realise that we need to support the New Zealand police with stronger powers to deal with these drug-dealing gangs. We need to change the Proceeds of Crimes Act in order to get the money the lifeblood of these gangs. We need stricter criminal non-association laws. But first and foremost we need a justice system that will actually provide the sentences that the judges give. What is the point of sentencing anyone if the system breaks down and the prisons do not know that person is coming? What is the sense of a system that sentences people releases them back on the street again and loses the paperwork? If these issues are happening in Rotorua they are happening elsewhere around this country. It is time the Government launched a major inquiry into the state of the nation’s court system. The administration is appalling and the wheels are falling off. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 It gives me a huge amount of pleasure to be able to contribute in the debate this evening on the Prime Minister’s statement and to welcome everyone back to Parliament for another good year of government—a year of good government under Helen Clark’s leadership. 
When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday about the achievements we have been able to progress over the last 4½ years and the plans for the year ahead I felt very comfortable knowing that her vision her integrity and her confidence in leadership are secure and that New Zealanders themselves can feel secure under that leadership. That security has not been around in the past under National-led Governments regardless of whether they were in coalition. People have felt threatened people have felt abused and people have not felt confident and valued as members of New Zealand society. That has been a very important change for us to make so that all New Zealanders feel valued feel welcomed and feel part of a country that is going forward and continuing to make its mark in the international arena. 
For the particular citizens of our country for whom I have the privilege of being an advocacy Minister that change has been tremendous. For New Zealanders with disabilities particularly the change in their opportunities the fact that New Zealanders now value people with disabilities for their contribution and provide the support and opportunities necessary for them to be able to make a contribution to the best of their ability has been a huge change. I want to mention just a couple of areas and one in particular that will be progressed further this year. It relates to one of the two most important areas for me and that is the opportunity to have a job. 
Far too many New Zealanders with disabilities are denied the opportunity to get a decent job in our country. That is for a variety of reasons. Some of it sadly is because of attitude. We do not have as good an attitude as we might have and I hope everyone in the House will be able to work together to improve the attitude that some employers have to employing someone with a disability. Some of that negative attitude is just based on ignorance so the more we can do to educate employers about the opportunity for them to employ a disabled person the better. 
That expansion of opportunity has been solidly backed up by the work we have done in particularly the vocational services area where we have made a major contribution to social development by ensuring that we put money and resources into and strengthen the infrastructure of the vocational services providers around the country and focus our increased money on supported employment. I have been really really encouraged by the strengthening of the vocational services sector and the increased opportunities that it has been able to offer people with disabilities. We have built the foundations for change in that area and I am determined to see that change progress more this year the year after and in many more years to come. When we were elected to Government just 4½ years ago we came in on a commitment to increase the vocational services support for people with disabilities and it was the first increase in funding for their providers for over 6 years. So the National Government in the past denied many people the opportunity just to get a job; that has changed and the situation for people with disabilities will continue to improve. 
There are 176000 more New Zealanders in work since the election of a Labour-led Government and I would like to see us getting really really short of people who are unemployed and people who are on a benefit. Part of that is ensuring that the transition from unemployment to work is supported and that the job is of a quality such that the person thrives and wakes up in the morning wanting to go to work—although probably not feeling ecstatic every day like we do—is provided with genuine satisfaction and a good challenge to himself or herself and is properly reimbursed for that work. So sustainable employment in satisfying work is where this Government is determined to put its effort. 
We have changed our focus from the social deficit model that was run under the previous National Government to a social development model where individuals where all New Zealanders are valued for the contribution they can make. We see it as a Government responsibility to support them to make that contribution. The support will come in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is through financial assistance for an employer. Sometimes it is through workplace modifications. Sometimes it is in other areas that members of this House may not directly relate to an opportunity for employment—things like ensuring that transport is available. We need to do a lot more work on public transport to bridge that gap for many people particularly those in provincial areas between their home and a job because many people do not have a car. 
Another area where we have made great strides and will make a lot more this year which is particularly pleasing to women around the country is childcare. In the early childhood education sector we can offer accessible affordable quality early childcare. That not only is good for the children and good for the families but offers both parents the opportunity to contribute in the paid workforce in a way that without that early childhood education without that childcare they would not be able to afford. For me the opportunity for more people to have a sustainable job is one of the most important responsibilities that this Government has delivered on. 
One of the other responsibilities is home support. Other than a job people want a secure home but they need not necessarily own it although a lot of New Zealanders still prefer to own their own homes. But security of tenure is vital for that person’s individual security and the security of his or her family. The increased number of people who now are able to afford to stay in their own home—renting it or owning it—for longer and are not constantly having to move means that the stress on the family is reduced community links are maintained those people are able to contribute more to a community they feel part of and their children are far less likely to be disrupted and frustrated when they change schools. A change from one home to another is apparently one of the most stressful things that an individual can go through. By introducing income-related rents by making State housing more affordable by improving access to the accommodation supplement and by ensuring that we are increasing the State housing stock throughout New Zealand we have greatly improved people’s access to an affordable home and have added to their security. 
The opportunities that we have created through employment and the enhanced security that we have given people through improved housing opportunities are major contributions to the social development of our small but very proud nation. 
The final point that I want to mention is in the health area. I have been very proud to be an Associate Minister of Health. I have responsibility for what we call age care—health and disability services for people over the age of 65—as well as disability services for all others. One of the big pieces of legislation that the House will be progressing this year was tabled just prior to Christmas. It introduces the phase-out of asset testing for older people in care. I am very keen to have that legislation not just progressed but passed because it is due to take effect from 1 July next year. At the moment our citizens over 65 can keep only a very small amount of their assets when they go into care. They tend to use up the whole lot so they are no longer able to leave their life-savings to their families as the majority of New Zealanders have intended. They end up having to spend it on their own care. That has been a sore point for a long time and we have decided to take a huge step forward in removing that inequity between the way that health support services are provided for people under 65 compared with those over 65. So that legislation to remove asset testing will be a good day of celebration not just for over-65-year-olds but for all of us who are getting closer every day to that age and are looking forward to the opportunity to perhaps live in a rest home at some time in the future. 
The final point I want to mention in the area of health is the strengthening of the primary health organisations. From 1 July all New Zealanders over 65 will have access to low-cost primary health-care and pay only $3 in prescription charges. That is a huge help for many older New Zealanders who feel there is a financial barrier between them and the doctor or between them and the medication they are prescribed. That is a major contribution to social development and I am really excited about the progress we will be able to make again this year. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 There really was a good deal to be commended in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday afternoon and I am acutely conscious that had we been listening to the equivalent peroration from Dr Brash the future facing us today would be very different indeed. Not only would we be looking at a rolling back of those gains that have been made in relation to Crown honouring of Te Tiriti o Waitangi we would also be confronting a brave new world of welfare reform that would make the 1990s look like a walk in the park. 
There is a real danger that in trying to capture the ultra-right vote from ACT National will attempt to outflank Muriel Newman and if Don Brash had his way we would be looking at the possibility of things like widespread work for the dole and work testing not only for all unemployed of course but also for single parents and sickness and invalids beneficiaries; time-limited benefits whereby after a period of say 2 or 5 years someone would not be allowed any further income support in their lifetime; and penalties for beneficiaries who have babies while on the benefit. 
These are only a few of the draconian measures mooted in National’s  
Saving the Next Generation from Welfare Dependency  
paper released last year. Although we have yet to hear of the outcomes of National’s own internal discussions on this document I have grave fears that the turn to the right epitomised by Dr Brash’s recent promotion will mean that ultimately National and ACT will be duking it out as to who can get the most votes from that part of the population who think that anyone on a benefit is merely a bludger and that if they are sick unemployed or a single parent it is all their fault and they should be punished for it. 
This threat now lurking to our right makes me more reluctant than usual to critique the Prime Minister’s plans in areas like welfare employment and housing. Labour is on the right track and the Green Party continues to be pleased to support the Government when it is doing things like for example carrying out very necessary improvements to the Employment Relations Act and doing more to support beneficiaries in a positive way into real jobs—even people who are currently trapped in the backwaters of the social security system on invalids and sickness benefits. 
I am also for example pleased that the Prime Minister has said that Labour is committed to improving the paid parental leave scheme this year. The Greens strongly supported this policy when it was first implemented and we look forward to backing its extension. We hope the scheme will be broadened to include more women in particular self-employed women and women who have worked for an employer for less than a year. We would also of course expect the Government to look at extending the leave period to the minimum international standard of 14 weeks. 
However while some women in New Zealand are doing comparatively well these days there is still structural and systemic discrimination against women. Just ask a nurse whether she thinks she is getting a fair deal in New Zealand right now. With a starting salary at just over $30000 and a top of the scale at $45000 nurses’ salaries do not fairly reflect their skills and qualifications. We want Labour to back up the fine statements made by Ministers when the nurses demonstrated outside Parliament late last year and in 2004 commit to increasing funding in the health system to address this long-term pay inequity. 
Beyond the health system we are looking to the Government to seriously look at how it can reduce the gender pay gap by introducing equal pay for work of equal value. For many years women have been told that once they are better educated they will get the same pay as men. But statistics show that education only widens the gap further. For example in 2001 women graduates with a Bachelor’s degree in commerce earned $5000 less than their male counterparts while those with a Master’s degree earned $7000 less. 
