Volume 628 Week 2 - Tuesday 15 November 2005 
Volume 628 Week 2 - Tuesday 15 November 2005 
[Volume:628;Page:87] 
Tuesday 15 November 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Members Sworn 
Pansy Wong was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House. 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Nandor Steven Tanczos has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Rod Donald. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministerial Responsibility— 
Cabinet Manual 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has there been any amendment or addendum to the  
Cabinet Manual 
 to accommodate the arrangement her Government has reached with New Zealand First and United Future allowing their leaders to be Ministers but not fully bound by collective responsibility; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No but it may be revised in future to reflect practice as it develops. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How can she expect the public to understand her odd governmental arrangements that involve according to the Cabinet Office Winston Peters and Peter Dunne wearing at least three different hats when she has not even made changes to the  
Cabinet Manual  
to clarify the bizarre situation of Ministers wanting to sit with the Opposition? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the public would be guided by the same advice from the Cabinet Office which is that the arrangements are entirely legally credible. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why would the international community believe that anyone but Phil Goff is the real Minister of Foreign Affairs when her named Minister of Foreign Affairs does not even sit on the Cabinet external relations and defence committee let alone chair it as in the past and refuses to take any responsibility for the broader policies of the Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be very surprised if the international community took the slightest interest in who sits on a Cabinet committee in New Zealand. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why when the Cabinet secretary advised that the complex arrangement she has come up with requires clarification at an early stage has she not made any changes to the  
Cabinet Manual 
 in the month she has had since the formation of the Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In terms of time if the  
Cabinet Manual 
 were revised in a month that would be galactic speed. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she agree with the advice of the Secretary of the Cabinet that “the foreign affairs portfolio stretches across the whole of Government business” and that the broad nature of the portfolios held by Mr Peters made this arrangement “complex to manage”; if so how does she believe that the Government can balance Mr Peters’ strong views on issues with international dimensions such as the proposed free-trade arrangement with China with his role as the Government’s representative to the world? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In precisely the same way as I assume Dr Brash would have done given that we have Mr Peters’ word that Dr Brash offered him the Ministry of Foreign Affairs portfolio. 
Heather Roy 
: How can the Prime Minister have any confidence in Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs when he does not even have the diplomacy skills to keep his six New Zealand First MPs in the tent without the waka-jumping legislation to give her the votes to prop up her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is huge irony in that question given that ACT is the only party to have used that Act. 
Housing—Capital Gains Tax 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports of support being expressed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank for the introduction of capital gains tax on housing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports from the Governor of the Reserve Bank recommending a capital gains tax as an appropriate response to New Zealanders’ “obsession with property” and a useful measure to “take the steam out of the property market”. I should of course make it clear in all fairness that those statements were made not by the current governor but by his predecessor who is now the leader of the National Party. 
Shane Jones 
: Is the Government planning to introduce such a tax? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. We take very little advice from the former Governor of the Reserve Bank who is now the leader of the National Party. I have asked for a report from Treasury and the Reserve Bank on possible instruments the bank could use to underpin the effectiveness of the interest rate mechanism. The terms of reference exclude consideration of such a tax. Of course only one politician of note in the House has argued for such a tax and that is Dr Brash. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that far from ruling out the introduction of a capital gains tax last week’s terms of reference outlined by the Reserve Bank and Treasury simply delayed it “beyond the scope of the present review”; if this is the case will he once and for all get up in the House and confirm that he does not intend to put in place a capital gains tax on property? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm it again but Treasury and the Reserve Bank are independent bodies and no doubt they foresee the possibility that at some stage in the long distant future when Dr Brash is in his 80s they may have to carry out a review at his request. 
John Key 
: Why having preached that New Zealanders should buy shares and having lamented that they have far too much invested in property and not enough invested in shares is he now proposing to apply a capital gains tax on New Zealanders who own foreign-domiciled shares including most of the banks that operate in New Zealand and many of the utilities? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I have said in the past and I think it is one area where Dr Brash actually agrees with me is that too high a proportion of our savings is in housing not because we have a love affair with housing—I do not agree with that—but because we do not save enough to save in anything else but our housing. 
Student Loans—Treasury Forecast 
3.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her answer of 2 August 2005 to my question of whether she had asked Treasury to forecast the long-term fiscal impact of her Government's proposed interest-free student loan policy that: “No this is a Labour Party policy not a Government one.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not correct that Treasury had been asked to forecast the long-term fiscal impact of her student loan policy but that she and her Ministers did not find its advice politically palatable because it showed that on realistic assumptions the policy would increase student debt by over $5 billion and Government debt by $14 billion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This matter was dealt with in the House back on 2 August with a question put to my colleague the Minister of Finance. It was made plain at that time that the student loan policy was Labour Party policy and that Labour Party policy was not sent off to Treasury. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she stand by her statement: “The cost of this policy will grow through time to a maximum of around $300 million.” or was that just a politically convenient statement designed to deceive voters about the real financial impact of this irresponsible policy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Costings were given for the forecast horizon. This is a good policy and it caught the Opposition napping. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does she reconcile her statement about the cost of the student loan policy with Treasury advice dated 22 June 2005 showing the policy would cost $390 million annually by its third year rising to $500 million annually after 6 years and to almost $1 billion annually by 2019? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Treasury made it plain at the time of the release of its figures that it did not place a great deal of store on them itself and I am happy to tell the member that its most recent costings are substantially revised down. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Prime Minister asked Treasury to consider the real long-term fiscal impact of a generation growing up in debt who cannot afford to buy a house or have a family and who are forced to seek highly paid jobs rather than going into public services such as teaching and nursing and is it not time that we stopped point-scoring and considered the real consequences of this $8 billion mortgage against our future? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is entirely the real consequences of the student loan policy as introduced around 1991-92 that the Government is seeking to deal with for the sorts of reasons to which the member has referred and I thank her. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that her Government’s interest-free student loan policy will result in $2 billion being written off the Crown balance sheet and if she can confirm that is the case why was that fact not made known to New Zealand voters before the election? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In answering questions from the member himself I said that we were well aware it had balance sheet implications. 
Employment—Statistics 
4.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received about the numbers of New Zealanders in work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand’s latest household labour force survey shows that there are now 2093000 New Zealanders in employment. That is more than 300000 more New Zealanders in work today than were in work when the Labour-led Government came into office. That is approximately 150 additional New Zealanders in work every day since 1999 or 54750 each year under Labour. That is a city the size of Nelson in extra jobs each year every year for the past 6 years. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Given this exceptional result what reports has the Minister received about the number of New Zealanders not in work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The same household labour force survey showed that unemployment had fallen in New Zealand to 3.4 percent—the lowest rate in the 19-year history of that survey. This means that New Zealand has the lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. This is considerably better than the result in Australia where the unemployment rate increased in the latest quarter to 5.2 percent making Australia by comparison in about 10th place in the OECD. 
Judith Collins 
: Are any of the newly counted in-work New Zealanders working for the Otago District Health Board where 55 staff have just recently been discovered to be receiving taxpayer-funded salaries while at the same time receiving taxpayer-funded benefits; and how many of these fraudsters have been prosecuted to date? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member can be assured that benefit fraud will not be tolerated—[ 
Interruption 
] I can tell that member that in October alone there was 97 percent clearance of prosecutions and 12 prison sentences. As to whether specifically any of those members are in that figure I am not able to provide her with that information at this time. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister concerned that the unemployment statistics he so proudly quotes come on the back of a low-wage economy delivering incomes to New Zealand workers that are 30 percent less than those of their Australian counterparts; and what impact will New Zealand First’s post-election gain of a pledge to have a minimum wage of $12 per hour by the year 2008 have on the average wage of New Zealand workers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased about both the most significant movement in unemployment ever shown in the household labour force survey and the employment statistics. I am sure that the workers in this economy are starting to see the gains flowing through as we have seen in recent wage settlements. I must say that the overall figure is more positive than many believe because the total number of working-age New Zealanders on benefits has reduced by 21 percent since 1999. 
Inflation—Government Policy 
5.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he concerned about domestic inflation demand; if so what actions does he support to curb this? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The primary contribution I can make is to maintain a strong fiscal stance contrary to the fiscal profligacy advocated by National and to ensure my messages are consistent with those of the Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
John Key 
: If intervening in bank lending rules are to be so successful will he start with the Government-owned Kiwibank which has led the mortgage wars in both fixed and floating loans with brochures like the one I have here that reads: “No matter what home-loan option you prefer Kiwibank is lower.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly true that the New Zealand - owned Kiwibank where all profits stay in this country has provided cheaper services than the foreign-owned banks which that party continued to support throughout the election campaign and continues to support today. 
John Key 
: If the House is to believe that the Government’s earlier claims that one of the key benefits of Kiwibank is that it forced the other Australian banks into providing more competitive services is it not a little ironic that the Minister now wants to regulate those very banks for following the course he has prescribed; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will try to spell it out for the member again: I am simply asking for a report from Treasury and the Reserve Bank on what other instruments might be helpful in supporting the interest rate instrument both on the upturn and the downturn. Unlike the member I do not know what that report—which has not even started to be written—will say and unlike that member I have an open mind about what needs to be done. What I do know is that promising $4 billion a year of tax cuts in an overheated economy is a level of adolescent silliness beyond even most of his fellow front-bench members. [ 
Interruption 
] 
John Key 
: If they clap for that they will clap for anything. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question. 
Hon Bill English 
: They clapped because he stood up. 
John Key 
: Quite right Mr English. Will housing programmes established by his Government and implemented by Kiwibank such as the Kiwibank In Reach homeownership programme that allows first home buyers to access a 100-percent mortgage be affected by the proposals that the Reserve Bank is suggesting which would limit the amount banks could lend their customers; if they will why did the Government bother fostering those programmes in the first place? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike Dr Brash whom Mr Key is subtly attacking with his questions this Government supports ordinary Kiwi families buying their own home. Unlike Dr Brash we do not believe in a class of capitalist rentiers and New Zealanders being peasants in their own country. 
John Key 
: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank governor when he recently said that banks are putting homeowners at risk with loans they cannot afford; if so does this include Kiwibank; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The regulation of the banking sector is neutral on which bank it is. I note that the National Party is proposing that the rules for Kiwibank should be tougher than for foreign-owned banks. That is not the Government’s policy. 
Air New Zealand—Engineering Outsourcing 
6.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does the Government have any plans to assist the 617 Air New Zealand heavy maintenance engineers in finding further employment in New Zealand if Air New Zealand proceeds with its plans to outsource its engineering work offshore; if so what are those plans? 
Hon Member 
: That’s a patsy question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It certainly is not a patsy question. The Government will assist where it can. As I said in addition to any standard measures I am prepared to look at special retraining assistance if need be. But of course there is still some way to go in the discussions between the engineers union and the management and board of Air New Zealand. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer does the Minister accept there is a major difference between making people redundant because there is not enough work and making them redundant because the work is being contracted out to an overseas contractor; if he does accept there is a difference can he explain how as the majority owner of Air New Zealand he can allow work to be contracted out overseas leaving 617 highly skilled New Zealanders jobless after signing up two confidence and supply agreements that advocate Buy Kiwi Made initiatives aimed at promoting locally produced goods and services? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can make it clear firstly that the Government is not going to get into the position of subsidising on a large scale New Zealand employers—they must make management decisions about how they arrange their businesses. Secondly contrary to what has often been said in the public arena over the last couple of weeks the fact that the Government is a majority shareholder—but not by any means a 100 percent shareholder—is a strong reason for not intervening in a case such as this rather than a reason for intervening. 
John Key 
: What are the differentiating factors that encouraged the Government to apply pressure to the board of TVNZ in relation to the contracts of Judy Bailey and Susan Wood but that do not encourage this Government to apply similar pressure to the board of Air New Zealand in relation to 617 employees? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not accept the initial premise of that question. My understanding is that TVNZ was trying to negotiate a reduction in salary for the two people mentioned. I do not understand that what is actually being talked about is a reduction in salary for 600 airline staff; those staff will go down the road according to the plan that Air New Zealand has announced. If the Opposition member wants to stick up for people who cry when they do not get $800000 a year then that says something about the National Party. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that aircraft engineer is one of the occupations listed on the long-term skill shortage list for the New Zealand Immigration Service and will he immediately seek to have aircraft engineer removed from that list if Air New Zealand goes through with its plans to sack the 617 engineers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not in my portfolio area—a number of other matters are—but my understanding is that the lists are based on objective criteria. I would have thought that the department will be looking at those criteria in the light of the current circumstances. 
Sue Bradford 
: How can the Minister say that the Government does not massively subsidise New Zealand employers when both Working for Families and the accommodation supplement are huge daily subsidies to employers; and is he aware that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise actually identified aircraft maintenance as a key specialised manufacturing sector for this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Regarding the last part of the question that does not mean to say that the Government should subsidise jobs. We are not subsidising jobs with packages like Working for Families any more than the previous Government did with similar moves. We are ensuring that people with family responsibilities can ensure that their children and families live in reasonable circumstances. It is a long time since people in New Zealand expected to be paid more for being married than for being unmarried—that last occurred in about the 1960s from memory. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table the intermediate skill shortage list from the New Zealand Immigration Service website which states that there is a shortage of aircraft engineers in New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled. 