The task force on employment and pay equity has not yet reported back but we certainly hope that this group will provide a path ahead to urgently make progress on this critical issue. We hope that the Government will have the courage to take up recommendations made and where necessary legislate to ensure women are treated fairly in the workforce. Labour did it in 1990 with the Employment Equity Act and it can do it again. 
Although the gender gap widens with income the Government could also take a big step to reduce the gap and assist many low-income earners by increasing the minimum wage. Like the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions the Green Party makes the very moderate demand that the minimum wage be raised to $10 an hour immediately. It continues to amaze me that any employer politician or public servant can expect a parent to raise a family on a wage of around $8.50 or $9.50 an hour as is still the going rate for so many jobs. The Government should not be having to prop up low-income families through the benefit tax and accommodation supplement systems to the extent that it is. We would all be a lot better off if workers were paid a decent amount in the first place with the income tax generated helping boost our economy’s capacity to generate yet more jobs in businesses. 
 However while wages and benefits remain so low it is imperative that the Government reforms family assistance and family support as soon as possible. Labour has been promising such a reform for the last couple of years at least and I hope the fact that the Prime Minister made a commitment to this in her speech yesterday means that we will not see yet another Budget in the wake of which Dr Cullen and Steve Maharey say: “Sorry we couldn’t afford it this time.” Likewise if family assistance has finally hit the top of Dr Cullen’s list this time round I hope any changes will be substantial and meaningful not just a few dollars scattered here and there. I hope that we will see family assistance payments adjusted in line with the cost of living and inflation now and in the future. I hope that abatement rates are changed to remove poverty traps and that discriminatory policies that ensure families who are in and out of work are treated differently are removed. 
Some time in the next few months I expect my member’s bill—designed to introduce a universal child benefit in effect the same as the old family benefit—will come before the House for its first reading. The Green Party sincerely hopes that the Government will see its way clear to at least support my bill to select committee for consideration alongside any legislation dealing with family assistance and any other reforms to the benefit and related tax system that Labour sees fit to put forward this year. If Labour is serious about doing more to end child poverty and to undo some of the damage both it and National wreaked on this country in the 1980s and 1990s it must also get serious about at least beginning to redress some of the ongoing gaping inequities between rich and poor that are now consolidated in so many of our communities. 
The fact that unemployment has gone up as of today’s household labour force survey even ever so slightly is a signal that Labour cannot afford any complacency about the fate of families still relying on benefits for a living. With 166000 people officially jobless as of December 2003—up from 151000 in September; quite a significant jump—it is critical that the Government not only does more to help through higher family support and childcare subsidies but also has the courage finally to carry out the kinds of major reforms to the benefit system that are so badly needed amidst the administrative and ethical nightmare that is the Social Security Act 1964 and all its myriad amendments. 
On a related front I note the Prime Minister’s glowing reference to the Jobs Jolt proclaimed by Minister Maharey in August last year. While indeed many of the measures contained in the Jobs Jolt were positive it also reintroduced the concept of what we used to call remote areas and are now called no-go zones; it initiated the work testing of 55 to 59-year-old job seekers; and it also established a new regime whereby people can be taken off the benefit if they fail or refuse employer drug tests. This is despite the fact that this measure is of highly dubious legality and despite the fact that existing drug and alcohol services already cannot cope with demand in many parts of the country. 
It is highly ironic that we have a Government lauding regional economic development and talking seriously about working alongside communities while at the same time closing many rural and provincial schools and it will shortly be announcing the no-go zones—a measure that will be basically writing off designated areas as economically hopeless. The Green Party would far rather see as many local schools as possible kept alive and nurtured as they are often the last remaining beating heart of districts that have lost just about everything else in the last two decades. We would prefer to see a Government committed to maintaining and fostering local job creation rather than telling communities that there is no hope for unemployed people to find work in their district anymore. We would like to see a lot more resources go to community enterprise initiatives and small-business support than to corporates like EDS Ericsson and shonky shipbuilders. 
There are a host of contradictions in Labour’s current approach to poverty unemployment and regional development. I just hope that by the time Labour members begin making election promises for 2005 they have thought a little more deeply about what they are really trying to achieve in these areas—a New Zealand where disadvantage is solved by everyone living in a few big cities and the top of the South Island or a country where everyone gets a chance at an education a job and a living wage without the continued destruction of our rural and provincial communities in the process. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to carry on United Future’s contribution. I thought that the Prime Minister’s statement touched on a lot of interesting points some of which I certainly agree with and could not fault. The support for the Families Commission was certainly welcome but I think that Labour has congratulated itself enough on that and I do not need to do so here. What I would like to touch on are three different areas that are close to my heart and matter most to me: crime the foreshore and seabed debate and the economy. 
The first thing that strikes me is that we did not hear much about crime prevention at all. We did not hear much about pushing for more victim support. We did not hear much about the police force being given sufficient numbers or resources to do the job that New Zealanders expect of it. We did not hear much about what the Government will do to combat the scourge of drugs like P. We have come out with initiatives to try to combat P by advocating for a Western Australian – type model to seize the assets of gangs. Labour has not taken that up. I hope that the Labour members will think about it and come to the table and start pushing for it as we are. Labour has not talked very much about community policing either. That issue is of great importance to Christchurch where community policing is actually being cut back because of the lack of resources. Community policing has done a great job in Christchurch and to cut it back simply diminishes the ability to prevent crime before it even begins. That is a failed policy and I would like to see Labour put some effort into maintaining and extending community policing. 
I would now like to talk about the seabed and foreshore issue not so much from Labour’s point of view but in relation to the debate that has been brought about by the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is high time we had the debate and brought the issue into the open. It is something that has been simmering for a number of years. I am not altogether comfortable with the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has brought up the issue but that it is to the forefront of our consciousness is a good step because unless we debate the issue and bring it to the forefront we will not settle anything. Otherwise it will be one of those things that is under the skin of New Zealanders without there being an outlet to debate it reasonably. However the problem is that a couple of things have become confused. The main issue I believe is that most New Zealanders are sick and tired of the Waitangi gravy train. That is not a slight against Maori. It is a slight against the individuals—an elite group—who are making a helluva lot of money out of the process. I believe that that is what most New Zealanders are angry about. It has nothing at all to do with the rights of Maori and the customary obligations we have to them. 
The Leader of the Opposition has certainly outlined the destination but he has not given us one word about the journey to get there. He has not given us anything constructive about how we can get there in the vision he is trying to espouse. Oddly the National members have raised the debate to a level that they probably did not expect. One of the interesting things is that they now find themselves scrambling as to what to do for an encore. National seems bereft of ideas. It is like a balloon that has been extended and has now been popped and the National members are all standing around thinking about what to do now. It seems incredibly destructive to have raised the debate and then to have no follow-through. National members have to realise that while we should never be held hostage by history—and I think everybody must agree with that—we should at the same time never trample on our history either as though it is of no consequence at all. We hope to be able to support the Government’s measures regarding the seabed and foreshore but that will depend on the detail of the legislation we have yet to see. If we do not support the Government the sad fact is that the only party that will then support it will be the Greens and I do not think any New Zealander would be comfortable with that. 
If we look at the economy we see that most Governments like to take credit for the good news in a buoyant economy. I suppose that is understandable but the credit actually belongs to private enterprise. It belongs to those New Zealanders who get out there start businesses employ people and provide services. Instead of passing the advantage of the Government surplus that has accrued from that process back to the public—which created that wealth in the first place—through lower taxes we have an increasing tax burden through increasing compliance costs. That makes no sense whatsoever. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I want to begin my comments in this debate by echoing the statement made by Peter Dunne yesterday and our spokesperson on finance Gordon Copeland that United Future is making it a priority this year to call for the Government to remove the GST on rates which is rightly called a tax on tax. This is a tax cut that makes sense and we often hear calls from members on this side of the House for a tax cut. This is a sensible reduction in the tax burden on New Zealanders. We frequently hear that local government is being constantly given more responsibilities by central government without the funding to assist it in carrying out its obligations. We know that this is often true. Councils have no option but to pass on the costs through increased rates and user-pays means. Removal of GST will give real tax breaks to ratepayers. It will reduce the tax burden on many families struggling to pay their mortgages when interest rates rise and on those living on fixed incomes like the retired who face heavy increases in their rate bills. It is good sense it is common sense and it is a tax cut that makes sense. 
Secondly I would like to talk about something that does not make sense in this country and that was not mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech—that is what we are doing with our valuable fisheries resource which could be harvested for the benefit of our nation’s economy. Currently too many of our quota are being leased by overseas fishing companies through joint ventures in this country. The fish are harvested at sea by fishermen being paid almost slave-labour rates processed off shore in countries with cheap labour and processing costs then exported around the world with no benefit to the New Zealand economy apart from the price paid to the quota holders. Part of the mantra of the Government’s economic development initiatives has been that we should add value to our raw materials before we export. If we are to allow overseas companies to lease our quota we should at least require that their vessels land their fish here on our shores so that they are processed here create jobs here are exported as part of our export quota and play a part in remedying our balance of payments problems. Let us understand that these countries that come here to fish do not allow our fishermen to go to their waters to fish there so we are not talking about prejudice against these nations; it is simply a case of having a level playing field. The product of New Zealand seas is being sold overseas as a product of New Zealand yet it has never seen the shores of this country. That should not be happening. Every fisherman I have talked to so far and every New Zealander in the street considers it madness that we allow our resources to be flogged off in this way. 