Television New Zealand—Confidence 
7.  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he have confidence in the board of Television New Zealand; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Yes; because they are hard-working and committed board members. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Why does the Minister continue to have confidence in the board of Television New Zealand in light of the front-page scandals such as Ian Fraser’s sudden resignation and $420000 golden handshake Susan Wood’s highly public employment dispute and falling advertising revenues not to mention the Minister’s own derisory comments about TVNZ’s current affairs programming? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Shareholding Ministers continue to have confidence in the company because it is returning a dividend on the investment we make it is moving towards providing a range of chartered programmes which is what we expect it to do and it is performing extremely well in the market. In fact the member might like to note that in the last couple of weeks TV3 has been able to get only one programme into the top ratings—all the rest have been on Television One or TV2. 
Maryan Street 
: What information has the Minister received on any other success of the public television broadcaster? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: TVNZ is the most-watched television company in New Zealand. An average of 86 percent of New Zealanders watch TVNZ each week. In the last 4 weeks TVNZ’s share of the commercial demographic of 18 to 54-year-olds has risen to 56 percent which is one share point higher than at the same time last year. In the last year for all ages across the country every top-ten programme every week has been on Television One or TV2. The ratings concerns commented on in the media of course are just a fact of life. Those are concerns; those are things that the company is focused on; they are a fact of life. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister in the interests of protecting our assets and the ongoing viability of public broadcasting support NZ First’s call for a full Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry into the affairs of TVNZ? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As shareholding Ministers have pointed out there is no need for an inquiry; there is an annual report. [ 
Interruption 
] It is just worth advising people like Dr Nick Smith on the other side that there is an annual reporting process. That happens this week. That goes to select committees. Then there can be a discussion. That is what I am sure the committee will do. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister able to enlighten the House as to what the TVNZ Chief Executive Ian Fraser meant when he cited political interference as the reason for his abrupt resignation; if not does his inability to do so not indicate the need for a parliamentary inquiry? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will know that Mr Fraser withdrew those comments so the answer to the first part of the question is no. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister explain to the public of New Zealand the three benefits that he sees from TVNZ being State-owned particularly in light of his comments that privately owned TV3 is “a class act”; why is this Government so ideologically opposed to private ownership? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The three top ones that I would argue are the return to the shareholder public charter programming and national identity. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Can the Minister confirm that the role of the Television New Zealand board is to protect the taxpayers’ interest in Television New Zealand; if so does he not consider that the board may have acted against those interests by allowing its dirty linen to be aired in public knowing full well that it would erode the value of the taxpayers’ asset? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am glad the member asked that question because of course the value of Television New Zealand has been very stable over the past 6 years which is in stark contrast to the erosion of shareholder value during the 1990s when the disastrous decision to sell Television New Zealand - Sky shares was taken which eroded 25 percent of the value of this company under a National Government. Thanks for asking the question. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Does the Minister not consider that he may very well have contributed to the erosion of the taxpayers’ interest when he glowingly said of the competition: “Television 3 are a class act at the present time. They do very well. That is clearly a concern for Television New Zealand.”; and does he continue to stand by those comments? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I did not erode the share value at all—unlike her National Government. I am the Minister of Broadcasting and therefore what I said about TV3 is clearly just an objective fact—it is performing better in the Auckland market in the 18 to 34 age group at the present time. I am sure Television New Zealand is planning right now how to take that back. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “When a news organisation becomes the news that’s when you have a problem.” and as this appears to put him at odds with the Prime Minister why does he not feel an obligation to ask the Television New Zealand board to resign or to resign himself? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am never at odds with the Prime Minister. 
Air New Zealand—Engineering Outsourcing 
8.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the statement in the Speech from the Throne that New Zealand’s economic security will come from our firms being part of “a high skill high productivity and high wage economy.”; if so how does the loss of 600 high-wage high-skill engineering jobs from Air New Zealand contribute to this goal? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and bluntly not a great deal. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree with the Aviation Industry Association that New Zealand will lose specialist engineering intellectual property and human capital if Air New Zealand maintains its long-haul aircraft overseas; and why does the Government not put its money where its mouth is take a smaller dividend and demonstrate that it really does have a commitment to keeping highly skilled high-wage jobs in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly of course we have had only one dividend. Dividends are an unusual thing in the airline industry so a promise to forgo a dividend would not have a great deal of effect. Secondly we are not a 100-percent shareholder. There are minority shareholder interests to be considered and those are very important to consider in this kind of situation. Thirdly I do not want to sound overly cynical but if the Government gets into the business of subsidising jobs in order to keep them when a company wants to restructure I have a feeling there would be an awful lot of New Zealand companies lining up to restructure and pass on the wages of 600 jobs to the New Zealand Government. 
John Key 
: When did the Minister become aware of the fact that Air New Zealand was likely to lay off the 617 engineers given the rumour that abounded that he was aware of this prior to the election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know of no such rumour. I know of attempts by the National Party to suggest it. I regard that as a slur upon the chair of the board. [ 
Interruption 
] The answer—if the member cares to wait—is that it was 4 or 5 days before the public announcement was made which was well after the election. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister received any advice on what impact Air New Zealand’s decision to sack skilled Kiwis and to buy offshore will have on customer loyalty and hence on the value of the Government’s fairly large investment in Air New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no advice on that. I have no reason to believe there will be an impact on customer loyalty. Major international airlines are already outsourcing their maintenance of this sort without any apparent impact on customer loyalty. 
Resource Management Act—Operation 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he satisfied that his Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 are working well? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. The Resource Management Act is about striking the appropriate balance between economic development and the protection of the environment. The improvements made through the recent amendments to the Act achieve this balance and significantly strengthen local decision-making. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that a Whangarei man citing treaty arguments has appealed under Labour’s amendments the Waitaki water plan and that the effect of this appeal is that billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure developments including a 250-megawatt power station and 40000 hectares of irrigation are halted at an estimated cost to the South Island economy of $12 million per week; and does this indicate that the amendments as he said are working well? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am advised that the court has not accepted Mr Wilkie’s appeal on the basis of its procedural shortcomings. I am further advised that Mr Wilkie will need to seek leave from the court to lodge a late appeal and to date this has not occurred. I would encourage the member to concentrate on facts and not on his fantasy. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What has been the attitude of Local Government New Zealand—the organisation that represents every democratically elected local authority in New Zealand—to the changes to the Resource Management Act 1991? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Local Government New Zealand has been strongly supportive of the Resource Management Act review process. Its national council member David Walter stated: “On balance a great deal has been achieved in an exemplary collaborative exercise and we will continue to work through that process.” He also said: “Again I thank the Government for the high level of engagement in this reform process and commend the process undertaken.” I am also mindful of the comments made by that well-known economist and political commentator Rod Oram who while commenting on National’s Resource Management Act proposal said: “All in all National’s RMA proposals fall short on some basic measures such as being practical wise and well-considered.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does he think it is good resource management process when a farmer in North Otago applies for the renewal of his water right in 2000 when he makes a submission to his regional council in that year but it is overruled by Labour’s ministerial call-in on which he is asked to make submissions; when he then makes submissions to the select committee on the renewal of his water right and when he then makes submissions to the special water board on the renewal of the water right and he is now facing further delays because of the appeal he is also facing a further round of submissions on the substantive application and 4 years later and after six lots of submissions he is still 2 years away from having his water right renewal considered; is that in the Minister’s mind good process? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure we would all agree that the process introduced by my predecessor Minister Hobbs has gone a long way to solving a lot of the sorts of problems that Dr Smith is detailing and I would say that those problems were caused not by the legislation or by the acts of this Government but rather by the failings of Environment Canterbury. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Could the Minister outline for me given that answer specifically how the Government’s amendments have helped that farmer in trying to get the renewal of his water right given that it was under his Government’s legislation that they called in and overrode the resource consent process and after waiting 5 years he still has at least another 2 years before his water right will be considered—how has the Government helped that farmer? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure it does not escape Dr Smith that the amendments to the Act were passed in this year and he is talking about historical difficulties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does it make sense on a day when the Christchurch  
Press  
and other media lead with stories of power shortages for the Waitaki River which is our most important power resource to be held up with further delays over a water plan that has now been 4 years in the making and will he take responsibility for his mess in the Resource Management Act if the lights go out for tens of thousands of New Zealanders next winter? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I find a certain irony in that member speculating about the lights going out but what I would say is that I have confidence in the courts to make appropriate decisions in this matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the appeal of Mr Bevan Wilkie of Whangarei citing treaty reasons for his High Court appeal against the Waitaki water plan. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
United Nations—Tangata Whenua Consultation 
10.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: “Ae ranei kaore ranei ka korero mai te Kawanatanga ki te tangata whenua mo nga kaupapa korero i a ia e korero ana ki te United Nations?”. 
Does the Government consult with tangata whenua on relevant issues when attending United Nations forums? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 United Nations forums cover a vast range of issues. The Government has a policy— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I fully accept the right of the questioner to ask his question in his chosen language. Even though it is written on the speech the Standing Orders require that the question is read as written on the sheet. Many members in this House have been pulled up by the Speaker in the past for not complying with that Standing Order. I would have thought that at least the question should be repeated to us by a translator. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that point of order. In future the question should be read as it is on the Order Paper. If there is then to be a Maori translation at that point it may be given. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that for the guidance of the Maori Party it should be clearer than that. It would be quite acceptable for the question to be written in Maori and then it can be asked in Maori. The difficulty we have is that the question as it appears on the Order Paper is written in English. I think for the future guidance of the Maori Party the requirement should be that it be written in Maori and then it can be asked in Maori in the first instance. For those of us who are still struggling with te reo maybe the Clerk or the Maori Party can arrange for an English version to be sent to us all in the morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My ruling still remains. If the member wanted the question on the Order Paper to be in Maori then he should have lodged it in Maori. Maybe that will be the course in the future. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The translation should be given. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is already translated. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He did it himself. That was the point. He actually provided the translation as he is perfectly entitled to. The legitimate part of the member’s point of order was that he should have originally read the question as it was on the Order Paper. [ 
Interruption 
] The member may well disagree but I have ruled on that. I now ask the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to answer the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: United Nations forums cover a vast range of issues. The Government has a policy of engaging where appropriate with Maori on issues that they have identified as being of interest to them. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What consultation with Maori had occurred prior to the New Zealand delegates describing the draft declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples as “unworkable and unacceptable” at the sixtieth General Assembly held in New York on 20 October? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand that there was a great deal of discussion. Of course discussion and consultation do not lead to those with whom the discussions occurred having their views necessarily reflected in the submissions made elsewhere within the United Nations. The Government whoever it may be is free to arrive at its own conclusions and present those conclusions in the appropriate forums. 
Hone Harawira 
: What was the rationale for New Zealand’s statement at the sixtieth General Assembly that New Zealand could not agree to a document that suggested there were two standards of citizenship or two classes of citizens particularly in the context of the Prime Minister’s statement that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed so that two peoples could coexist in one nation and we still have work to do in honouring the treaty? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly we do but that does not lead to an assumption of two classes of citizenship or two sets of rules. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What events has the Government sponsored to recognise the second decade of the rights of the indigenous peoples which started in January this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have any particular information in front of me in that respect. Perhaps the member could put down another question and I will try to get that information for him. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did the Government invite Rodolfo Stavenhagen to New Zealand after ridiculing the UN report that accused the Labour Government of discriminating against the interests of Maori over the foreshore and seabed legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The UN Commission on Human Rights suggested that we issue a standing invitation for the thematic human rights special rapporteurs to visit here. At the beginning of 2004 we issued a standing invitation to the thematic human rights special rapporteurs which I should emphasise is United Nations language not New Zealand Government language. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked why. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There was no special invitation to Mr Stavenhagen in this case. There is a standing invitation to the class of people of which Mr Stavenhagen is one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for the clarification. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Government prepared to change the Foreshore and Seabed Act on the potentially embarrassing recommendations of Professor Stavenhagen or is the Government prepared to accept that the United Nations is not always right about every single issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We will listen carefully to any recommendations that Mr Stavenhagen makes. The United Nations is not infallible. Should Mr Stavenhagen for example recommend changes to the  
Cabinet Manual 
 I doubt that we would take too much notice of them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That may be an enormously humorous answer as far as Dr Cullen is concerned but the simple question was: if he makes recommendations will the Government act on them? If the Minister would like me to rephrase the question so that he can give the House an answer then I am happy to so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Listen to the answer. I said we will listen carefully to any recommendations that he makes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Government change the foreshore and seabed legislation in order to comply with any recommendations from Professor Stavenhagen? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We will carefully consider any recommendations that Professor Stavenhagen makes. If the recommendations are consistent with Government policy we will certainly look at that possibility. If they are not it is most unlikely that we will do so—unlike the National Party which was prepared to give away every part of its Maori policy before the election to try to secure the votes of the Maori Party but once that fell through it was back on scratching the old issues. 
Benefit Fraud—Control 
11.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is he satisfied that Work and Income is taking all steps to crack down on benefit fraud; if so is he satisfied that only eligible persons receive taxpayer-funded benefits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This Government wants to make sure that everyone who is entitled to support gets it. Benefit abuse and fraud are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. All cases of deliberate fraud are prosecuted. It is a disappointing fact that some people attempt to defraud our system. Where debts are incurred they will be recovered. Currently 96 percent of debtors on a benefit are repaying their debt. Prosecution rates in October as I mentioned earlier were 97 percent successful with 12 sentences of imprisonment. 
Judith Collins 
: Is Work and Income investigating rescued yachties Bruce Cox and Heloise Kortekaas solely because each was receiving a single person’s benefit while they were living together and does the Minister agree that Work and Income should be asking why those two used any taxpayer funds to finance a yachting voyage? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not have any information about that particular case and if I did I certainly would not be discussing it in the House. Work and Income is committed to ensuring that people get their correct entitlements—no more no less—minimising debt and identifying and eliminating fraud. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps the Minister would like to revisit his answer given that that particular story has been all over the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the  
Press— 
Fairfax newspapers 
— 
just last week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Judith Collins 
: Is it true that Work and Income has no idea—as this Minister has just proven—whether someone has skipped off on a yacht for a round-the-world voyage unless that person ends up being rescued makes the front page of every newspaper in the country and confesses to being part of a couple? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is certainly true that Work and Income does not have a camera in every bedroom. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I really do not think that that is any attempt to answer the question. The Minister has already shown that he does not know anything about his portfolio he does not read the newspapers he does not know what is going on 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not part of a point of order. Does the Minister wish to add to his answer? He does not. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not for the Speaker to ask whether the Minister wants to add to his answer; it is up to the Speaker to decide whether he has addressed the question adequately. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I understand the point he is making. I judge and rule that the Minister did address the question. I now ask Judith Collins whether she wishes to ask a supplementary question. 
Judith Collins 
: How many of the other almost 300000 working-age New Zealanders currently receiving a benefit are holidaying on yachts gallivanting around the world or simply choosing not to work for lifestyle reasons? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: My apologies; clearly it would be impossible to have that information. I am happy to give the member the undertaking that I will give her the outcome of the investigation of the party she refers to and assure her that if she has particulars of any other people who raise matters of such concern I would be pleased to investigate them. 
Judith Collins 
: As the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Are we going to have interruptions during questions? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was no interjection that I heard but people do chatter through questions. If you want silence on every question good luck. I would ask you to put your question please. 
Judith Collins 
: When Bruce Cox and Heloise Kortekaas were rescued at a cost of nearly $1 million to the taxpayer was either of them not available for work due to stress; if not what other illnesses might have rendered them incapable of work but capable of taking a yacht on an intercountry voyage? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am happy to find that information out for the member but I point out to her that the provision that stress is an appropriate and acceptable reason for benefit receipt was introduced by the National Government. 
Research Science and Technology—Innovation 
12.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How is the Government fostering innovation in the New Zealand economy through research science and technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Over the next 4 years this Government will invest just under $3 billion to foster innovation through research science and technology. That investment will ensure greater certainty around funding support areas of national research excellence and ensure faster commercialisation of research. That is 50 percent more than the previous Government chose to spend on innovation. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What is the Government doing to support scientists? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Over the next 4 years the Government will invest an extra $47.8 million into programmes directly aimed at supporting scientists including $17.8 million to boost the capability of Crown research institutes $17.1 million to expand the International Investment Opportunities Fund $10 million to invest in the Marsden Fund and $2.7 million to double the number of Fulbright scholarships. Under investments by the Labour-led Government the number of people working in research science and technology has increased by 32 percent. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How does the announcement made on 8 November by Industrial Research that it will axe 20 highly qualified scientists correlate with his innovation rhetoric and Labour’s pre-election statement: “We need to provide more security for researchers.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I repeat for the benefit of the member—and I thank him for the opportunity—that we have had a 32 percent increase in the number of people working in the sector and we are investing 50 percent more than National would have invested. But of course in the case of Industrial Research Ltd the difficulties with two of its subsidiary companies have caused it to change what it is doing. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two articles. The first dated 10 November 2005 is from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and is entitled “IRL cutback a blow to research” and the second is an editorial from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 14 November entitled “No way to treat a scientist”. That is the record of the Labour Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Address in Reply 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General in reply to Her Excellency’s speech 
. Kua hakamarangaranga he kotahi te manu ka tau ki te tahuna ka tau ka tau e tau katoa nei tatou. Mai i te tahuhu o to tatou Whare ki nga rakau korero mai i nga hau e wha tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Tena tatou i te aroaro o nga mokopuna me nga uri hakatipu kaore ano kia puta. Tena tatou i te atarangi o te hunga na ratou tenei Whare i hakakorero i to ratou wa. Na reira tenei te mihi whanui ki a koutou tena koutou kia ora koutou katoa. 
[ 
And so the flock soars upwards to eventually alight as one on the beach and settle; and here we are landed as one. From the ridgepole of our House to the representatives of the four winds greetings to you collectively and indeed to all of us. Greetings to us in the presence of grandchildren and the generations yet to come. Greetings indeed to us in the shadow of those who in their time made this House talk. And so I extend this huge mihi to you collectively: greetings and good health to you all 
.] 
Madam Speaker I begin my maiden speech by offering congratulations on your re-election to the Chair. I also acknowledge the late Green Party co-leader Rod Donald. As we say in te reo Maori: kua hinga te totara o te wao nui a Tane. 
[ 
the totara of the great forest of Tane has fallen 
.] 
In preparing this maiden speech I sought counsel from members of this House both former and current. I pestered others—observers who have endured the speeches of their representatives. The clearest advice was to strive for authenticity. This of course suggests a time for reflection—a time when a new parliamentarian lays down a touchstone that one returns to from time to time or is dragged back to by disappointed supporters cackling Opposition members or foraging journalists! 
Authenticity begins with an account of who you are what you believe and whether any of it has relevance to our future an indivisible nationality a legitimate State and a plurality of cultures. I am a product of our history: a proud descendant of the Dalmatian gumdigger the Pakeha pioneer and Te Aupouri Ngati Kahu Ngai Takoto imposing tangata whenua women. Northland or Tai Tokerau is where I call home. It is a place where the currents of ancestry have co-mingled and I am proud to claim all three streams as my heritage—downstream upstream full-on mainstream! 
To this end I acknowledge with affection the presence of my parents this afternoon Peter and Ruth Jones: one a farmer still milking cows and going on 73; the other a schoolteacher who at the age of 66 is still at the chalkface. My wife Ngareta from the Hokianga Harbour who after the ebb and flow of many a tide remains staunch and straightforward. Such simplicity is needed in the Jones whanau given our seven children: Keryn and Taimania on the proverbial OE; Tohe in the army getting the discipline papa never fully delivered on; and Penetaui Hoera and my two sweet peas Haukura and Te Aumihi. 
I enjoyed the experience of standing for Labour in the seat of Northland and I acknowledge the successful candidate the sitting member Mr John Carter. I wish him a speedy recovery. 
Millie Srhoj is the grand old man of the Labour Party in the far north and I was privileged to be nominated by him. Our shared Dalmatian ancestry reminded me of our gumdigging forebears who fled the hardship of the Austrian empire for freedom and opportunity in a new land. Mi treba da se udrojimo—look forward together we will succeed. And I look forward to working constructively with other Northland-based MPs to improve the region’s roads essential services schools and other infrastructure. 
Northland enjoys iconic status in our historical sweep. Te Rerenga Wairua Cape Reinga is the meeting place of the Tasman Sea and the eastern Pacific currents and the mythical point where the spirits of our ancestors journeyed back to Hawaiki. Waipoua Forest is where the lonely sentinel Tane Mahuta the 2000-year-old kauri tree has kept watch over the landscape for longer than people have walked these islands. There is Pewhairangi the Bay of Islands—the site where our nation’s founding document the Treaty of Waitangi was originally signed. This document some would say has grown legs in the last 20 years. Where is it taking us or where are we taking it? Is it to a destination we do not want to move to or to a place it was never designed to be? 
The place and role of the treaty are among our most searching issues. The debate however is not about the literal words of this document; rather it is about relationships. How do we honour the sentiments underlying this founding document? According to the Court of Appeal it is a living document although some members of this House are prone to dismiss it as a colonial artefact. 
My own thoughts have changed over the years. The emphatic treaty activist of the 1980s became a Maori economic advocate in the 1990s. This decade however we must move on beyond historical angst. The future summons us to a relationship that transcends both Crown and tribe. To this end it is pleasing to see that all parliamentarians are committed to the resolution of historical grievances. I favour expeditiousness to clear the path so that our aspirations are not twisted by protracted disputes over acre rood and perch. 
Pakeha and Maori do have a shared heritage. A sense of belonging is both affirmed and expressed through embracing Maori symbol and dance. When the haka rings out at Twickenham we all swell with pride. This is the enduring image we should accentuate. The focus must be on confidence pride ingenuity and independence. If we take this route now future generations our mokopuna will reflect it in deed hue and spirit. 
In the grand narrative of our nation’s story addressing historical grievances is but one chapter. Other chapters are materialising around us. Our communities are becoming more diverse. As the pace gathers by dint of birth rate immigration and international influences the ethic of inclusiveness must be tended. Tangata Pacifica and Asian arrivals remind us that our islands are a part of the Pacific and nearer to Asia than Europe or the United States of America. Although the variety of faces and the babble of languages may confound us all immigrants come looking for opportunity. Material comfort and security drive their numbers. 
The right to our citizenship however carries the duty to uphold our traditions. Our democratic traditions rest on deep abiding qualities that are the inheritance of all of us. We rise to the challenge perhaps because of our historical isolation. We are adventurous inventive and adaptable. We pride ourselves on self-reliance whilst at the same time being fair-minded. A love of the whenua the land the mountains the pohutukawa and the surrounding seas is nationally enjoyed. The outstretched hand offers assistance at the end of the day but we do expect the recipient to have made every possible endeavour to stand on his or her own two feet first. That is the Kiwi spirit I hope to strengthen and see continue. 
I come to this House with respect for pragmatism. I have had the privilege of chairing the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission—an 11-member board debating how to split up $1 billion worth of assets amongst 50-plus tribes. Furthermore I had the role of chairing Sealord’s a fishing company and multimillion-dollar enterprise owned by the Maori tribes and a Japanese multinational company Nippon Suisan. This enterprise is a testament to our adaptability. Maori were able to safeguard their assets and attract foreign capital to expand a New Zealand resource base. 
The importance of economic growth is a given for me. When we talk of productivity we must go beyond mere tax calculations. We know the range of international views on economic growth. But as an isolated trading nation with a modest domestic base we need to derive our own solutions. We cannot in some cavalier fashion adopt and transplant holus-bolus from either Europe Asia or the Chicago School of Economics. However borrowing those components that are relevant to the Kiwi way and adapting them with our ingenuity will accelerate growth and build exports. 
We should encourage enterprises that invest in value-added propositions. We should celebrate the attitude of those who venture into investments that lie beyond the horizon of the rank and file. After all nothing has more lasting value than human capital. As the famous Maori proverb says: “He tangata he tangata.” The uniqueness of the product and the competitiveness of the service all come back to the quality of the hands and minds that deliver the goods. 
This quality has seen our primary industries grow but more needs to be done. As more of our families are reared in metropolitan locations we must remain vigilant and not overlook the interests of the regions. Milking the cows setting the net and milling the timber are a long way from this Chamber. Before we quaff at the Green Parrot or sip nectar at the Humming Bird spare a thought for those who toil at sea and on the land. 
The key point for me as a new parliamentarian is that we have a system worth celebrating. It prizes openness it relentlessly tests the legitimacy of authority and it is a bulwark against corruption. I come to this role along with every other member anxious to make a mark and contribute to the wealth and health of our society. Members will invariably not agree but as my mentor the Rev. Maori Marsden told me and the new member for Te Tai Tokerau in our youth ta te rangatira kai he korero; speechmaking and debate are chiefly pursuits indeed. Once debated settle the dispute and move on. 
In coming to this parliamentary role I arrived as the beneficiary of a fine education. It was gifted to me by the generosity of others including a group of elderly Anglican parishioners from the Warkworth pastorate who saved their pennies to send a small boy from Awanui the backblocks of the far north to St Stephen’s School. There was also the Maori and Polynesian Scholarship that assisted me through Auckland University and Victoria University and the Harkness Fellowship that took me to Harvard University. Without this educational background I would never have had the opportunity to achieve in private enterprise as well as serve in the Ministry for the Environment the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Te Ohu Kai Moana. Such an experience has been a precursor to my embarking on this career. 
Not surprisingly it is my fervent desire that all children in the nation no matter how humble or disadvantaged their individual status should have the opportunity to find their way to the forefront of society in their chosen field through access to quality education. To know the value of learning is a lifelong mission and I look forward to promoting the importance of encouraging parents to elevate the ambitions of their children. 
Ignorance imperils our values. Learning is not simply an institutional matter to be left to others during the working day. Education knows no generational barrier. It also respects no ethnic or cultural boundary. To become an educated people we must learn about each other and we must ensure that our children have broad minds capable of opening the doors to the rest of the world. Given that we have to earn our keep amidst a diverse and crowded world market learning will be a cradle-to-grave duty. This will reduce insecurity and tensions between sectors of our communities and draw us together as one people but many faces.  
 In conclusion it is with great enthusiasm that I have moved the motion for the Address in Reply debate. The programme outlined in the Speech from the Throne focuses heavily on the values and aspirations that have drawn me to this vocation. Reverence for the natural environment a zeal for economic growth and trade and an awareness and acceptance through knowledge of our shared heritage are the values that will lead to a safe community a diverse society and a united and proud Aotearoa. Tena koutou katoa. 
Waiata 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I second the motion that a respectful address be presented to Her Excellency’s speech. In doing so I record my respect for Her Excellency Dame Silvia Cartwright and her role in representing Queen Elizabeth II. 