Finally I want to talk about our environment and our conservation policy. New Zealanders love the outdoors—the beach the bush and the lakes. We are proud of what we have and we want to preserve it for future generations but we do not want to preserve it by locking it away and prohibiting access because of fear-based scaremongering ideas about what could happen if humans were allowed to enter the pristine environment we have been blessed with. United Future believes as do most New Zealanders that humans are part of the natural environment; that in fact we are at the top of the order and have a right to be in the environment to extract energy food and pleasure from it. Of course we want to be sensitive and to treat it sustainably but we have something to add to the whole picture with our technology and our science. In fact we suggest that sustainability is not possible without our technological innovation. The comments made after the recent diesel spill in Milford Sound that we may now have to look at restricting access and keeping the environment locked away are pretty scary stuff when the only response that may be required is to have lockable fuel caps on boats that enter the fiords. 
Together with our friends in Outdoor Recreation NZ over the next few months United Future will develop common-sense family-friendly people-friendly environmental policy and I look forward to presenting that to the people of New Zealand and to this House and advocating for its implementation throughout this year. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am pleased to participate in this debate. I listened particularly carefully to the Prime Minister’s address when she covered the health areas that her Government will progress over the coming year. I want to touch on some of those areas that are in my portfolio. 
I know that elderly New Zealanders in particular would have been really pleased to hear the promise of more major hip and knee-joint surgery. We hope they are not disappointed. New Zealand First has been very aware that many of these people have resorted to going to health-food shops to purchase natural herb products to assist them with their joint problems while they wait to see a hospital specialist or are being referred back to their general practitioners or are monitoring their ever-changing position on the hospital waiting list. We hear of people who are ranked 36th getting a letter and finding that lo and behold they are 38th and finally after getting another letter finding they are 64th on the waiting list to see a specialist. These clerical cuts or adjustments as we call them to the waiting lists belie the health problems that are suffered by many New Zealanders. This situation does not give any New Zealander much confidence in the health system at all. People start out with knee problems they quickly turn into hip problems and that is another expensive treatment. The bottom line is that we need to see some action in this area and New Zealand First will be monitoring it very closely. 
Some of the many areas that concern and worry New Zealanders were not even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech. The exporting of New Zealand women to Australia for cancer treatment is far from a glowing advertisement for this Government. Those women would prefer to have their treatment in New Zealand but for many that is not even an option. 
The exporting of our competent and capable health professionals to greener pastures overseas is continuing. This was also reflected in a report tabled by the Minister of Health in Parliament today. Our health professionals are highly valued and this was mentioned in the report but here in New Zealand what are we doing but exporting doctors nurses and pharmacists in higher numbers than ever before? What is that doing to progress the health system here in New Zealand? Absolutely nothing! This export affects everyone and it particularly affects the rural and small-town dwellers the hardest as they already have great trouble retaining their health professionals. The Government needs to be more proactive in keeping track of the number of doctors nurses and pharmacists who are leaving or we will wake up and find that we are in crisis mode in this vitally important area. This is a fundamental issue and action is required. 
We often hear too that the state of the nation can be determined by the state of the health of its children. The health of our children is declining. We have a higher need for dental treatment than we have had for many years and that in part can be related to the diet that many of our children have. Poverty means that the parents in many of these cases are looking for a diet that best suits their economic situation and that does not always mean that a healthy diet of fruit vegetables and meat is an option. We have many overweight children and they will create their own problems for the health system to deal with. Prevention is far better than cure. We are all aware here in this House that the children in New Zealand deserve the very best that we can give them and there is no argument on that. 
The extension of the breast-screening programme mentioned by the Prime Minister in her speech is a good start but again the age criterion needs to be reviewed. American researchers found that the age-limits need to be reviewed downwards. Australia already carries out breast-screening from the age of 40 years. This wider age range could definitely save lives by making earlier discovery of this disease and earlier treatment possible. We need to learn from the experience of these countries and take steps to save New Zealand women and their families from unnecessary tragedy. We remind the Government of the old saying: “Good is not good where better is expected.” All New Zealanders expect more from health care. It is really essential to work on the basics in the health system as the health system is absolutely fundamental. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 As the New Zealand First spokesperson on youth affairs I want to talk about something that is of real concern to the young people of this nation. A lot of them might not be concerned about this particular issue as we speak; a lot of them might not even understand what it all means and what significance it plays and will play in their future. The issue that will affect them the most just purely because of their age is this country’s continuing slide into Third World status. 
We face issues such as the soaring cost of electricity and the Minister of Energy is promising a further increase of 15 percent; the escalating cost of running the family car as the dollar goes up and likewise the price of petrol; and the closing down of schools which affects young people. The sick health system as just mentioned by my colleague Barbara Stewart and as evidenced in the exporting of women for treatment abroad is also a major issue. All of that highlights an economy that is slipping slowly into Third World status. There are other issues such as the skyrocketing value of the New Zealand dollar. That is putting a lot of pressure on exporters and massive pressure on farmers. We all know that and the Minister of Finance himself admitted it. One of the biggest worries is that our standard of living compared with that of other OECD countries is in decline. My leader yesterday rightly said that more and more New Zealanders are time poor. They now live to work not work to live. Three years ago  
The Economist 
 warned that New Zealand looked to be the first country in 50 years to go from the First World to the Third World. That is the point I am highlighting. It is the issue of major concern to our future generation and that is why I am raising it this evening. 
Another issue that the Government needs to look at in the foreseeable future is reprioritising its operating expense capacity in order to fix such things as health waiting-lists to invest in character training for youth and to put more money into programmes such as youth suicide prevention—not just among other things the $1.7 million allocated in the Budget for policy advice in the youth affairs portfolio. I believe we need to look at issues like that. 
Fromlooking at the experiences of successful economies around the world I believe we need to place higher concentration on the needs of the export sector than we are doing at the moment. Both National and Labour Governments— 
Hon Member 
: What’s wrong with it? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The value of exports is declining. That is what is wrong and the statistics show it. Both National and Labour Governments of the past 20 years have had a stronger focus on inflation than on the export sector. We are now paying for that in a big big way.New Zealand First proposes to create tax incentives for exporters. We believe that is a major way to expand the export sector and its markets. We are very strong on that. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Who and how much? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: We would create a tax abatement scheme—20c in the dollar for new export net profit. 
I want to finish by stating my personal opinion that in the last year certain policies have been pushed on to New Zealanders—for example the Prostitution Reform Act the promotion of Internet gaming and the current promotion of the civil unions bill. It is very sad for the people of New Zealand to have these anti-family policies forced on them without a mandate from the people. Last but not least I believe that New Zealand First will continue to support good policy and continue to oppose bad policy. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 A te wahanga tuatahi kua homaingia ki ahau mo tenei wa o te Whare Paremata na te mea koia nei tenei te wahanga tuatahi hei tutanga hei korero maku a kei te mihi atu ki a koe kei te Kaikorero o te Whare Mr Assistant Speaker.Kei te mihi whanui hoki katoa ki nga mema katoa o te Whare Paremata. Ko te tumanako kia pai te tau hou kei te haere mai.No reira huri ana tena koutou a kia ora mai ano tatou koutou. 
Mr Assistant Speaker I was acknowledging you in the new year and the aspirations of members of Parliament for the coming year. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but the translator is in the House and I wonder whether he would mind translating what Mr Samuels was saying. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I think members are well aware that members can translate for themselves and this member is well capable of that. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: If the member wants to ask the translator to translate what I have said kei te pai as far as I am concerned. Perhaps she will listen very carefully if it is repeated a second time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it has been translated. I do not think the honourable member should have been interrupted. He translated it into English. I am satisfied with that. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is always a privilege to stand in this House and to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement to the Parliament outlining the Government’s legislative policy programmes for the coming year. However I just want to share with members of this House an interesting observation I made during the dinner break because I think all members recognise and acknowledge that tonight there is a celebration of the Year of the Monkey for the Chinese community. I made an interesting observation because when the Prime Minister made the announcement that the Government was putting together a package of reconciliation with the Chinese community of $5 million it was not an apparition that I saw clapping and in fact supporting the reconciliation package for the Chinese people of New Zealand. 
On my right was standing the deputy leader of the National Party and he was giving a pakipaki—applause. I had to look twice because I had to convince myself that it was not an apparition. I had to convince myself that this was the member on the other side of the House who was saying something different earlier on today. I could be mistaken but at this time I am sure it was Gerry Brownlee. 
The Prime Minister concluded her address to Parliament yesterday by telling this nation that the Government’s mission is clear. I want to quote the last paragraph of her speech so that our people who are listening will be quite clear on the intention in the programme of this Labour-led Government. She said: “Our mission is clear: we want to build a New Zealand that offers equal opportunity a fair go and security for all our people. We want to unite not divide. We want New Zealanders to take pride in all our country’s achievements—economic social and be creative. We want our country to be well respected internationally. In short we want to make a difference for the better. We know that being in Government is a privilege not a right and that we must earn that privilege every day. We look forward to another year of engaging with New Zealanders across our communities industries and regions and of working in partnership with them to make a difference for the better.” 
Then I listened to the National Party Opposition and the ACT Opposition. I listened to their mission statement. It is all so very clear to the people of this country and to the Maori nation. Their mission is to divide our people. Therein lies the fundamental difference between this Labour-led Government and a National-ACT coalition. This Government’s programme for 2004 is to build and progress policies that provide a better way of life and a better future for all New Zealanders in Aotearoa. I want to give an example to the members of this House and I also want to give an example to my colleagues in Te Tai Tokerau in Northland. The  
Northland Advocate 
 a paper that is not generally known to support the Labour Party at the end of last year— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why are you closing those schools? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I am going to ring my cousin Denese and tell her to turn the radio on. At the end of last year an editorial in the  
Northern Advocate 
 stated: “Grabbing fair share of prosperity for Northland. Good news for Maori good news for New Zealand.” I shall quote from the  
Northern Advocate 
. It is virtually a Tory paper. Even my colleague Brian Donnelly agrees with it. “Grabbing our fair share of prosperity. At least 800 more Northlanders are now in full-time employment than they were 12 months ago. Finally this region is enjoying the sort of robust economic growth that has too often bypassed Northland. Today we show what this economic growth means at a human level. Many who have spent years on the unemployment benefit are now finding sustainable full-time jobs.” Those statements are from the  
Northern Advocate 
 the Tory paper in Whangarei. “Rarely in the last three decades has the country as a whole enjoyed such a period of sustained steady growth. There has been an extraordinary period when a whole range of economic factors have fallen into place to such an extent that the economy has withstood shell shocks such as the aftermath of September 11 and the second Iraq war relatively well.” 
That is not Labour Party propaganda. It is the  
Northern Advocate 
 in Whangarei. The only thing I am concerned about is that it did not write it in Maori so I could present it to the Hon Don Brash. The good news goes on and on: “This summer at least Northland businesses catering to the tourist trade have every reason to be optimistic. Already we have had the first of several cruise ships visiting the Bay of Islands and strong growth in tourism numbers are predicted. Jobs in this region have been created in the building and constructing industries. Large numbers of people are reportedly being placed in the retail sector. All this is good news for people like Steven Cameron and others who for too long have been unable to find sustainable employment. At last Northland stands to enjoy its fair share of economic growth and prosperity that flows from that.” 
One hundred and twenty thousand new jobs—cop that good news—have been created since Labour became the Government and 2300 more Maori have been employed. How is that? Do I hear anything from the Opposition? I ask Simon “Horsepower” to give us a little bit of encouragement here. Maori employment is down and that is good news. 
Much has been said about Waitangi Day and the Te Tii Marae. Along with the Prime Minister and other parliamentary colleagues I too attended. The behaviour abuse and intimidation of manuhiri and visitors by a minority of extremists was regrettable. On behalf of Ngapuhi and Te Tai Tokerau I apologise to members of this House and the manuhiri who attended at Te Tii Marae. 
That behaviour is contrary to Ngapuhi kawa. It is contrary to Maori kawa. However I also experienced a good and positive side. We were proud to go on the waka with Hector Busby to look at all our kaihoe doing the haka and performing on the beach. Hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders were swelling with pride and applauding those young people. 
I want members of this House to look at the plaques around this Chamber and to remember and reflect on the New Zealanders who went to war and died for us both Maori and Pakeha standing side by side. They spilt their blood on foreign lands for us so that we can be free of oppression and divisiveness and so that this nation can be united. Members should hold on to those memories when they look around the plaques for Gallipoli Egypt and Palestine of the love our forebears had for our country when they went over there willing to make the greatest sacrifice in the world and that is their lives. 
When people want to introduce some policies that will divide this nation then I humbly ask them to think again. Maoridom will not go away. Our roots are in this land. We are here to stay. All the Maori nation is asking for is consideration and equality. If one looks at what happened some of our New Zealanders won the Victoria Cross. When one went down the other picked him up and carried him wounded. That is the spirit of New Zealand and I hope that as this debate continues that spirit will overwhelm us. I ask all members of this House to look around and reflect upon the bravery of our soldiers men and women Maori and Pakeha who went overseas and sacrificed their lives for us and for people in this Chamber. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate and it is especially a pleasure to follow my colleague the Hon Dover Samuels a master of the whai korero as we have just found out. I am proud to speak in this debate to support the Prime Minister and her statement to this House. I am proud to stand here as a member of a Government that has kept its word. I am proud to stand here as a member of a Government that has resolved not to leave a single New Zealander behind. As the Prime Minister put it it is a Government that will ensure that the rising tide will raise every boat. 
I am proud to be a member of a Government that knows where it comes from. With an appreciation and respect for its past it knows where it is headed. I am proud to be a member of a Government that has principles and is not afraid to stand up for them and to defend them; a Government that believes that inciting fear is no way to lead a country to prosperity and happiness and stands up to those who in the absence of real leadership and principles are shameless and gutless enough to pit New Zealander against New Zealander in a farcical debate based on sweeping generalisations and absolutely no facts whatsoever; a Government that thinks that the real issues facing this nation are those that put food on the table a roof over people’s heads and provide New Zealanders with sustainable and long-term employment; a Government that provides services and assistance where it is needed and will continue to do so designing and targeting programmes for Maori Pacific peoples women men youth superannuitants regional New Zealand urban New Zealand and the list goes on. In short it is a Government that is not so lazy that it has to come up with a one-size-fits-all policy to avoid doing any detailed work. 
While that Opposition whines this Government has been working. Nowhere is the fruit of this Government’s efforts more evident than in the area of job skills employment and industry training. That is the powerhouse of this Labour-led Government and those are the issues I want to talk about—real issues that affect real people every day in every part of New Zealand. We are busy running this country while the Opposition is interested only in running it down. 
This Government has been committed to assisting all New Zealanders into long-term employment and training. I am sure that all political parties lay claim to such a lofty goal but only the proactive approach the Hon Steve Maharey has taken in this area has actually delivered results—results that have impacted on the lives of the 176000 extra people in work since Labour formed a Government in 1999. Our unemployment rate now stands at 4.6 percent. That is lower than in Australia the United States lower than the OECD average and in fact lower than all our major trading partners. Maori unemployment now stands at around 10 percent. That is a significant drop from when we took office. 
I doubt whether anyone would argue that that result is not great for the entire country. More New Zealanders working is good for the economic and social well-being of our country. That is what happens when one is not afraid to target need. Would National and ACT remove the initiatives that have produced that result? Would they rather have Maori unemployment back up kicking around 15 percent or higher? I do not really think they care. They have painted themselves once again as parties that rule for the few and not for all Kiwis—in fact not even for most Kiwis. As our time goes on and our demographics continue to change they will represent even fewer. That is fine by us. The Labour Party says “Bring it on.” We will continue to shoulder the privilege and the responsibility of governing for all and of acting in everyone’s best interests. 
New Zealanders of all persuasions should take considerable comfort that they have a Government that will listen to all people on all issues regardless of whether they are the majority interest and make decisions based on the merits of the case and the need of the individuals and the communities involved. After all at some point any one of us could find himself or herself in a minority. Those of us from regional New Zealand who endured the 1990s know that only too well. They can rest assured that under this Government their interests will be looked after just as carefully as everyone else’s even if it does not deliver the most votes. 
 Speaking from personal experience nowhere has the huge positive impact of this Government’s skills and industry training initiatives been more evident than in my hometown of Gisborne. Gisborne has always been a great place to live and visit. It has good weather great beaches and friendly locals but it always carried a yoke around its neck born of a public perception of failure based on high unemployment and low regional growth. Thanks to this Government’s policies to assist regional New Zealand and its commitment to industry training and the upskilling of our workforce Gisborne is thriving. The change is tangible. The city is humming. It is vibrant and excited and for the first time in as long as I can remember it is optimistic and hopeful. Tourism is booming and unemployment figures for the Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay region stood at 5.5 percent at the end of last year. In the year ended September 2003 unemployment on the East Coast alone dropped by 19 percent. 
For the first time in a long while the East Coast is approaching equality with the rest of New Zealand. Why? Because we let communities deliver services in ways that suit their different needs and deliver results. It is not one rule for all and I make no apologies for that because what the Opposition is alluding to would not work on the East Coast—not that we would ever know for sure of course because there is no detail behind the rhetoric. Goodness no! That might involve actually thinking about it and working through what it has suggested and I suspect that Opposition members know that they might not like what they find. 
This Government was elected in 1999 with a social deficit. We did not even get to start from zero. As per usual following a Tory Government we were deeply deeply in social negative and nowhere was this felt more acutely than on the East Coast. For this Government to have done so much in such a short time is testament to its commitment to regional New Zealand and its ability to think outside of the one-size-fits-all square. We are healthier. We have better housing and secure jobs. That is what matters. That is what this Government will continue to focus on. I thank the Hon Steve Maharey and the Hon Jim Anderton for their efforts and initiatives and for the difference it has made in my home town. 
The Leader of the Opposition says he gets a lump in his throat when he flies back to New Zealand and that that is what makes him a New Zealander. Please! Four days and that is the best the National Party’s research unit could come up with? Well I get a lump in my throat when I see the communities I grew up in finally able to hold their heads up because they are contributing to the social well-being of their families their community and their country. I get a lump in my throat when I see our stories the stories of the East Coast and ultimately the stories of all New Zealanders told in print and film and bringing the world to its knees with the power of the pride and culture of tiny settlements like Whangara. It is knowing that wherever I go in the world nothing says “New Zealand” more than a bunch of Kiwis throwing their shirts down and performing an impromptu haka with such passion that it gives me comfort to know that no matter what our shared heritage and our cultural ties run too deep for Don Brash to ever take that away from us. That is what it means to be a New Zealander—not a particularly nice Merlot in business class. 