My congratulations to you Madam Speaker on your re-election. From one Waikato woman to another I celebrate the dignified and fair but firm way you conduct business in this House. It is personally fulfilling for me to be able to deliver my maiden speech through you. I offer hearty congratulations to the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark on her historic third successive term as Prime Minister—an awesome achievement for a truly awesome leader. 
I pay my respects to the member of Parliament for Ohinemuri from 1905 to 1925 Hugh Poland who is the great-grandfather of my husband Shane Vugler and therefore the great-great-grandfather of our children Quinn and Logan. In doing so I acknowledge the involvement and support of Shane Quinn and Logan in everything that I do. I am so proud to have them here with me today along with my parents other members of my family and friends. Welcome. 
I thank the people of the Cambridge branch of the New Zealand Labour Party for their hard work their encouragement and their support. After 31 years of chipping away in a part of New Zealand that has not always welcomed their views that hardy bunch of visionaries now has a member of Parliament among their ranks and I am privileged and humbled to carry that mantle. I thank the New Zealand trade union movement and my colleagues in the Waikato in particular for their mentorship and support. 
My being a list member of Parliament allows me some latitude in deciding who my predecessor is. I choose to acknowledge former Labour list member Helen Duncan in this regard. Helen worked tirelessly in this House under the most difficult of circumstances with her health to ensure that the voice of working women was heard here. In particular I acknowledge her involvement in supporting the introduction and review of the Employment Relations Act 2000. I applaud her courage in deciding that the time was right to leave this House in order to focus on spending time with family and friends and I wish her well. 
It pleases me to have contributed to this Parliament’s returning a higher proportion of women members than ever before. Women now make up 32 percent of this House. However given that women are 51 percent of this country’s population we have some way to go before this House can live up to its claim of being truly “representative”. I note that the New Zealand Labour Party is doing better than most with 38 percent of its members being women and I stress the importance of women being elected to Parliament who will stand up for the rights of women and children. The important contribution we make to this House is that we do bring a woman’s perspective and we must work to protect and enhance that. 
There are three key defining experiences in my life that form the foundation of my principles and beliefs. The first was not unusual for a New Zealand child; it was the experience of growing up in a small rural community. For me that was the Waikato community of Walton where I lived next door to two sets of cousins who along with my four siblings made up a fair chunk of the roll at Walton primary school. Like my colleague Lynne Pillay our family never had Michael Joseph Savage on our wall but we did have a very tasteful mural of a horse race over our fireplace. My mum and dad were dairy farmers and the 80 acres provided our family of seven with the means to get by. Although it was not always easy for my parents to make ends meet as children we enjoyed a carefree existence in a loving and supportive family. 
It was in this setting that I learnt the importance of working together of valuing each other’s strengths and of accommodating weaknesses for in small communities neighbours draw on each other’s resources all the time. That is how we get by. Nothing is more devastating for small communities than infighting and bickering. Energy spent on those destructive forces soon makes small communities dysfunctional. New Zealand Aotearoa is a small community. There is no doubt that we do best when we draw on each other’s strengths and value diversity. We have witnessed just how successful this approach can be when it is taken as it has been in the past 6 years. When we pull together we are unbeatable. 
That brings me to the second defining experience of my life so far. Again it is something that is not unusual for a New Zealander of my generation—the big OE. I headed off overseas by myself a little earlier than most at the tender age of 18. In my naivety I packed an overnight bag to take away with me to see the world. Inside were two sets of clothes a sleeping bag and—my most important cargo—as many cassettes full of Kiwi music as the bag could handle. What I brought back with me 2 years later was a deep love and appreciation of New Zealand and its people and a head full of what I now know to be political awakenings. 
Two things struck me in particular. Having spent much time travelling in Ireland Britain and the Middle East during the early 1980s I saw the close connection between intolerance and oppression. Coming from New Zealand it had never occurred to me that intolerance of others’ religious or cultural beliefs would be used as an excuse for so much bloodshed just so that one group could gain power over the other. It caused me to reflect on how vital it is for New Zealand to foster tolerance and understanding. We are a shining beacon of light in a world dimmed with hatred suspicion and fear. We must work hard to retain our stance on that. 
My other lasting impression from that defining experience is of the unique gift we have in our tangata whenua. The fact that Maori are our tangata whenua gives us a perspective on life that no other country has yet although my life is partly defined by that fact I had never set foot on a marae until I was in my early 20s. In fact I had been the editor of a community newspaper before I had engaged with Maori in their place in that unique and thought-provoking way. When I look back I find it disturbing that I was in the position whereby the newspaper I edited and partially wrote purported to be the voice of the community without having a good understanding of Maori within that community. 
But here is the good news. Our two sons aged 6 and 7 have already been on to a marae because their State-funded kindergarten took them there. Because of what they hear and are taught at home and at school they both have the most natural pronunciation of the beautiful Maori language. For them it is already a part of being Kiwi and they do not have to go overseas to find out about it. So that is progress and it bodes well for our future. 
If that is what I came back with what did I leave behind? Well all that great Kiwi music was left with overseas acquaintances who got a head start on the rest of the world in appreciating our unique creativity. Th’ Dudes Dragon Herbs Split Enz Sharon O’Neill and Hello Sailor were all great ambassadors. 
I speak now of my third defining experience. It was the one that drew on all my other experiences and put them into context—my involvement over the past 18 years in the trade union movement. At this point I wish to acknowledge the direct and lasting impact on my life of unionists James Ritchie the Hon Mark Gosche Carol Gosche Dr Linda Sissons Steph Breen Stephanie Doyle Linda Holt Carol Beaumont and a group of wise Waikato union women who are just too numerous to mention individually. It is the many experiences and discussions I have had with those people union delegates and union members whom I have worked with that gives me the strength of my convictions. 
It is through the trade union movement that I learnt once again the power of working together the empowerment in valuing diversity the futility of feeling threatened through ignorance and the wisdom of collective decision-making. I learnt the art of advocacy the importance of strategy and the satisfaction of standing up for what one believes in. I learnt that we win some and we lose some but that we never ever give up—we just regroup and develop a better plan. Another lesson from the farm was reinforced during my time in the trade union movement. It goes something like this: if one wants to know how best to get the job done ask the people who do the job. It sounds simple enough but time and time again I have seen bad management decisions made because the actual workers never had a say or were not listened to. 
The health system of the 1990s was a particularly bad example of that and the damaging effects remain with us today. I represented the predominantly women members of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation through the harsh industrial climate of the Employment Contracts Act. I learnt how quickly things can be torn apart and how much longer it takes to rebuild them. National awards that had been negotiated by that union over decades were decimated within just 18 months of the Employment Contracts Act being enacted because that legislation made it illegal for workers to strike for agreements that bound more than one employer. Even after Labour introduced the Employment Relations Act which promotes collective bargaining and gives back to workers the right to strike over multi-employer collective agreements it has still taken 5 years to get back a national agreement for nurses in the public sector. The disparity that took place over the 1990s for workers doing exactly the same job was so large that national consistency had to be put back together piece by painstaking piece. Most New Zealand workers are still nowhere near to getting back the types of agreements they lost under the Employment Contracts Act. It is much easier and faster to tear things apart than to rebuild them. 
Because of those three defining experiences and all of life’s other lessons in between I am extremely proud to be a member of this fifth Labour Government. Anyone can rule the roost by using the tactics of divide and rule. The plan is to attack those who are most vulnerable or a little different so that then the rest will want to be in “your gang”. We can witness that style of “leadership” in any school yard. But what takes real skill a high level of intelligence and determination and results in a better place for everyone to live in is the ability to lead by inclusion to involve everyone and to harness the benefits of diversity. Those are the leadership qualities that I most admire in Helen Clark and are the factors that have led to New Zealand’s success in recent years. 
Understanding the difference in the two leadership styles I have just outlined puts the political correctness debate into context. Some have struggled to define what political correctness is. It appears that anything not believed or accepted by the majority is politically correct and therefore must be eradicated. However I will stick with the literal meaning. Strictly speaking the term “political correctness” means the correcting of power. Power is corrected when recognition and rights are given to those who previously did not have them. This has the effect of taking power out of the hands of the few and putting it into the hands of the many. Therefore when I hear people complaining about something being politically correct I know that they are worried that it will pass some power on to another group. It is called power sharing and I am all for it. 
Following the election the media have focused on divisions within New Zealand. However what I see are significant areas of consensus that create opportunities to keep moving forward. For example during the election campaign everyone agreed that wages are too low in New Zealand. Well let us get on and get that sorted. Another area of general agreement was the need to build a sustainable future for New Zealand including how we plan for our energy needs how we invest in infrastructure and how we invest in skills development. Those issues will not wait. 
I believe that the timing is right to improve the balance between people’s lives and their paid employment. Surely the whole point of having growth in the economy is to improve our lifestyles. Why else would we strive for economic growth? Several pieces of research now point to us working some of the longest hours in the developed world. This does not make us more productive; on the contrary it adversely affects our productivity as fatigue sets in and the risk of making a mistake or having an accident increases. It also has a significant social impact as families miss out on spending valuable time together. That is why I welcome a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers from 2007. It is why I want to work on other initiatives that address those issues. 
As a new member of Parliament I feel I am about to have my fourth defining experience and I expect it will build on my previous three. I have nearly completed my maiden speech and I have mentioned horse racing only once. But for those who appreciate the subtleties in life please note that the light-blue silks the black sleeves and the red cap are very much in this House today. For those members who have no idea what I am talking about it does not matter because getting horses to run very fast is one thing—and is very exciting—but helping to improve people’s lives well that is something else and that is what I have come to Parliament to do. With the love and support of those who share this vision with me I will do my very best to achieve that. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the following words be added to the address: and that it informs Her Excellency that this House has no confidence in the Labour - New Zealand First Government because it has no serious programme to secure rising incomes for all New Zealanders; because the Labour component of the Government has coasted over the last 6 years on the back of strong export prices and utterly failed to lay the foundations for reducing the gap between living standards on this side of the Tasman and those in Australia; because it fought a dishonest election campaign one that ransacked the public purse for irresponsible party purposes; because during that campaign it suppressed vital information about the financial consequences of its policies; and because it has trampled over all previous constitutional conventions in cobbling together a bizarre set of coalition arrangements that put personal ambitions well ahead of the national interest. 
 Last Tuesday Her Excellency was asked to read a profoundly uninspiring Speech from the Throne. The speech was full of good intentions and pious hopes. It tried to suggest that this “Labour - New Zealand First” Government actually cares about raising the living standards of all New Zealanders. There were lots of references to the importance of productivity and of transformation of the economy and of giving particular attention to a wide range of issues. The speech tried to suggest that the “Labour - New Zealand First” Government would like to see the gap between our living standards and those in Australia reduced. But we all know that that is empty rhetoric. 
Many people in this House remember Helen Clark just 6 years ago as Leader of the Opposition deploring the exodus of Kiwis to more prosperous countries and vowing that she was “not prepared to stand back and see the best and brightest of New Zealanders leave this country taking their ideas and their businesses with them.” Even more of us recall her stating in 2001 that her goal was to raise New Zealand’s living standards to the top half of the OECD within 10 years. She abandoned that task of course—no doubt because she could see that she had no chance whatsoever of achieving it. But in 2003 she still told Parliament that she was committed to raising New Zealand’s living standards to the top half of the OECD “over time”. Yet again this year she has made another vacuous statement that suggests she is serious about raising living standards. 
I guess the best way of judging whether her Government is serious about this important goal is to see what Labour has actually achieved in the last 6 years. Over the last 6 years as over the last 12 years total economic growth has been better than it was over the previous decade. Indeed over recent years total economic growth has even been slightly better than total economic growth in Australia. It sounds pretty good but it is not nearly as good as it sounds. As umpteen people have pointed out to the Government the reality is that this total economic growth was made up of a big increase in the employed labour force and some improvement in output per person or productivity. The increase in the employed labour force was in turn made up of a reduction in unemployment—which continues a trend that began in 1992—and an enormous surge in net immigration first in the mid-1990s and then again after September 11. 
I say to the Prime Minister that the worrying thing is that growth in output per person employed while markedly better than before the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s is still well below the OECD average. The Clark Government has done nothing to build on past productivity improvement. It has failed to fix the delays and obstacles in the Resource Management Act with the result that we have less investment in almost every industry than would be desirable. It has failed to fix the growing problems in the road network which results in hundreds more people dying and being injured on our roads than in countries with better roads such as Australia and the UK and hundreds of millions of dollars of additional cost arising from congestion. 
 It has utterly failed to deal adequately with the prospect of “brownouts” and blackouts despite the fact that the great bulk of the electricity generation sector and Transpower are owned by the Government itself. It has failed to take significant steps to ease the critical shortage of skilled workers and indeed the Clark Government capped funding for apprenticeship training and provided more than nine times as much funding to Te Wananga o Aotearoa as to the entire Modern Apprenticeships scheme. Though the business sector has been under very considerable pressure from the appreciation of the New Zealand dollar in recent years the Clark Government failed to ease the burden of compliance costs facing the business sector and in fact did not hesitate to dump additional costs on employers—thus further undermining their competitiveness—through amendments to the Holidays Act and the Employment Relations Act. 
Though the Government’s own advisers in Treasury have calculated in a paper written a year ago that a lower flatter income-tax structure could add between a half and 1 percent to our per capita growth rate—a phenomenally large gain that would see us begin to narrow the gap with Australia—the Government has totally failed to take the slightest notice of that advice. Indeed it has explicitly ruled out any change in personal taxation structures before a trivial adjustment in 2008. 
The Clark Government has coasted along enjoying the prosperity arising from excellent prices for meat and dairy exports on international markets and the boost to the housing market provided by a strong inflow of immigrants. But the end result has been profoundly disappointing. Figures released by the Government Statistician just last week suggest that productivity has actually been falling recently and is now at a 4-year low. In 1999 the gap between average after-tax wages in New Zealand and those in Australia was $5000 per annum. Five years later the gap had virtually doubled to $10000 a year. 
Is it any wonder that the exodus of New Zealanders to greener pastures abroad an exodus that Helen Clark pretended to be concerned about back in 1999 when she was in Opposition has been accelerating lately? Is it any wonder that a recent OECD study pointed out that New Zealand had a higher proportion of its tertiary-educated people living abroad than any other developed country? 
And what about the future? Well it would be nice to think that the pious hopes expressed in the Speech from the Throne would result in real action. But why should we expect that? Labour’s famous pre-election pledge card was devoid of any policy commitment that might have been expected to produce higher living standards— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is that the one paid for by the taxpayer? 
Dr DON BRASH 
: That is the one—with a single rather trivial exception of a commitment to fund just 5000 additional Modern Apprenticeships. All the other commitments on that pledge card were about redistributing income not about increasing it. 
But what about the infamous student loan bribe? Surely that might be regarded as a policy that might encourage growth and improve living standards—at least to the extent that it might encourage people with tertiary qualifications to stay in New Zealand; of course that is the argument that the Government used in the election campaign—but sadly no. That policy was a totally unprincipled election bribe devoid of any policy justification whatsoever. Fewer than 6 percent of those with student loans live overseas so the student loan bribe which was given at enormous cost to the ordinary hard-working New Zealand worker will have absolutely minimal impact on the number of graduates heading overseas. Michael Cullen confirmed just last week that the student loan bribe will require $2 billion to be written off the value of the existing student loan book and Treasury estimates of the future cost of the scheme run up to $1 billion per year. 
Under the “Labour - New Zealand First” Government we will see no acceleration in our growth no narrowing of the gap between living standards on this side of the Tasman and those in Australia no attempt to remedy the fact that New Zealanders earning less than $100000 a year pay more tax than do Australians in similar circumstances and no slow-down in the exodus of Kiwis to greener pastures abroad. Indeed if New Zealand incomes were to continue growing at the rate projected in the Government’s own Budget and if other OECD countries were to continue growing at their average rate over the last 20 years New Zealand average incomes would continue to fall relative to average OECD incomes. 
The same is true when New Zealand is compared with Australia. Over the last 10 years per capita incomes in New Zealand have grown more slowly than those in Australia so that far from catching Australia the gap between us has actually widened over the last decade. It would take a prodigious effort to match Australian incomes within 20 years and there is not the slightest indication that the “Labour - New Zealand First” Government will make that effort. Indeed every economic forecaster worth his or her salt is projecting at least 2 years of sub - 3 percent growth in the immediate future with some predicting that growth will be below 1.5 percent. And Michael Cullen far from trying to find ways to enable the economy to grow faster without inflation is busy trying to find ways of slowing it down. 
We cannot expect anything of value in a host of other areas of vital importance to New Zealanders either. Over the last few weeks we have seen example after example of the police failing to provide people in the community with the protection they have every right to expect. There are cases where victims of crime have identified the offender and have found his or her address only to be told that the police are too busy on other matters. We have had an admission that in the Auckland Police District one case in five is unassigned for investigation. We know because the Education Review Office has finally told us that far too many children leave school barely able to read and write or do basic arithmetic. But still the Government shows no sign of being willing to look hard at the way the current school system operates. 
We have hard-working dedicated teachers trapped in a highly centralised system where far too much detailed control over school operations is exercised by the Wellington bureaucracy. At the other extreme there is an extraordinary amount of waste and extravagance in the tertiary sector exemplified most starkly by Te Wananga o Aotearoa. It is a situation that has seen Government funding for that institution explode from $5 million in 1999 to $239 million in 2004 with widespread rumours of nepotism and legally dubious shortcuts. Yet the Minister’s only serious action so far has been to make a proposal to force the institution to reject a high proportion of its non-Maori students. Helen Clark has had to remove Steve Maharey from responsibility for tertiary education and ask Michael Cullen to fix the mess. But she has then given Mr Maharey the rest of the education sector to mess up. 
The Labour Government enormously increased taxpayers’ funding of the healthcare system—but to what effect? Waiting lists are still appalling. Back in 1998 Annette King described as criminal having 96000 people on waiting lists; now there are some 180000 people either on a formal waiting list or waiting for assessment by a specialist. 
On racial issues there is not the slightest sign that the “Labour - New Zealand First” Government will deal with the urgent need to ensure that all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law. It is no wonder that so many New Zealanders are deciding to leave. 
The sentiments expressed in the Speech from the Throne had a nice comfortable ring about them but it has been obvious for a long time that this Prime Minister this Government cannot be trusted. There is in fact a fundamental lack of integrity in the Government. Helen Clark was the person who confirmed a false accusation against her own police commissioner to a Sunday newspaper then pretended she had refused all comment. She gave one account of events in a signed affidavit then another in this House. Helen Clark was the person who signed a painting that she had no part in painting then claimed she did not know her staff had had the offending art work destroyed before the police were able to see it. Helen Clark was the person who sped through South Canterbury at speeds of up to 150 kilometres an hour and professed not to notice. She is the person who dropped five police officers and her driver into an expensive and stressful court case when she could have avoided the whole drama either by making it clear that she did not want her convoy to break the speed limit or by accepting responsibility for the speeding which she could have done without fear of prosecution as she knows. 
Helen Clark is the person who pushed New Zealand into the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it was a virtuous and moreover highly profitable thing to do as New Zealand would enjoy more carbon credits than debits through the first commitment period—indeed a net surplus of 55 million tonnes of carbon credits. It was the same Helen Clark who supported Pete Hodgson when he dumped on private sector research suggesting that we might have not a surplus of 55 million tonnes but a debit of 7 million tonnes. The cry was: “Ridiculous! Too pessimistic!”. But of course as we now know Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson were completely wrong: New Zealand does not have a surplus of 55 million tonnes nor even a debit balance of 7 million tonnes but rather a debit balance of an estimated 36 million tonnes. The difference will cost taxpayers in excess of $1 billion—all because of Helen Clark’s insistence that we become the only country in the southern hemisphere to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. 
What about the student loan bribe announced in the run-up to the election? Helen Clark and Trevor Mallard said that it would initially cost $100 million year rising to a maximum of $300 million in due course. A bank economist suggested: “Gee that sounds much too low. I think something closer to a billion-dollar cost is about right with student debt rising by about $10 billion above what it would otherwise be over a period of years.” Again the poor man was ridiculed. Worse when an economist from another bank came to his aid and suggested that he too thought the Government had substantially underestimated the cost of the student loan bribe both men were attacked. 
On 2 August this year I myself asked Helen Clark in this Chamber whether the Government had sought an estimate of the cost of the student loan bribe from Treasury. “No” she assured this House and she said that the student loan scheme was a Labour Party policy not a Government one. Then it emerged that Treasury had done an estimate of the cost but the Minister of Finance refused to release it. It was only when my colleague John Key asked the Ombudsman to insist that the Government release the report 2 days before the election that the Government reluctantly complied. A Treasury estimate had been done despite Helen Clark assuring the House that no estimate had been sought and it broadly confirmed the cost estimates made by the two bank economists. That was a disgraceful and dishonest performance on the part of Helen Clark. 
Another disgraceful episode that was partially visible before the election but which has become more clearly visible since the election was the use of ministerial influence to secure entry for preferred immigrants. Would-be immigrants going through regular channels often have to wait and wait and wait. Quite frankly many have to wait for an unacceptable period. But for those who know Taito Phillip Field the wait can be miraculously shortened. I am not suggesting corruption here—I simply have no evidence to suggest that—but it surely creates a very unsavoury impression when Ministers get involved in expediting many hundreds of immigration applications especially if they are for people with whom they have had business dealings. It is better by far to have an efficient Immigration Service treating all applicants promptly and courteously on the basis of merit. So a fundamental lack of integrity characterises this Government. 
It is also a Government mired in contradiction. It depends on a confidence and supply agreement from New Zealand First led by Winston Peters. New Zealand First is the party that Helen Clark once described as “the coalition partner from hell like a parasite which feeds on its host and in the end becomes indistinguishable from it”. 
John Key 
: Who wrote that? 
Dr DON BRASH 
: Helen Clark wrote that. Now she has made Winston Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But despite the fact that the portfolio of foreign affairs impinges on many aspects of Government policy Mr Peters is of course outside Cabinet and would prefer to sit with the Opposition in the House. He in fact sits as far away from Helen Clark as Jeanette Fitzsimons does from me. How utterly bizarre is that! When he is at the APEC meeting this week as the Minister of Foreign Affairs he may be asked about his attitude to a free-trade deal with China. He will presumably have to say that while as leader of New Zealand First he is utterly opposed to such a deal as the Minister of Foreign Affairs he supports it—shades of Gilbert and Sullivan! 
Of course we all know that just 2 months ago he pledged not to accept the perks and baubles of office at all. He has tried to pretend that he was forced to accept one bauble—for himself of course—because the country would otherwise have been forced back to the polls. What utter nonsense! He could have chosen to support Labour with a confidence and supply agreement without a ministerial portfolio. He chose to accept one bauble for himself. Indeed according to some accounts he actually asked for such a bauble. Now he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs—a portfolio he is totally unsuited for. He has regularly insulted the citizens of many of the countries in our region and although the leaders of those countries are far too polite to tell him so to his face most of them doubtless regard him with disdain. 
Anyway Winston Peters now sits with the Government even though he reserves the right to attack the Government in many areas and most of his parliamentary colleagues would no doubt also prefer to be sitting with the Opposition. They may well consider moving quickly before the party-hopping legislation is reinstated—this time I understand with a new name: the “Winston Peters Party Stabilisation Bill”; although I have heard rumours that it may be renamed the “Save Winston’s Lack of Integrity (Baubles) Bill”. 
If we look further into the future what can we see? There is no serious commitment to raising living standards; no sign of any attempt to restore incentives to ordinary New Zealanders to get ahead under their own steam; no sign of a serious attempt to improve the quality of our schools or the efficiency of our hospitals; and no sign of getting serious about crime prevention or ensuring that all New Zealanders regardless of race are equal before the law. There is just lots of talk about productivity about transformation and about paying particular attention to issues that should have been dealt with over the last 6 years. 
In the last few weeks the “Labour - New Zealand First” Government has announced a razor gang to cut Government spending so that the Government can afford all the bribes dished out during the election campaign. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen suggested that had National won we would have had to cut Government spending. Well Labour won narrowly and what did we see? We saw Labour cut Government spending. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen also tried to frighten voters with the idea that had National won the election interest rates on home mortgages would have gone up. Well Labour won narrowly and what did we see? The Reserve Bank has already increased interest rates once since the election and comments by Dr Bollard strongly suggest he will increase them again next month. Indeed some observers believe that they may have to be increased substantially more over the next 6 months while Michael Cullen hints darkly that he is looking for other ways to discourage banks from lending and people from spending. So once again Labour is seen to have been thoroughly dishonest. 
The National Party’s vision for New Zealand’s future is of a country where living standards are not just improving in absolute terms but are also improving relative to those in Australia and other countries to which New Zealanders can readily move. We would bring that about by removing the obstacles to people getting ahead under their own steam; by reducing tax rates so that people who earn money get to keep more of it; by restoring incentives; by ensuring a reliable and reasonably priced supply of energy; and by ensuring we have an adequate transport infrastructure wherever that is needed. But we also have a strong commitment to those things that have in the past made New Zealand a great country to grow up in such as a good education system; a reliable health-care system; support for those who need support; a safe community; a country of clean air and clean water; a country where everybody is equal before the law regardless of race; and a commitment to those values that made New Zealand a country worth living in; a country where families matter; where the Government believes that people know how to spend their money better than the Government does and know how to live their lives better than the Government does. In a Parliament almost equally divided between the parties supporting the Government and those opposed to it the National Party will be using every opportunity to advance those values and the policies consistent with those values. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was a “gone by lunchtime” speech. Indeed as one’s eyes roamed over despondent Opposition members one saw the only one with a smile on his face all the time was John Key. The only cliché missing from the vocabulary in that speech was “baloney”. We did not hear “baloney”. In the days leading up to this speech spin-meister Gerry has been around the press gallery and he has been saying that the National Party would be coming back into Parliament all guns blazing. That was until Don fired a series of blanks. We just heard the same old tired recycled lines that lost the National Party the election. One might have thought that there would be a moment’s reflection on what had gone wrong. No it was the same desperate attempt to put a bad spin on New Zealand’s success. I believe that what Kiwis reacted very very badly to in that campaign was Dr Brash and the National Party always talking New Zealand down. I tell Dr Brash that that lack of vision and that lack of care for our country will never win an election for the National Party. 
I do congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply debate. Both of them gave very powerful speeches. They gave the House real insights into what has motivated them to make a parliamentary career and a career with the Labour Party. I also repeat my congratulations to you Madam Speaker on your election to the Deputy Speaker on his election and to Ann Hartley and Ross Robertson on their election as Assistant Speakers. I acknowledge Her Excellency the Governor-General who came for the State opening and delivered the Speech from the Throne which sets out the Government’s programme. 