It is because this Government understands what makes Kiwis tick that we have had so much success and it is because members of this Government are prepared to measure ourselves on the outcomes and effects of our policies and hold ourselves accountable to the electorate that we continue to have the trust of New Zealanders. This Government is not afraid to set goals and be judged on our achievements. The most significant of these for me is the ambitious goal of ensuring that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds are engaged in appropriate education training work or other options that will lead to long-term economic independence. 
Make no mistake—this will not be easy. The last census indicated that anywhere between 10 and 17 percent of our 15 to 19-year-olds may not be in any form of full-time education or training. There can be complex reasons why these young people need a range of support to get themselves on the right track. There are two programmes already playing a significant role. Modern Apprenticeships is well under way and will continue into 2004 with 6000 placements nationwide to be extended to 7500 by 2006. The Gateway programme is currently being offered to senior secondary students through 63 schools nationwide. The programme allows students to embark on a national qualification in their career of choice and apply general skills in that work context. The programme is being progressively expanded to all decile 1 to 5 secondary schools with opportunities being offered at an additional 63 schools this year alone. By 2007 the Gateway programme will be available in just over 200 schools nationwide. 
Across all industry training there is record participation. At September 2003 there were 88777 industry trainees. We have worked to keep tertiary education affordable. The Prime Minister’s speech highlighted the intention to increase eligibility to student allowances giving more students from low-income families the opportunity to participate in tertiary-level education. This is where the need exists and we have responded accordingly. For those in paid work we have increased the minimum wage four times in 4 years and strengthened minimum standards to provide security opportunity and certainty in employment. It is not just more work but quality of work. 
We have made huge gains for women in paid work. We introduced paid parental leave. More than 14000 people have already used the scheme and we are looking at further improvements to it. Benefits to families are obvious as well as the opportunity it provides for parents especially women to continue their commitment to the workforce. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker I thank you for the privilege of participating in this debate. I think it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of what Dover Samuels said a few speeches back. It is good as we stand or sit in this debating chamber to reflect on those marks around the wall that honour the Maori and non-Maori who served in war and might well have given their lives. But I do not want to talk about that. I want to talk instead about matters affecting our relations with Australia and about the significance of that relationship. 
I felt sorry for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade when he saw it as necessary to issue a media release on 9 February congratulating the Australian Government on concluding a free-trade deal with the United States. New Zealand had again been left out in the cold and our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade signalled in that media release a threat of investment and trade diversion from New Zealand. That was no surprise because our relationship with the United States is a damaged limp-along relationship and our relationship with Australia is close to being at an historic low. Why is that? New Zealand has had a traditional reputation of boxing above its weight and we do that in a range of activities including the arts sport culture and business. But we are perceived as not pulling our weight in our traditional arrangements. We are not pulling our weight in our relationship with the United States and in our relationship with Australia. 
New Zealand of course has wanted to conclude a free-trade agreement with the United States for some time and the United States has robustly I would say rejected those overtures. Charles Swindells the United States Ambassador to New Zealand in a speech that was disrupted by student protests on 8 October last year—his speech was actually published after that event—made it clear that the United States Government was simply not prepared to schedule bilateral trade negotiations at present. He then spoke about issues touching our antinuclear legislation concluding that aspects of the relationship with the United States are simply not cost free. Bilateral and regional trade agreements are of course very much the rage at the moment. A count by the OECD’s trade directorate identified 142 bilateral and regional agreements a third of them concluded just in the past 3 years together with another seven awaiting ratification. The OECD said that another 50 were planned of which more than 30 involve countries in Asia including Japan China India and South Korea—all countries that had previously eschewed regionalism. 
The predicted benefits of the United States - Australia bilateral agreement are undoubted. There are undoubted benefits for Australia. United States officials say duties will be eliminated on more than 99 percent of American manufactured exports to Australia and the agreement could boost trade in that area by US$2 billion. Whilst it is true that the gains for Australia on the agricultural front have been limited the significance of the free-trade agreement is far wider than that. The United States is the world’s pre-eminent country and is a leader in productivity technology and innovation. The historic importance of the agreement is that it will strengthen Australia’s business and investment ties and its political and security relationships with the United States. It will help to make Australia a more competitive and dynamic economy. The agreement extends well beyond agriculture and it covers the important sectors of manufacturing and services. Australia will also gain from the stimulation of greater competition in its domestic markets and the impetus to ongoing economic reform. 
I believe that it is time to reassess our relationship with Australia. It is a critically important relationship. Here are some of the points that underscore that relationship. Australia is New Zealand’s largest trading partner and New Zealand is Australia’s fifth-largest trading partner behind Japan the USA Korea and China. New Zealand is Australia’s third-largest market for manufacturers. New Zealand has $16.2 billion invested in Australia and in turn Australia has over $41.5 billion invested in New Zealand. There are approximately 356000 New Zealanders living in Australia and there are 53000 Australians living in New Zealand. Despite the rhetoric that accompanied the recent meeting between Peter Costello and Dr Cullen and despite the decision to advance three specific initiatives relating to business integration the relationship between Australia and New Zealand has soured. I believe that the relationship can be immeasurably improved if we are prepared to contribute in a more meaningful way on just one parameter. That parameter I would identify is the defence of the region. 
The Pacific Ocean is the medium by which the area’s vital trade is conducted. The exploitation of the commercial value of the sea whether as a means of transportation or as a source of marine resources depends on cooperation. Gross Pacific trade of something like 10 billion tonnes of shipping a year represents 37 percent of the world total so it is a very sizable number. In the New Zealand context international trade is inevitably the key engine that powers the New Zealand economy. The maritime nature of our region the products we export and import and our remoteness mean that that trade is almost entirely seaborne—our seaborne trade is 99 percent by volume and about 90 percent by value. More fundamentally there is a particularly maritime geographic dimension to security and defence in the Asia-Pacific region. It is true—and Mr Goff was at pains to make this point the other night—that National reduced defence spending in the early 1990s as New Zealand faced a fiscal crisis. It took a peace dividend after the Berlin Wall came down along with most other countries including the US and Australia. But by 1996 National had decided to raise defence spending again and announced a $2 billion capital re-equipment programme in the 1997 defence white paper. That was a major increase in spending on defence and in the period of its last term of office the National Government paid for the two frigates the Aermacchi force the re-winging of the Orions and the maritime helicopter replacement programme. 
If I were to single out one defence issue that would make a significant difference to the Australian relationship it would be captured in the word “interoperability”. During the dinner break I had the opportunity of talking to one of the senior Cabinet Ministers in the present Government and he said that for him if he were to single out one defence issue it would be to dismiss the Minister of Defence. That did not seem to me to be a particularly loyal comment to make but it was clearly heartfelt. I think the Minister of Defence should be permitted to continue in the clay pigeon role that he currently occupies. But I would just like in the few moments that remain to talk about the concept of interoperability with regard to a specific example because the present New Zealand Government runs away from that concept. 
A case in point is the history of the Orions. Those aircraft have a proud record of maritime surveillance and they work and have worked in close conjunction with the Australian Defence Force. The New Zealand Government has refused to fund the Orion upgrade known as Project Sirius. The total cost of the project is about $600 million or it was then. The upgrading known as Project Sirius is all about radar profiling which includes the ability to spot life rafts at sea and to find fishing vessels. What would be the consequence of making that change? The first consequence is that there would be interoperability with the Australian Defence Force in that area and that is not there at the moment. The second consequence is that we would be seen to be pulling our weight and the third consequence is that I believe that our relationship with Australia would be rekindled. 
I conclude by urging an unthinking Government to think about those things and not only to say that the Australian relationship is important but also to act as though it is. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this Address in Reply debate because this Government has a really good story to tell. After many years of seeing sluggish growth and social decay New Zealand has picked up momentum and is moving forward on many fronts. The measure of the success of any Government must be the extent to which it is successful in improving the lives of the people it governs. For that reason I am really proud to be a member of this Labour-Progressive Government which is making a real difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders is improving both the opportunities and outcomes for the disadvantaged in our communities is providing a better life right now and even more important is giving hope for an even brighter future to many people who felt forgotten disempowered and hopeless over the previous decade. 
It has always been difficult to prove claims of significant improvements in social areas because there have been no objective measurements available. This Government has been the first to have the courage to institute a regular reporting programme that measures the social well-being of New Zealanders. This Government wants our nation to be a place where everyone has the chance to reach his or her full potential where everyone has the chance to participate in the economy and where everyone can enjoy an environment that reflects our lifestyle our culture and our heritage. I am pleased to tell this House that the social report showed substantial improvements in the important areas of average income employment educational attainment and life expectancy. As well there has been a reduction in many areas of disadvantage and exclusion. 
There are particularly pleasing statistics in the area of employment. For example there are now more people in work than at any other time in our history. There are 176000 more people in work since Labour formed the Government and I am proud of that. In spite of those in the Opposition who consistently put down and criticise our country I can say that our unemployment rate is below that of any of our major trading partners. Our unemployment rate is 4.6 percent while Australia’s is 5.6 percent and the USA’s is 5.9 percent. The OECD average is 7 percent. So in comparison with others we are doing exceptionally well. People’s right to work and to provide for their own needs and those of their family is fundamental to a feeling of self-worth and of being included in society so I am really pleased with the steady improvement in our employment rates. There are still inequalities and we are all aware that the unemployment rates for Maori and Pacific people are still higher than those for other New Zealanders. This Government will continue to actively promote employment opportunities for those groups. 