I regard it as a great honour to be elected to this House and I regard it as a very special honour to lead and form a Government. This is the ninth time I have been elected to this House and spoken in the Address in Reply debate and it is the third time I have had the privilege of being sworn in as Prime Minister. I thank the many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who cast their vote for the Labour Party to go back into Government. Indeed not far short of a million New Zealanders voted for this party to lead the Government again. 
I also record my thanks to the other parties in this Parliament who were prepared to negotiate working relationships with Labour. I set out after this election to negotiate arrangements that would be stable and durable—as they will be. I thank New Zealand First and United Future for the confidence and supply arrangement and I thank the Green Party for the abstention and working relationship that we have with it. We worked hard over the course of a month to put those arrangements in place and now it falls to us to provide the leadership and the good Government that will take New Zealand further ahead. I said from the time of election night that Labour did want to reach out across the Parliament to a range of small parties and to be as inclusive as possible in arrangements for Government. We have shown our willingness to share power and work collaboratively in the MMP environment and that I believe is what New Zealanders want from our electoral system. 
Ever since the infamous Orewa speech our opponents set out to gain power by dividing Kiwis against each other. Our route to power has been very different. Where others preach exclusion we preach inclusion and we do see it as our historic duty to play a role in bringing New Zealanders together—not driving them apart and splitting our society down the middle. We also see it as the historic duty of the Labour movement to see that every New Zealander gets a fair go and has opportunity and security and that as our country grows and develops every single Kiwi has a chance to share the fruits of that progress. We are dedicating our third term in Government as we dedicated the first two to our work to strengthen our economy and to make sure that the fruits of that go to every household in the land—as they do. 
We also dedicate ourselves to building a strong and confident nation. We are proud of the cohesion in our society relative to that of many others. We are proud of the achievers New Zealand has in every field. We are proud of the unique cultures and heritage of our county proud of the natural environment and proud of the role our country plays in world affairs. There is no doubt that there will be challenges ahead in this term in Government. Of course New Zealand has had 6 years first with a Government of Labour and the Alliance then of Labour and the Progressives and now of Labour and the Progressives again where there have been good growth rates and a fantastic fall in unemployment rates. We are proud of that. We are proud of being able to reinvest back into our public services and infrastructure into areas like the arts and sport and the environment into policing into the justice defence and security areas and into getting better representation of New Zealand offshore. 
But we know that we can never stand still in Government. As fast as our country grows and develops and as fast as we lift the level of skill and innovation our country has there are other nations that are striving to catch up with us and others are keeping that critical margin ahead of us in the living-standards stakes.It will take very smart thinking and very smart strategies to stay positioned as an affluent nation in today’s global economy. And we have to stay positioned as affluent; there are no prizes for failure. As we look around the world we see China and India emerging as mega-economies. Each of them produces four million university graduates a year—each of them as many graduates as our total population. We see them competing not just for the low-wage low-skill jobs but for the high-tech high-skill high-value work as well. So we have a race on to keep our position as an affluent nation and we cannot afford to waste the talent of a single New Zealander. We say that the New Zealand way in the 21st century has to be to mobilise all the skills the talent the ideas and the passion of every New Zealander so that our country can succeed. I believe New Zealanders want to accept that challenge. Our role in Government is to provide the leadership and the inspiration to lift our people’s aspirations so we can succeed in this century. 
I do see the immediate challenge before us as being to help facilitate the economy to move into a better balance between its export and its domestic sectors. Monetary policy obviously is tightening in order to head off domestic inflation and the effect of the higher interest rates and the higher currency exchange rate has undoubtedly hurt our export sectors. In managing through this period we believe it is very important for the Government to continue to run a conservative fiscal policy so that we do not put pressure on monetary policy. I want to say this: there is no doubt in my mind that the National Party’s reckless tax cuts policy could only have led to very severe monetary policy or to radical cuts in public spending. It is with great appreciation that I record that enough New Zealanders were aware of that not to give National the chance to wreck the economy and public services as well. 
As a Government we have always looked far beyond any short-term fix that might have presented itself in economic issues to the medium and the longer-term strategies. As in the past 6 years our emphasis will be on improving the foundations for long-term and sustainable growth. That means lifting our skills levels. It means lifting our savings levels. It means lifting productivity. It means lifting our capacity for innovation. It means lifting the capacity to export and to produce goods and services of a higher value. It means modernising our infrastructure. We cannot ask New Zealanders to work any harder. Already our people are working many more hours every year than workers in other comparable countries and record numbers of us are working as well—the participation rate is extremely high. So our future to prosperity is about working smarter. 
Of course that will require commitment from the workforce and from business but it is also helped by the Government’s willingness to invest and to adjust policy settings so that we enable a continual move of our economy upmarket to occur. That is why in our election programme we set new targets for skills training. That is why we are moving more of our science and research spending into the longer-term funding arrangements. That is why we are reviewing corporate taxation to see what practical signals we can give to lift productivity. That is why we will do more to back the commercialisation of innovation. That is why creating opportunities for our exporters is central to our economic policy. We will be designating 2007 as export year and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be expected to increase its focus on exporting. 
We know though that the big export gains for New Zealand will be made in the breakthroughs we get in trade negotiations. We know our primary sectors would be huge winners from success in the World Trade Organization’s Doha round and those negotiations are and must remain our top trade priority. As well of course we will continue to follow bilateral and regional free-trade agreements such as those we are currently negotiating with China Malaysia and all of ASEAN. Our belief is that New Zealand will succeed as an open trading economy and that we must be smart creative entrepreneurial and innovative as well. We have policies aimed at positioning New Zealand with a competitive edge in the global economy. That is the route to prosperity. 
I believe what distinguishes Governments of the centre-left from those of the right is our determination to see the benefits from a growing economy reach households across the country. Our Government’s policies have been exceptionally job rich with more than 270000 more people in work than there were when we came into Government in 1999. That has boosted household income. We have been able to invest heavily in public and social services. We have built up health and education. We have built up support for families and superannuitants and we have built up the capacity of our police force. 
But we have new goals and targets to meet in a third term. Before Christmas we will have passed legislation for two critical parts of Labour Party policy. The first is the extended tax relief for our families—in total around 77 percent of our families with dependent children will qualify for that. We can say that this is the biggest investment in families made by any Government for many decades and it will have a dramatic effect on child poverty. It still excites me to know that the effect of Working for Families will be to drop child poverty rates in this country down to the level of those in the Netherlands which we all look up to as being an advanced social democracy that delivers for its people. It is a proud day for us to be able to achieve that. Labour has said that the top priority for tax relief right now is our hard-working families. They do face the costs associated with raising children and I think the well-being of the next generation is a vital concern to every New Zealander. 
The second key initiative that will be legislated for before Christmas is getting rid of the interest on student loans—getting rid of it. This is a very big investment in our young people and in our country. It gives a hand up to those graduates who are prepared to put their skills at the service of New Zealand. It gives fresh hope to young Kiwis who would otherwise have been saddled with very high debt. It means they can plan ahead with confidence and it means that they will stay in New Zealand. That is good for our country. 
I want to refer to the boost coming for superannuation on 1 April because superannuitants are also going to get a greater share in the growing economy. The annual adjustment for superannuation next year will be set at 66 percent of the net average ordinary-time weekly wage rather than 65 percent and I acknowledge that this was part of the arrangements entered into for confidence and supply with New Zealand First. As well there will be many superannuitants who will benefit from the improved rates rebate scheme that is due for introduction next year. 
We also have very ambitious new policies right across education health and social development. In education particularly in terms of the priority being given to the early years from July 2007 we will see 3 and 4-year-old children in our licensed teacher-led early childhood centres being funded for 20 hours of free education a week. That will be an enormous help to our families. Over the next 3 years we will be implementing a 1:15 ratio in the new entrant classes in our schools. At the other end of the school system the goal is to see all our young people move on from school into some form of further education training or work. We have many new initiatives coming on stream for youth transitions and of course the many thousands of new places for apprenticeships as well. 
Health ranks with education as a top priority for us and is right at the top of the public’s list of what it expects a Government to deliver.We do deliver with many thousands more treatments at our public hospitals with more affordable primary care and with huge investments in mental health as well. We have new targets to meet for orthopaedic surgery and for cataract surgery we have the roll-out of lower doctors’ fees coming across all age groups of our community and we have many new initiatives for child health as well. Among them are more funding for the well child checks of the kind done by Plunket the free child health check before a child starts school in order to pick up any problems that might impact on the child’s ability to learn and very important the hearing check for newborn children. New Zealand has been picking up deafness in children far too late because we have not had a systematic programme of testing and that is about to change. We also have very big improvements planned for child and young persons’ dental services. 
As well at the other end of the age scale there are the many challenges in the aged-care sector. There will need to be more funding. The staff there are lowly paid the numbers in care have been growing rapidly and the truth is that when unemployment is low it is very hard for the aged-care sector to hang on to good staff. All of us have an interest in knowing that our older citizens in care are well looked after. 
Looking to the future the KiwiSaver scheme has benefits for the whole economy in helping to boost our savings rate. It has benefits for future generations saving for their first home and it has benefits for future generations who can supplement their income in retirement. What we know is that generations of Kiwi families got their first home with Government support in the past. That all stopped when National sold the mortgage portfolio of Housing New Zealand in 1991 and the homeownership rates dropped off. Now it falls to Labour to put back in place schemes that will help people to get their first homes. We will do that through KiwiSaver through the mortgage insurance underwrites and through the new equity-sharing initiative to be developed this term. As well of course our policy of fair income-related rents which the National Party has always totally opposed will continue. 
We have made huge changes in the social assistance area to focus the system on getting people off a benefit and into work. Our very low unemployment rate is a product of both high economic growth and very proactive labour market policies and we have to keep being proactive. We still have pockets of higher unemployment in some communities than others. For example Maori unemployment while half what it was is still 2½ times the national rate. When one looks very closely into those figures one can see that about two-thirds of Maori on the unemployment benefit actually have no formal educational qualifications at all as opposed to about half the other New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit. We also find that with the exception of Auckland among four of the big northern regions for employment statistics for Maori unemployed whose first job choice is labouring the number of vacancies is vastly fewer than the numbers looking for that kind of unskilled work. So that tells us that critical to lowering Maori unemployment further will be lifting skills levels. And that is not just for the young people coming through school and transitioning into a first job; it is for the people out there who would like to work but who did not get the opportunity to get the skills the literacy the numeracy or the information technology skills at an earlier stage in their lives. 
I want to say that I am very optimistic about Maori development. I was at the Hui Taumata; I saw the huge momentum that Maori development has. I want to commit our Government again to working with Maoridom not only to resolve historical grievances—which we must do—but also to see that Maoridom too benefits from our country’s growth and development. 
 This Labour-led Government puts enormous emphasis on social solidarity and on building a strong nation in which everyone has an opportunity and a stake. In any nation where communities experience long-term marginalisation disadvantage or discrimination the social breakdown that results can be traumatic for the whole society not just for the marginalised group. Over the past 2½ weeks we have watched with the rest of the world as parts of France have been set alight just as in decades past we saw the riots in deprived areas of the United States and Britain. In New Zealand we worry about the gang warfare in some of our suburbs and about how to get the young people caught up in that on to a better path ahead. Offshore we see minority communities generating home-grown terrorism that involves second generation community members. The ripples of bombings offshore reach all the way to our families and cause heartbreak here. 
I think the challenge for us in New Zealand is to keep building in our small country the tolerance and mutual respect for each other that allow diverse peoples to live alongside each other in peace. Trying to enforce a monoculture that does not allow for diversity of culture heritage and belief would be a disaster for this country. Trying to force everyone into some kind of mythical mainstream would blow up in our face. In our nation-building in New Zealand the unifying concept has to be love for our country whoever we are and whatever our backgrounds. I know that proud Kiwis can be people of any religion any faith or belief any ethnic or cultural background and any gender or orientation. The New Zealand way has to be to build unity and diversity to avoid the marginalisation of communities to practise inclusion in the national interest and to encourage all of those who want to be part of the building of New Zealand. 
I illustrate that point with a practical example. Last week the Hon Marian Hobbs and I were privileged to be at the second award of the Sonja Davies peace prize. This year that award went to an association of young Muslim women in Auckland. Their project was to work on how they can contribute to better understanding and religious tolerance and better community relationships in our country. It was really inspiring to hear the CVs of the young women who came forward to get that prize. They were academic high-flyers—absolute standouts in any crowd. I believe that our hopes for our future rest on encouraging young people like that to make investments in the relationships that have to bind each of us to each other in our country. I believe that our common future will be reinforced by seeing that fairness opportunity and security are the common experience of every community that chooses to make its home in New Zealand. 
It is well known that I see the arts and culture and heritage as central to the building of New Zealand identity. I have always believed that through New Zealand’s creative people we express the essence and soul of what it is to be a New Zealander and we express our perspectives. Through our creative people we define ourselves to the world as a uniquely creative nation. I believe our filmmakers writers poets and visual and performing artists do us proud alongside those of anywhere in the world. So do our sportspeople whose many achievements keep New Zealand in the world headlines probably far more than for any other small country. 
We may be small but we are never insignificant. I know that in world affairs New Zealand’s voice is respected because it is reasoned constructive principled and independent. I am proud of that. I am one who sees New Zealand’s nuclear-free stand as an asset not a liability. Nothing on earth would cause me to want to change that. I also believe that our refusal to participate in the war in Iraq because it lacked multilateral sanction from the UN Security Council laid down very important and principled markers for our country and I would make the same decision again any day. 
 Doing the right thing is not always easy. It is not easy to meet our Kyoto Protocol commitments it is not easy to implement our trade agenda and it is not easy to wrestle with the great pressures put on our oceans from damaging fishing practices. But wrestle with such pressures we must as a concerned nation. Nor does our reputation as a peacemaker and as a tolerant and an inclusive country insulate us from the pressures of terrorism. Our people are affected when attacks occur on others and we cannot and will not be a weak link in the chain. Over the past 4 years since September 11 we have strengthened our border security and our intelligence and policing capacity for counterterrorism and we have passed new legislation to implement international conventions on terrorism. Like all nations we are striving to get the balance right between individual rights and freedoms on the one hand and the right of the community to be protected on the other and it is not always an easy balance to strike. 
I go into this third term as Prime Minister full of optimism for New Zealand and our Government. Of course there are challenges—there will always be challenges—but I believe we are well positioned to meet them. I do expect to see—as we have seen today—a somewhat embittered and angry Opposition in the House as it contemplates 3 more years in Opposition which is very hard for those who once saw themselves as the natural party of Government. My message to them is that there is no natural party of Government. My message is that being in Government is a privilege bestowed on those who keep faith with the public and whose policies and values are consistent with where most New Zealanders want to be. I say that our Government will work inclusively and collaboratively with everyone who shares our vision for a strong proud confident New Zealand growing and developing and enabling all our people to share in the progress. That is the New Zealand way and that is what we are dedicated to. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Outsiders who watched the events of the past few months unfold could have safely reached the conclusion that democracy can be a strange and an unwieldy beast. Indeed if one were to take a quick look around this Chamber one could only conclude that the gods of politics have either a strange sense of humour or a strong sense of irony. If there is a lesson in that—and there always is—it is to never underestimate just how astute the voting public actually is. The doomsayers were quick to write the smaller parties off as non-entities but in doing so they failed to understand that New Zealanders will never accept single-party majority Government again. Under MMP that has gone despite the best efforts of both the old large parties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about the baubles of office. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member asks me about the baubles of office. In due course I will get there; he will just have to wait for that. The public has sent a strong signal to third parties that it expects more from them but the public also sent an equally strong signal that it wants third parties to be here in the House. The public wants New Zealand First to be here and dare I say it the public also wants the Greens to be here. The two old parties along with political commentators will just have to get used to that. 
As this new Parliament begins I take this opportunity to publicly recognise and thank those of my New Zealand First colleagues from the previous Parliament who are no longer here. They were good guys and we were really hopeful that they would come back but they did not. We appreciated the efforts they made whilst they were here and I know they will continue to work for the New Zealand First cause. In essence they were fine MPs who made a valuable contribution. From our point of view they will be missed and dare I say it they will be missed in this Chamber. 
But I cannot help thinking as I look around this Chamber that many people including the media must not be feeling very good at seeing New Zealand First back. It was patently obvious that many parties’ campaigns were not just about getting votes for themselves but also about stopping New Zealand First from getting votes. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s true. 
PETER BROWN 
: Clearly from the Greens and United Future through to—I can hear him now as I speak—the boisterous new leader of ACT we were the enemy. Mr Hide went on  
Agenda  
and endeavoured to explain his “Stop Peters by action campaign” if I have it right. 
Rodney Hide 
: We got him in the seat; we just didn’t get him out of Parliament—next time! 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I say to Mr Hide that is a joke. He labelled New Zealand First as being everything under the sun during the campaign and even gave us half the space on many of his billboards. We were to feature in the advertising of other parties as well. 
Although we clearly took a dent and lost some quality parliamentarians as a result the simple reality is that when the dust settled we were back. We are back and more determined than ever to make our mark. 
Rodney Hide 
: Not in Tauranga. 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me say that right now Tauranga has a temporary MP and that will end. He will be the only MP who makes his valedictory at the same time as he makes his maiden speech. Despite learning some of the lessons of MMP National in particular again displayed the ultimate arrogance of assuming it could get 50 percent of the vote on its own. National learnt the simple lesson of why the public voted for MMP in the first place which was to ensure that neither of the two old parties could capture the political process on its own. In principle that is the main reason that New Zealanders voted for MMP. There would always be a safeguard—and in this Parliament New Zealand First will be and is the guardian—against extremes. We are the guardian against extremes. We were taken on by Labour which said our policies were not affordable all because Labour had already over-promised. As the public has seen our policies have now become affordable—after the election. 
But here is the thing and the media of the country can go ahead and report this because it is the truth: the other parties all came knocking once the election was over. Everybody came knocking once the election was over. After the election Messrs Brash Hide Brownlee and all those whom they could muster came to the New Zealand First caucus room in an effort to persuade us to join their cobbled-together team claiming they could form a Government. 
Hon Members 
: Yeah right! 
PETER BROWN 
: As the Tui ad says “Yeah right!”. What this country wants is stability; what that cobbled-together bunch of misfits offered was to put petrol on open flames. The potential for a Mexican stand-off was one that could not be ignored and it required action on our part. In reality it was a question of which option offered the greatest stability and what the best way of securing it was. One of the options—the option that involved Mr Hide—failed to stand up to any real scrutiny at all. 
 The media of this country if they want to do their job properly must understand one simple thing. Each and every one of the main Opposition members who will spend the next 3 years decrying New Zealand First would have just as easily acquiesced to our requests if it had meant they could sit on the Government benches. 
Ron Mark 
: They would have given their eye teeth. 
PETER BROWN 
: They would have given their eye teeth as my colleague reminds me to get from where they are sitting now to where Labour members currently sit—and I mean every one of them. There are no exceptions. 
Let me be frank. Prior to the election nobody foresaw a 57:57 split with New Zealand First sitting in the middle. When we identified it we were as surprised as anyone. We targeted two aims and only two aims: policy outcomes and speedy resolutions to the discussions. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: God we were good. 
PETER BROWN 
: We are good. So we in New Zealand First will go through this next 3 years knowing that it will be just like the election campaign—everybody will be gunning for us. Well we are ready. Members should fire their best shots. In fact I can say that the New Zealand First caucus is looking forward to the next 3 years. 
Anne Tolley 
: Enjoy it while it lasts. 
PETER BROWN 
: We will enjoy it while it lasts and we will be guaranteeing confidence and supply for 3 long years. 
Rodney Hide 
: I’ve got the seat that Mr Brown wanted. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Hide that he will have to sit there for 3 years after which time he will permanently disappear. 
This is an opportunity for New Zealand First to demonstrate that multiparty democracy works. We have ensured that there will be stable Government for 3 years. We have ensured that the Government will be able to govern but will not be free to pursue extreme agendas. This is not a coalition arrangement for one very simple reason: although we support confidence and supply measures our support is not guaranteed for any other aspect of the Government’s programme. We will vote on all other matters issue by issue just as we said we would before the election. 
Rodney Hide 
: What happens if you’re in Korea? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Hide that we are seated on the cross benches and we will vote accordingly. To those in the academic community and to the various political commentators who have tried to force our political arrangement into one box or another I can only say: “Show some imagination and create a new box.” 
We intend to make this arrangement work. Members are about to witness the next step in New Zealand’s democratic development: a multiparty democracy in which divergence exists on some issues but the stability of the Government remains because both the political will and the mechanisms are in place to resolve the differences. We will be making it work. This is a sign of democratic maturity which I believe the voting public will welcome. The feedback thus far to New Zealand First is very very positive. There will be no more political lapdogs subsumed by the larger party but a mutually beneficial arrangement that serves the nation’s interests. That is what we have signed up to. 
Many great policy developments will occur as a result of this arrangement. I tell members to listen carefully to me. For our senior citizens there will be increased superannuation a golden age card and a huge injection of funds into elder care. That would not have occurred but for New Zealand First. Those are significant improvements for our senior citizens which as I have said would never have occurred if New Zealand First had not entered into a confidence and supply agreement with Labour. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Why didn’t National do that? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a question that is best left to National to answer. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Because they’re losers. 
PETER BROWN 
: That may well be the answer. It is true that the arrangement does not deliver on everything we wanted but it is a significant start. It is a sizeable starting-point. To those members who condemn our party for supporting the plight of our senior citizens I challenge them to do that and to condemn the increase in superannuation in particular— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Don Brash will be the first person to get a golden age card. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well there we are. Mr Brash will be the first one. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Tell me what else we have done. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to my good friend that I am coming to it. I am trying to proceed with this speech. To those who are in doubt about the plight of the elderly I suggest they spend the next winter coupled with an elderly person just to see how hard it is. There are close to 500000 senior citizens in this country—people over the age of 65—and many of them if not most of them are suffering. It is about time we in Parliament looked at their plight and helped them. 
Similar cards to our golden age cards occur in other developed nations yet we have neglected this sort of progress for far too long. This card when it is fully implemented will ensure that all public sector entitlements as well as a range of commercial discounts are able to be located in a single card. 
Rodney Hide 
: What year? 
PETER BROWN 
: It will make life simpler for our senior citizens and it will also ensure that they get due recognition of their contribution to society. To answer Mr Hide’s question this will be addressed as a matter of urgency in the 2006 Budget. 
The next move is close to the heart of New Zealand First’s caucus. We will have 1000 more sworn police officers in this country in the next 3 years. They will be coming on on a regular basis and by the time of this Government’s third Budget there will be 1000 more police officers. This is only the beginning. We are determined to get the police to population ratio closer to that of Australia. 
Let me just tell Opposition members because I think some of them may be interested in this that currently we have 18 police officers per 10000 members of the public. I ask members to say from their hearts whether that is enough. Those 10000 members of the public want to have access to a police officer 24 hours a day. If they are working and they get in trouble or if they are at home asleep and there is trouble they want to have access to a police officer whenever that occurs. [ 
Interruption 
] The member thinks this is a joke. I tell him that it is deadly serious. 
If we allow those 18 police officers to have weekends off and to have holidays we are down to about 4.2 police officers per 10000 people at any one time on an 8-hour shift. If we put them on shifts then one of those 4.2 officers will be on traffic duties. We say and have said consistently that that is not enough. We want there to be more police officers. 
Ron Mark 
: Front line. 
PETER BROWN 
: Front-line police officers; sworn police officers.As a result of that initiative families will begin to feel more secure in their homes and on the streets. 
Now this may please the Opposition members from the National Party: during this Parliament we will see dramatic moves towards a high-wage economy. National members are always making noises about wanting wages to go up. They probably get enough but we will be increasing the minimum wage to $12 by the end of this term of Parliament. We will be making company tax more competitive and there will be a strong focus on a strategic export plan. New Zealand First is determined to ensure we shed the low-wage mentality that this country has. We will get rid of that and embrace the concept of a high-wage economy underpinned by a well-performing export sector. And if the Opposition members who are now sitting here quietly want to know who will benefit from that I will tell them: everybody will benefit under that scenario. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: They’re in awe of this Peter. 
PETER BROWN 
: They clearly are. We want to see New Zealand’s company tax rate put on a competitive footing with that of Australia and indeed with that of other developed nations. We will work with other parties to achieve that. I ask the National members who seem to be taking this a little seriously to get in behind us and help us because we believe that this policy has wide parliamentary support. 
In terms of Treaty issues we will see significant progress in resolving historical Treaty claims. Those are a burden on our society and the industry built up around grievance will be put on a pathway towards resolution. We aim to create harmony where there is division as the past is laid to rest and the future is entered into as one people—as New Zealanders proud of their nation and their intertwined histories. 
We will ensure that our inadequate immigration laws are reformed. We place the security of our borders as being amongst our highest priorities. As events happening in Australia demonstrate we must remain ever-vigilant in this country. This is a significant victory for New Zealand First. Those who were here in the previous term of Parliament know how hard we worked in order to get the Government and whoever else to recognise our concerns. Where once our views on immigration were vilified now they have become very much—to borrow a phrase frequently used by politicians—mainstream. I will remind members of where New Zealand First stands on immigration. We believe that our immigration policy must be skills based. Immigrants must have good health. They must be crime free and remain so and they must be prepared to integrate into our society. By that I mean that they can keep their culture and their religion but there must be an obvious commitment to this country. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you! 
PETER BROWN 
: If Mr Hide doubts that then I say to him that he is standing for division in this country. 
There will be no further strategic asset sales under our confidence and supply arrangement. [ 
Interruption 
] I repeat to the member: there will be no further strategic asset sales. That means we will be keeping Meridian Energy Mighty River Power Genesis Power Transpower TVNZ New Zealand Post and Kiwibank. There will be no “for sale” notice on them. We will ensure that the carbon tax proposal in relation to the Kyoto Protocol is thoroughly reviewed. 
Rodney Hide 
: Start the review. Somebody ought to start it. 
PETER BROWN 
: It will be thoroughly reviewed. 
We will ensure that free health-care for under-sixes is a targeted objective in health and we will work to ensure there is access to adequate emergency health-care. We achieved that last time but to put it bluntly it has been allowed to slip. We will tighten things up. Ultimately we would like to extend free health-care to all primary school children. But that is in the next move. 
I will tell honourable members what is close to my heart and I am delighted with this: the Tauranga Harbour Bridge will be toll free. 
Hon Member 
: Who said that? 
PETER BROWN 
: New Zealand First did. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: That’s amazing. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is amazing. 