 Where inequalities exist there is the potential for conflict and division in our society. This Government is dedicated to addressing and minimising such inequalities in the interests of the social well-being of our nation. This Government wants there to be fairness and opportunity in employment and to that end we have increased the minimum wage four times in 4 years. For low-paid workers that means earning approximately $60 extra per week. Although that may not seem much to people who work in this place I can tell members that it makes a huge difference for people on low incomes. It makes a huge difference to the quality of their lives and the lives of their families. Since 1999 this Government has methodically established and strengthened the minimum standards in order to provide fairness security and opportunity in employment. As well the Government has begun a review of children’s employment in order to ensure that those vulnerable young people are aware of their rights and legal protections. 
Providing jobs is very important to this Government but we do not want to have just any old jobs. We want to have jobs that develop the skills and the talents of our New Zealand population. So we are training the workforce of the future and fostering growth and innovation. We are trying to upskill New Zealanders so that they can move forward confidently into the future. The Jobs Jolt package which was announced a little while ago contains a range of initiatives to tackle skills shortages and to get New Zealanders into work. It contains 10 initiatives to help employers to meet skills shortages and to help people with disabilities long-term sickness and invalid beneficiaries mature job seekers drug-dependent job seekers young people and people who have been made redundant to get into the workforce—into employment. We have regionalised services in order to tailor them to the needs of women young people Pacific people people with disabilities and so on. We want to see our communities delivering services in ways that suit their needs and we have no intention of changing that policy and trying to turn it into a one-size-fits-all policy because the policy that we have is working. Unemployment is at a 16-year low and Work and Income has succeeded in placing record numbers of people into work. 
We want to train a workforce in which we match skills to the jobs that are available and we are fostering growth and innovation by improving the access to tertiary education. This Government wants to have all 15 to 19-year-olds engaged in appropriate tertiary education training work or other career development options by 2007 and we are well on the way towards achieving that goal. I know that every parent in New Zealand wants that to happen. We are fostering a skilled workforce and a strong culture of workplace training. It is great to see so many New Zealanders taking up work-based learning options. We want to build up an even wider set of opportunities in order to ensure that all young people successfully make the transition from school into the world of work. Successful programmes like Gateway and Modern Apprenticeships are already showing strong results indicating that young people are keen to take up the expanded opportunities for training. We are keeping tertiary education affordable and we are making student loan repayments easier as part of our plans to make tertiary education even more affordable. 
Industry training is booming giving people in employment the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications through a combination of on-the-job and off-the-job learning. Modern Apprenticeships reached its target of 6000 trainees 3 months early last year. Those are just a few of the host of programmes that this Government is putting in place to make sure that our young people our mature people and everyone within our society have the opportunity to progress into a bright future. 
I want to finish by saying that I was at Waitangi this year. Some things happened there that most of us would rather not have been a part of but I had the opportunity to talk to someone who was here in New Zealand for a conference on race relations. When I spoke to him at dinner after the events on the Thursday afternoon he made the comment that New Zealand was a wonderful society because what he had seen was a whole lot of people who were at Te Tii Marae protesting and making their feelings felt. Then he went along to the hotel and mixed with the people who were there for the Governor-General’s reception and—lo and behold—a number of the same protestors were there at that function. Everybody was talking and getting on together and discussing the events in a really good way. That is something that is wonderful about our New Zealand society. 
I conclude by quoting the Prime Minister who said in her speech: “... we want to build a New Zealand that offers equal opportunity a fair go and security for all our people. We want to unite not divide. We want New Zealanders to take pride in all our country’s achievements—economic social and creative.” I endorse those sentiments totally. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 This evening at dinner time I had the opportunity to attend the Chinese New Year celebrations where there were 300 people. I was delighted to see the happy faces of the people particularly the Chinese people who had gathered from all over the country to see what the Government is doing in terms of the apology that was made 2 years ago and what initiatives or actions are in place following that. I was pleased to hear this Government announcing a $5 million seeding grant for a community trust which will be administered by people who are the sons and daughters of those early Chinese people who settled in New Zealand. It was really great to see the Chinese people feeling that they are part of this society. Even the speaker from the New Zealand Chinese Association mentioned how proud he was that for the first time he felt equal to any other New Zealander. I thought that was a great occasion for us to celebrate. We are one united nation in this country. 
Last weekend I had the opportunity to attend the Waitangi Day celebrations in Palmerston North. It was really great to see so many Maori Pakeha and other nationalities gathered together—many thousands of them—to enjoy the occasion and to celebrate the unique thing in this country that is the Treaty of Waitangi which brings people together. I was proud to be part of that gathering and I feel proud that this nation is moving ahead together side by side and making progress. 
Like my colleagues here today I would like to speak about some initiatives and achievements particularly in the area of training and education. I pay tribute to my colleague the MP for Palmerston North Steve Maharey who has made a lot of very good initiatives in that area. There are a lot of positive stories to tell about what is happening in New Zealand. It is great to see New Zealanders taking up work-based learning options. The Government wants to build up an even wider variety of opportunities to ensure that our young people successfully make the transition from school into the world of work further education and training. Successful programmes like the Gateway programme and Modern Apprenticeships are already showing strong results indicating that young people are taking up the expanded range of training opportunities now available. 
 In the area of tertiary education we are making student loan repayment easier as part of the plan to make tertiary education more affordable. From 1 April this year the income threshold for student loan repayment will rise and the maximum income level for a full interest write-off for part-time part-year students will also rise. We anticipate a $2.6 million decrease in student debt largely due to our decision not to charge interest rates during the period of study and to freeze fees for 3 years. Our fee maxima policy will keep the cost of tertiary education affordable and certain. Also more debt has been repaid over time as the scheme matures. The Government intends to further reduce student debt by widening eligibility for student allowances. 
Much has been said about Maori and Pacific Island students not performing very well in education. Maori have historically been under-represented in education especially in fields like medicine and dentistry. We have now been offering scholarships for many years as a positive way to gain greater access for Maori to those professions just as they have been used in the past to encourage students of other groups such as women to go ahead. They still have to meet the same standards as everyone else to graduate and practise. When a person walks into some educational institution or Work and Income New Zealand to justify income support that person gets it on the basis of need. How it is delivered will reflect such things as age gender ethnicity region and so on but the entitlement is based on need not on race. 
Industry training gives people in employment the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications through a combination of on-the-job and off-the-job learning. Record numbers now participate in industry training. At the end of September last year there were 88777 industry trainees. The Modern Apprenticeship programme reached its target of 6000 trainees 3 months early this year and at the end of September 2003 there were 6073 young New Zealanders participating in Modern Apprenticeships. The programme has expanded to be available in 30 different industry sectors widening the apprenticeship concept beyond its trade origins. We are on track to reach our target of 7500 Modern Apprenticeship apprentices by 2006. The Gateway programme broadened the choice of secondary school students by offering them structured traditional and workplace training. Originally piloted in 63 schools the programme has expanded and should include all 203 1 to 5 decile schools—those in the areas of high social need—by 2007. Creating a world-class tertiary system we are investing $25 million over the next 3 to 4 years in the University of Otago’s Leading Thinkers programme. This is a partnership programme between the Government the university and private funding donors. The partners aim to recruit internationally known academics to help foster innovation particularly in the areas of science and business. 
I want to say a word about skilled migration which is pretty much a win-win situation for all of us. Changes to the skilled migrant category make it easier to attract talented individuals who can bring needed skills to and create new opportunities for New Zealand. By focusing on settlement outcomes for the skilled migrants as well as on New Zealand’s actual needs the skilled migrant category is a win-win situation for both migrants and New Zealand. The talent visa scheme has helped over 2020 employers recruit people to fill skill shortages by targeting talented and skilled people around the world. The London office of the New Zealand Immigration Service has launched a customised service providing an information brokerage service to match prospective immigrants with the New Zealand job market. 
Similarly funding for the Auckland Metropolitan Migrant and Refugee Strategy to move greater numbers of skilled migrants and refugees into work was announced in December last year. This will also help to close the skills gap faced by Auckland business. The strategy includes funding for English language tuition over the next 2 years and a multilingual contact centre that will help job seekers speak to Work and Income in their own languages. 
Nothing would be more divisive now than to force a one-nation charter. Responsible leaders must acknowledge the aspirations of all elements of our society. Dr Don Brash and the National Party will need to do better than they are doing. Treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them exactly the same. It is like growing a plant in a garden or field. We need to determine a plant’s need for water and nutrition. If we under-irrigate or under-fertilise those plants they will either die or underperform. Labour’s core mission is to build a confident and dynamic nation based on an innovative growing smart economy that can deliver more jobs more opportunities and higher living standards. The nation we seek to live in is creative looks after its environment andvalues diversity and tolerance. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker Simich as this is the first call I have taken this year I belatedly wish you the compliments of the season. May I say that I have admired the way you grace this Chamber with your presence and I admire the way you administer your functions in such a fair-handed style. 
I support Don Brash’s motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister’s statement and by extrapolation no confidence in the Prime Minister herself and no confidence in this Government. The Prime Minister’s speech was full of platitudes and slogans—[ 
Interruption 
] At least we are getting a reaction now! It was full of platitudes and it had no depth no strategies and no vision. It was thin it was bland and it had no meat. It was the political equivalent of tofu. This Prime Minister has no sense of what it takes to remain in touch with mainstream New Zealanders. Her instincts are deserting her. The very instincts that enabled her to get into the role she has now are deserting her when she needs them most. 
This Government is a house of cards. Once we destabilise the Prime Minister—and that is happening—this Government will come down and it will leave awful rubble in this Chamber. The consequences are very clear. This Government will lose the next election and I say: “Bring it on!”. Next week next month or next year—I do not care. The Nats are back. We are on a roll. I say to the members opposite: “Thanks for keeping the seats warm. Thanks for the memories. Now scurry off back to your offices and start cleaning them out to make room for the next Government.” Boy it is hurting them is it not? It is hurting them big time. One has only to witness John Tamihere’s disgusting performance last night. In his eyes all Kiwis are equal but some are more equal than others. His outburst was pathetic. His leadership aspirations disappeared in the course of one speech. He was emotional and he was not detached because a few of his sacred cows were being threatened. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: He was hysterical. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He was hysterical. Boy we cannot tell the truth about Maori in this country can we without the politically correct brigade standing up and starting to yell scream and lose all sense of proportion. So do members know what he did? Ironically he played the cheapest card in the pack. He played the race card. Suddenly all the Nats were rednecks. Instead of having a calm rational debate about legitimate issues he started name-calling and casting insults. And when Gerry Brownlee gave it back he did not like it did he? He was the first to cry foul then. The Prime Minister in a rather pathetic way I have to say tried to suggest that Don Brash’s speech was divisive. When we boil it down he was simply saying that all Kiwis should be treated on the basis of their needs and not race. And here is the rub: most Kiwis agree with him. That is what hurts the crowd over there. At the same time that John Tamihere was mouthing off the  
Holmes 
 programme 
fielded 34075 calls 30667 of which—and for that dim-witted crowd over there I point out that that is 90 percent—said that Don Brash was right and the Government was wrong and the Government did not like it. 
Then Phil Goff got to his feet and chimed in trying desperately to distract the debate away from the Government’s failed race relations policies. He attacked the Nats on their supposed nuclear policy. He argued that 80 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change our nuclear policy so how dare the National Party raise the issue for debate! How dare National try to inform New Zealanders about the cost of this policy! His figures are rubbish but let us allow for the sake of argument that they are right. If that is the case the hypocrisy of the argument is not lost on me. Was he not the very Minister who despite a referendum organised by Norm Withers in which 93 percent of Kiwis said they wanted tougher sentencing laws said: “Too bad!” and just thumbed his nose at them? Is it any wonder that when Phil Goff walks in the streets of urban New Zealand the words “Soft Goff soft Goff” are echoed everywhere? 
As for Winston Peters’ pathetic attack on the Nats I have this to say: if he keeps cuddling up to the Prime Minister the way he is he will be exposed for the charlatan he is. Let him just keep on going. He is arguing both sides of the argument because he just does not know where to stand on it anymore. Do members know why? It is because he knows that the Nats are right and he is simply upset that he has been upstaged. His narrow policies—all three of them—are myopic at best and his anti-Asian migration stance is doing more harm to the reputation of New Zealand than this Government has ever done in two terms of Government—and boy coming from me that is really saying something! Mr Peters says the Nats are the B team and I say to him that his views are at best subjective. I can say one inescapable fact—at least we have a team and I think it is a pretty good team. In fact it is a team that will lead the next Government of New Zealand. This team is on 32 percent in the polls and is going through the roof. Mr Peters’ crowd is on 8 percent and is going out the back door as fast as it possibly can. 
What will the Nats do that the Prime Minister’s paper failed to address? We will do a number of things. The first thing we will do is grow this economy at a rate faster than it is being grown at the moment. We pat ourselves on the back because having had the best economic conditions for decades we achieve 4 percent growth and think we have done really well. I have worked and lived in economies where 5 percent was the minimum and people were getting pessimistic. I have worked in economies where it was 10 percent and we were cooking on gas. Why is it that New Zealanders condition themselves to accept 4 percent growth? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It was 6 percent under Mrs Shipley. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It was 6 percent under Mrs Shipley and it will be higher under Don Brash. Mark my words. Why is it that we can take a hiding from Australia in rugby and suddenly have a national day of mourning while we analyse what took place but we say that it is just our luck that at the moment economically the average worker in Australia could be $175 to $200 better off? We do not accept that over on this side of the House. We have better aspirations for our country than that. What we are to do is start growing our economy faster and we are to start doing that in rural New Zealand because that is the powerhouse. And what is this stupid Minister of Education’s answer to that? What is Trevor Mallard saying? He is saying: “I’m going to close down rural schools. I’m going to close down rural schools and hurt rural New Zealand just where it hurts most.” Truancy juvenile crime dole bludgers—they are not the issues for rural New Zealand. They are urban problems. Do members know why? It is because parents get involved. Parents are interested. They are the types of things that rural New Zealand values. We reap as we sow and the way that this Minister of Education is sowing at the moment we will have a very poor harvest. I have a better vision for this country than he is leading us with. The holy grail of economies of scale is what he is pursuing and the great desperation and pity about it all is that he has no idea what it means. Someone pointed it out to him in a book and the trouble is that it will kill this country. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 Tangata whenua are born of this land. We are part of the landscape and the environment and we are here to stay. Our people have lived through many changes. Our knowledge of our past gives us confidence to face the future. We know who we are we are secure in our identity and we welcome the contribution that all people bring to this nation. 
Sometimes however our people despair. We despair of political leadership that expects to reap rewards from sowing seeds of division spreading lies and deceit and cultivating fear and envy. We despair of those who deny the past and denigrate the high ideals of our ancestors—tangata whenua and Pakeha—who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The treaty laid the foundation for a modern developed nation in which all cultures and peoples can contribute to their full potential towards shared goals—and we stand by that. The treaty enabled settlers to migrate and establish kawanatanga—governance over themselves. In return our rangatiratanga—power and authority over our people lands forests and fisheries—was recognised respected and protected. The treaty did not say that the culture and heritage of tangata whenua should be extinguished—in fact quite the opposite. It guaranteed the Crown’s protection of our distinctive way of life as tangata whenua. 
The settlers needed the treaty more than we did in 1840 and for 150 years they and their descendants were the main beneficiaries. They had the privileges conferred upon them. Our resources have been stolen and plundered yet those who should know better seek now to gain power through misleading the public by implying that our people have privileges conferred on them. 
The notion of special privilege is interesting. Negative statistics show that our people are not doing so well. Surely that is a good indicator that Governments must encourage and support communities to take responsibility to meet their obligations to focus on their families’ potential to heal and restore and to build the capability that will enable them not to rely on others for their well-being. If that is Government conferring privilege then I am proud to be part of this Government. 
There are 30 pieces of legislation that refer to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles. They aim to rebuild equity into the relationship to provide a basis for tangata whenua to recover our position. Previous National Governments recognised that. Tangata whenua despair of those who now try to argue that one size fits all and who say that the laws and institutions of this country should recognise only one cultural reality and one way of life. Have they not read the reports over the years that have highlighted institutional racism in a number of our Crown agencies? Survivors of apartheid know that those who claimed to be colour-blind and to deal equally with all individuals were in denial of institutional racism and personal prejudice and that treating everyone the same maintained and perpetuated their positions of real privilege and power. 
In reality that is what the National Party in Opposition and the ACT party believe. They want to ensure that the natives know their place. These are the parties who purport to uphold the property rights of people—that is so long as those people are not the tangata whenua. That is the sad truth. Clearly they want to retain power in the hands of non-Maori by denying our people’s right to participate in decision making that seriously affects our lives. Councils have always consulted with particular sectors of the community and no one has ever shown concern before. Those who believe— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member and I apologise but the junior Government whip made a very unparliamentary comment about my colleague and I would like her— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the member concerned to withdraw and apologise please. 
Jill Pettis 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to point out that a particular member on the opposite side has continually been speaking the whole time while I have been trying to speak and has been making snide comments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask Sandra Goudie please to control her remarks. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Clearly they want to retain power in the hands of non-Maori by denying our people’s right to participate in decision making that seriously affects their lives. Councils have always consulted with particular sectors of the community and no one has ever shown concern before. Those who believe the misinformation are allowing their own values practices and beliefs to be exposed. 
It is dangerous talk. It is provocative. It is factually and historically wrong to imply that we have no rights in this land. It is provocative to say that ensuring our people have a voice in decision making somehow violates the guiding democratic principles of one person one vote one value. Whose “one value” are we talking about? Where did that “one value” come from? 
It is incredible to me that an aspiring National leader cannot describe our distinct national identity. Whom does he belong to? How can a person who does not know his own culture and identity appreciate and respect the culture and identity of others? How can he join debate on the values that we want to underpin our nation if he wants that debate to begin in 2004 and take no account of our founding constitutional document? We are getting caught up in the politics of envy driven by a desire to gain the seat of power. 
 Maori privilege in treatment is a myth propped up by false statements. Holidays legislation does not give Maori unlimited tangi leave—Minister Margaret Wilson corrected the statement—but the myth is repeated as fact to reinforce prejudice. So-called special services meet special needs—for Maori old people rural people and other communities. They create equality of opportunity. Services designed and delivered by Maori for Maori get results. They give value for money and the whole country benefits. Maori-managed services have many non-Maori clients—people who like a family-oriented approach based on building family strength to prevent problems in the future. 
It has taken this nation a long time to develop ways to give effect to our national values of respect hospitality tolerance good faith partnership and a fair go. We have developed positive attitudes and built bicultural institutions that are the envy of the world. 
This Government knows how lucky we are to have escaped the racial violence and conflict of other countries and we must be careful. Unleashing racial division will have dire consequences. There are considerable tensions in some of our communities arising from disadvantage and aggravated by mental illness and drug abuse. To politicise those divisions is courting disaster. 
Responsible political leadership must explore how to build a rich and vibrant nation. It is the task of the Government to enable all people to participate in building a nation where all peoples retain their cultures participate in key decision-making and honour the founding constitutional document of this country the Treaty of Waitangi. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to begin by congratulating the Government on opening up Molesworth Station to year-round public access and on purchasing Birchwood Station so that the rare habitats it contains can be added to the conservation estate. Helen Clark was right to say that our clean green and beautiful image needs more than rhetoric to sustain it. 
Unfortunately these two conservation initiatives highlight the contradiction in the Government’s whole approach to the environment. It is prepared to preserve the black stilt habitat at Birchwood because that does not threaten its economic growth agenda but it is determined to destroy another black stilt habitat on the lower Waitaki River because it stands in the way of the Government’s idea of progress. Labour and National are very good at preserving pockets of nature but neither is prepared to tackle fundamental issues—notably the unsustainability of the current economic model. 
The crucial difference between the Greens and the other parties in this Parliament is that we recognise the need to transform our economy so that we can live within the natural capital of our country and this planet and we recognise the need to make the economy society’s servant not its master. When our forebears the Values Party started in 1972 these were radical concepts. Today they are mainstream. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams expresses our perspective extremely well in his latest report “See Change: Learning and Education for Sustainability”. He says we need learning that is focused on quality of life and the opportunities to design and craft more sustainable ways of achieving it. We need to redesign many of our institutional economic and business systems so that we can improve that quality without ever-expanding demand and ever-intensifying pressure on the environment to assimilate our wastes. 
Despite stating last year that current Government goals are unsustainable Morgan Williams remains optimistic. He believes that we could and should be the first in the world to become a truly sustainable nation. We agree but I would add “just” to sustainable because too many people even in our own country are denied the material well-being they need to have the quality of life they deserve. 
While our message often falls on deaf ears in this Parliament more and more members of the public are responding positively to the positions we take on a wide range of issues. It is pleasing to see our rise in the opinion polls since Christmas. While other third parties are dropping some below the threshold we are up to between 8 and 9 percent. What is more our rise is not built on cheap shots or divisive statements but on thoughtful coherent positions on issues such as the foreshore and seabed saving the Waitaki River waste minimisation opposing school closures and calling for the release of Ahmed Zaoui. Our stand on all those issues is different from the Government’s. In some cases we oppose it outright and in others we want to take it further and faster in the right direction. 
On the whole though we support what Labour is doing more often than not whereas the opposite is true of National especially after Don Brash’s speech yesterday. In fact there are times when we are the only party supporting the Labour-Progressive coalition Government. The Climate Change Response Act the Crown Minerals Amendment Act the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Act the Health and Safety in Employment Act the  accident compensation Act the Maori Television Service Act and the Supreme Court Act all only passed because we voted for them. Two other bills—the Holidays Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill—were also opposed by Labour’s confidence and supply partner. The same is true of two of the Government’s major legislative priorities this year—the Care of Children Bill and the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. In all cases we exercise wisely the influence we have by negotiating improvements to these bills. 
However our standout success in this Parliament is undoubtedly the transport legislation. As Jeanette Fitzsimons said in her speech our focus is now on making sure that all the green initiatives it contains are implemented. I sense that our work has only just begun. As Morgan Williams said in his report there will be strong resistance in some sections of society governance and business to any steps towards sustainability. I believe that resistance will diminish however as more and more people—especially in Auckland—recognise that the traffic congestion problems will not be solved by building more motorways and instead that better public transport for people and greater utilisation of rail for freight represent the way forward. 
In the same way that a strong focus on demand management and sustainable alternatives to the car culture are the Greens’ solutions to New Zealand’s transport woes this logic can also be applied to energy as well as trade and capital. The solution to our growing energy demands and winter power shortages is not Project Aqua or more coal-fired power stations. Meeting our energy needs lies in efficiency and conservation—equivalent to 20 percent of our current generation capacity—as well as ecologically wise alternatives such as wind solar and biomass. 
As the former leader of the Alliance used to say: “This stuff is not rocket science.” In fact it is good old-fashioned economics. It is worth remembering that one definition of economy is the careful management of resources. We seem to have lost sight of that basic truth in our consumer society where better often takes second place to more and quality loses out to quantity. It is time to turn that around and it is time to remember that the origin of the word “economy” is simply household management. 
This Government and its predecessors have done a shocking job of managing the house we live in. In one room we have Michael Cullen wallowing in his $6 billion Budget surplus in another room we have 30 percent of our children growing up in poverty and in yet another our talented young people are saddled with over $6 billion in student debt while trying to get an education that should be recognised as a public good. Meanwhile as a whole household we imported $3.4 billion more goods last year than we sold overseas and we paid for them by selling off a bit of the backyard a bit more of the family silver and the bach at the beach as well as borrowing a bit more—in fact $3 billion more taking our national debt to $102 billion. 
This morning Dr Cullen said that the economy continues to perform strongly. I do not see how he can say that when the trade deficit is the second largest it has ever been export receipts are down 2 years in a row and the current account deficit is heading towards 6 percent of GDP. He said that the solution to these problems lies in trying to boost exports even more. The Greens say why not strengthen our domestic economy by promoting import substitution rather than increasing our dependence on the increasingly fragile and volatile global economy. 
The same argument applies to New Zealand’s capital needs. Not only is it foolish for the Government to gamble superannuation funds on the roulette wheel of the overseas sharemarket but the prudent course of action would be to provide real incentives for people to consume less and save and therefore invest more. What we certainly should not be doing is what Dr Cullen has signalled he wants to do—that is remove any rules on foreign takeovers of New Zealand businesses. We should be stopping all land sales to non-resident foreigners. 
Cullen explicitly rejected import substitution quipping: “Do the Greens want New Zealand to make its own cars again?”. Perhaps we should given that we imported $3.3 billion worth of them last year. Seriously though what we should be doing is making more of our own buses—like the excellent electric ones built by Design Line in Ashburton—and more rail carriages as the Hillside workshops in Dunedin do. 
We certainly should be growing our own garlic instead of importing 730 tonnes of disease-ridden bulbs from China. We should be growing our own pork instead of importing it from Canada making our own pet food instead of importing chicken-based products from China—especially as it is one of the countries most affected by bird flu. We should be making our own biscuits and ice cream instead of importing them from Australia. Unless we do we will never be able to balance the household budget. No wonder our trade deficit with Australia is just over a billion dollars and over $1.4 billion with China. 
Meanwhile the Government’s last free-trade effort was a flop. That was the agreement with Singapore. We had a deficit there of $24 million before it started. It jumped to over $200 million in its first year and for last year it exceeded $300 million. I have to ask whether Labour and National will learn the lesson that free trade is not the answer. Both ought to have learnt that fact after seeing the deal that John Howard has just signed up to. He dangled a juicy carrot in front of the people of Australia but ended up buying them a lemon. Not only will that deal destroy jobs in Australia but it will lead to its current $9 billion trade deficit blowing out even further. It is a big price to pay just so it can be said that George Bush is your mate. 
There would be an even bigger price for New Zealand to pay if Labour signs up for the free-trade deal with China. It is time the Labour Government rediscovered its moral fibre and said “no thanks” to China. There is no way we should be opening our borders to a country that abuses human rights denies Tibet sovereignty and exploits children. Labour knows that China will not budge on any of those issues because it said so during the negotiations of the aborted Hong Kong free-trade agreement. If Labour really wanted to be a good neighbour to the developing countries it would lift New Zealand’s level of overseas development assistance to 0.7 percent of gross national income and we could feel proud of our place in the world again—as we did under the Kirk Labour Government when New Zealand’s overseas development assistance contribution was more than twice what it is now. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 E tu ana ahau ki te mihi nui ki a tatou kei roto i tenei Whare Paremata.No reira tena ra tatou katoa. 
[ 
I rise to extend a huge greeting to us all in this House. Greetings to all of us 
.] 
I stand in support of the many comments made by my caucus colleagues particularly those of my Maori colleagues and also in support of the opening statement made by the Prime Minister. It is not often we have the opportunity to tautoko our record and I do believe it is important to place on the public record the Government’s accountability. 
Firstly I want to acknowledge my tipuna. I would like to bring them into my contribution; my tipuna who made up some of the pioneers of our nation. They had a dream a dream that led to opening the door of opportunity that encouraged peace and harmony. It was a dream that we as two peoples may live in good grace with each other so that when one falls the other will assist and when one needs help the other will be there in support. To this day the waiata and chants expressed on the pa continue to manifest those principles. I want to reassure my tipuna not to be disturbed because this Government will accelerate and progress those very same principles and will not compromise them. No reira e oku tipuna haere atu ra haere atu ra haere atu ra.Haere atu ra kei runga ki te Matua i te rangi.No reira moe mai moe mai moe mai ratou.A kua huri noa ki te hunga ora ki a koe te rangatira. 
[ 
Therefore to my ancestors go well travel on farewell.Go on to the Father in the sky. So to the ones who have passed on rest there sleep there slumber on. I turn now to the world of the living to you sir 
.] 
Maori have a place in this society. Who says we are privileged? What a lot of rot! What are these separate rights? We will always be the tangata whenua of this land in celebration as we evolve as a nation. Over 40000 more Maori are in work since 1999. Maori unemployment is at an all-time low. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.