Ron Mark 
: “Bob the Builder” reckoned he was going to do it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The National Party has claimed that it could do it but with a Lego design. We will stick to the original design—the design that has been approved and produced by professionals—and it will be toll free. Over the course of a year that will save the public who use the bridge—particularly Tauranga and Mt Maunganui people but also others who use it regularly—several thousand dollars and over a lifetime a huge amount of money. They have paid for one bridge in Tauranga and we are determined that the second bridge the Harbour Link project will be toll free. 
We will ensure that the neglected racing industry is placed on a fairer tax footing compared with other gaming industries and that it can maximise its export potential. I know that the National Party pinched our policy on that but we will deliver it. The National Party must be absolutely grateful to us because we will deliver that policy. It is one that we devised and the National Party pinched it so National must support it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Say it again. 
PETER BROWN 
: No no I have plenty to say. I will show members something—a huge pile of documents. 
Rodney Hide 
: He’s been shopping. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have been shopping. 
These are letters from individual physiotherapists outlining their concern about the way they are treated about the way physiotherapists are accredited about their funding and about the endorsed provider network. They emanated from one discussion I had with some physiotherapists and from one press release. I do not know how many physiotherapists there are in this country but I think the vast majority of them wrote to me. Also included are letters from supporters of physiotherapists and from people affected by the physiotherapy industry. We have in the supply and confidence agreement a clause—for want of a better term—saying that the problems of physiotherapy will be reviewed and looked at meaningfully. I will table these documents so that Government members will know just how serious—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I will not table them I say to Mr Hide; I will put them on the bench so that the Government can take stock of and note the importance of doing something positive for the physiotherapy industry. I am told that physiotherapists are leaving their industry in droves. 
There is more. The agreement we have contains a lot more measures but I do not have enough time to outline what they are. What I will say is that as I have indicated we have some baubles—baubles that will create higher wages that will lower company taxes and that will help to grow our exports.Those are significant baubles. We have significant baubles that will give a better deal to the senior people in this country. We have the golden age card and I cannot think of anything better than that as a significant good bauble. There are many many more. New Zealand First is quite happy to have signed the confidence and supply agreement because we will deliver to New Zealanders. 
I conclude by offering a piece of advice to Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee. It is a quip made by David Lange and I think it pertains pretty significantly to Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee. David Lange once said when he was in trouble with his own caucus: “They are not trying to pull the rug from under me but they most certainly are polishing the floors.” We hear a rumour that Brian Connell is buying a lot of floor polish so the honourable members had better watch out. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker on behalf of the Green Party I extend our congratulations to yourself and to your colleagues Madam Speaker and the Assistant Speakers on your election. I extend our greetings to all members of this new Parliament especially those who are representing their communities here for the first time. In particular I acknowledge a new party that has won the right to represent its people in the House. I welcome Pita Sharples Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell who join Tariana Turia in representing the Maori Party. We look forward to the new flavour and perspective they will bring to debate here and hope to work with them where we have common cause. 
What felt like the longest election campaign in history has come and gone and unlike in 1999 no one can stand here today and say: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. National has gained seats but it is still in Opposition. All small parties except for the Maori Party have lost seats heavily. Among the small parties only the Greens have retained even as many as two-thirds of their seats. The Prime Minister has her third term of Government but this is surely not the kind of Government she planned to lead. It is certainly not the kind of Government her supporters wished her to lead—one that is hostage to narrow-minded intolerance Treaty bashing environmental ignorance and prejudice against immigrants gays and Muslims. It is the Government that we warned could be formed if people who supported the Greens gave their party vote to Labour instead out of fear of National. It is a Government founded on expediency and political pragmatism not on shared values and vision. It is designed to please a few businesses that oppose any form of environmental regulation sustainable development or justice for low-paid workers. That is why the Greens cannot give it our support on confidence and supply. 
The Greens played a straight bat through the election and the negotiations. We made it clear that we would not support a National-led Government and so ruled out playing off one side against the other for our own political advantage as Winston Peters and Peter Dunne did. That gave Labour an advantage in the campaign as it increased the certainty that it would be able to form a Government although that was not our reason for doing it. We did it because we believed that the voters needed to know how their votes would be used in forming a Government. Going to the polling booth should not be the same as going to the TAB. We negotiated in good faith and put our cards on the table. We offered our skills and experience to help form a Government. We accepted that the cards the voters had dealt dictated that there would have to be a multiparty Government. We did not rule out working with any other party that Labour was talking to. We had a firm understanding that Labour’s view of its support parties was that if everyone could not be in everyone would be out. 
Labour had a number of options that would have formed a stable Government but it chose to take this one. It is an arrangement that has raised concerns among political commentators and constitutional experts. Two parties whose leaders hold ministerial warrants who are part of the executive claim not to be in coalition. They claim not to be part of the Government yet they have Ministers in that Government. One of the parties even wanted to sit with the Opposition and demanded that the Greens who are not even supporting the Government on confidence and supply should sit with the Government. 
If this were the breaking down of the two-party system and the concept of “the Opposition” under first past the post and if this were a move to a more inclusive parliamentary system we would welcome it. There are many countries where multiparty Governments work well even though the parties do not agree on everything and we support having room to disagree in a coalition. A system of shifting majorities on legislation takes us closest to what the people voted for provided that parties vote in accordance with the policies they put to the electorate. However on past experience I say that that is a big if. 
But I fear that this situation is not mainly about that. I fear it is a contrivance to pander to political positioning in order to allow Ministers to have their cake and eat it—to have the baubles of office without the responsibilities of executive positions. In 2½ years will Winston Peters and Peter Dunne again be making overtures to National from their positions in a Labour-led Government? How will the new Minister of Foreign Affairs draw the line between his portfolio where he is bound to represent the views of the Government and everything else where he is not? Can he separate foreign policy from environment policy when we are party to so many environmental treaties? Can he be a Minister of Foreign Affairs who opposes his Government’s climate change policy under the Kyoto Protocol agreement that his Government helped to negotiate and is a party to? Can he separate foreign affairs from defence? Will he have to be mute in his overseas meetings on the dangers of a free-trade agreement with China leaving it to the Greens to be the sole advocates of fairer trade? Can he separate foreign affairs from immigration when immigration policy is often a reciprocal arrangement negotiated between countries? 
Labour has been very clever with the fine print of the agreement with New Zealand First. Superannuation is to rise to 66 percent of the average ordinary-time wage but only during this term of Government. Then inflation will be allowed to catch up with it again reducing it to 65 percent. Labour knows that 66 percent is not affordable over the long term as the population ages and that senior citizens although absolutely deserving of security in their older years generally are not in as desperate straits or as needy as our poorest children or the mentally ill to use two examples. Let us take the agreement to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour which is a measure that the Greens argued for too. New Zealand First and the Greens both received the same promise in our agreements—that the rise would occur by 2008 if the economy allowed it. Well that is a huge loophole when we know that the economy will slow over this term. There are no policy concessions in the foreign policy area so Winston Peters will be the mouthpiece for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and for Labour in his major portfolio. What will he look back on in 3 years’ time as his major achievements? 
Then there is the extraordinary situation of United Future. Its caucus has reduced from eight members to three but it holds a ministerial warrant. That certainly does not have much to do with what the voters voted for. How will the new Minister of Revenue separate his portfolio from the whole fiscal and economic stance of the Government which he is likely to disagree with? Will Labour capitulate to him over the carbon charge leaving us with no economic incentive at all to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and so increasing the financial risk of a big Kyoto Protocol deficit? Will he be held responsible for that deficit? Is he required to support the whole health policy or only the matters within his delegation? I see that the Minister of Health is having a little chuckle. 
If it were not so serious this term would be a very entertaining 3 years. But it is serious because the country is facing major economic threats and this patched-together combination of parties is not well placed to address them. We have had 6 years of unprecedented economic growth. Despite what the parties on the right would have us believe the average inflation-corrected economic growth rate over the last 6 years has been almost 4 percent.It is a very long time since New Zealand had a growth rate like that over any sustained period. That is a result Labour is very proud of. It has reduced unemployment to record low levels raised incomes for those in well-paid employment raised Government revenue and enabled more spending. But this growth was pursued with no attention to whether it was sustainable—and it is not. Not only can it not continue but just as it slows we must start to pay the enormous costs of that past growth which are coming home to haunt us. 
Economic growth has not been sustainable because it has been pursued with no whole-of-Government attempt to increase energy productivity. In fact energy use and in particular fossil-fuel use have grown faster than the economy. This leaves us facing a half-billion-dollar projected deficit in meeting our Kyoto Protocol commitments when we had the opportunity to have a surplus. We should be very clear that the costs the Kyoto Protocol may now impose on us are the fault not of the protocol but of our own refusal to take seriously enough the need to use energy more effectively. 
Economic growth has not been sustainable because it has been driven by high immigration and a bullish property market. If our prosperity depends on pumping up activity in building and infrastructure just to meet the needs of more people what happens when we decide New Zealand is full? Do we believe we can keep increasing our population forever? If not relying on that for our prosperity is a short-term strategy. It has also resulted in homes becoming unaffordable for ordinary Kiwis. 
The dairy industry and its exports have been the poster child of our growing economy. Fonterra has positioned itself well in international markets and world prices have been kind. As a result prices of farmland have risen making it even harder than it always has been for young farmers to buy their own farms. The average age of farmers is now in the mid-50s and that is not sustainable either. 
The growth of the dairy industry has been at the expense of our rivers our aquifers and our soils. It has raised demand for water to convert dry land to dairy farms depleting rivers and aquifers. It has raised nitrogen inputs by 160 percent in just 6 years in order to intensify stocking rates. The rapid increase in runoff has led to seriously polluted rivers and streams—Lake Ellesmere is biologically dead. It has increased energy demand for irrigation with further pressure on rivers for hydro development and water conflicts between farmers and energy companies. Further growth in the number of dairy cows and the inputs of nitrogen fertiliser is not sustainable. 
So where will our growth come from next? Our economic growth has not been sustainable because it has been led by a binge of consumer spending that has left us heavily in debt to the rest of the world. The gap between what we earn in the world and what we spend has never been higher. Borrowing for investment is one thing; borrowing for consumption is another and there is little sign that the warnings of the Reserve Bank will be heeded. Once if we wanted to borrow money we went to the bank and pleaded for a loan. Now the banks come to us in our living rooms every night pleading with us to put our new car or holiday on the mortgage. 
Our economic growth has not been sustainable because the benefits have not been shared. Although the Government is to be commended for the record low rates of unemployment they are not so low for Maori and there are still literally hundreds of thousands of people who cannot obtain jobs at all or who cannot get work doing what they want to do at pay rates high enough to sustain a reasonable quality of life. Tinkering at the edges of the benefit system is not going to solve this problem nor is putting off for another 3 years raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour. It is a real pity that Labour will not take the brave step needed to increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour now as advocated by the Green Party the Council of Trade Unions New Zealand First and also I believe the Maori Party during the recent election campaign. Working for Families and the accommodation supplement are between the two of them a massive taxpayer subsidy to employers. It is time employers paid their fair share. 
At the same time high rates of child poverty continue. The Green Party is saddened that extensions to Working for Families will only increase discrimination against the children of beneficiaries at a time when sole-parent families are disproportionately disadvantaged already. Labour and its partners seem determined to continue to intensify the income gap between working and non-working parents which is something that only makes life harder for the children of beneficiaries and leads to poor health education and employment outcomes for yet another generation. 
So high growth has left us in a very vulnerable situation. On top of this comes rapidly rising oil prices. The Greens have warned of this since 2003 and wearing various other hats for the last 30 years in fact. It has been as plain as day for three decades that the day would come when oil supply could no longer increase at the same rate as demand and all the evidence is that that is starting to happen this year. How long it will take before oil supply actually decreases and how fast it will decrease are still debatable but the fact that we are at or close to the peak is much clearer than it was when the Greens first warned of it. I know from campaign meetings around the country that the people know it. Business knows it. Bush and Cheney have known it for a decade which is why they are in Iraq. It seems that some members of this House may be the last ostriches to keep their heads in the sand. 
For decades successive New Zealand Governments have behaved as though cheap oil was inexhaustible. We have built more and more big roads we have imported cars that use twice as much fuel as they need to—we still do not even label them to help consumers—and we have ignored public transport in the belief that no one will use it yet as soon as another commuter train is put on in Auckland it is full. High and rising oil prices combined with a slowing economy and a big balance of payments deficit will not make it an easy ride for this Government. If one thing is clear it is that it cannot be “business as usual” in this term of Parliament. Even Labour which after the Greens has the best grasp of this stuff has failed totally to address the unsustainability of the growth it is so proud of. How much will Labour be able to do now that it is saddled with its new partners? 
So where will the Greens be as our country struggles with those challenges? It appears the former member for Tauranga cannot keep his pre-election promises about abstention so we will keep them for him and abstain on confidence and money supply. We will vote case by case on the issues. The difference however is that the Greens have made substantial policy gains and have some hands-on projects to run in the next 3 years. The urgency is such that we will grasp any chance to begin the transformation we need to a sustainable and fair economy. While others preen themselves around the cocktail circuit with titles and limousines we will be working to make real change. My aim is in 3 years’ time for New Zealanders to look at our work and say: “The Greens didn’t get the baubles of office they didn’t get the resources and staff that Ministers have but with only six MPs and a small staff they have made more positive difference to our lives and the future of our country than those who did.” 
In this term I have been given responsibility for improving New Zealand’s energy efficiency under the legislation I brought to the House and had passed 6 years ago. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act has not yet fulfilled its promise. It has not led to a whole-of-Government approach. We still have no standards or consumer information on vehicle fuel consumption. The new building standard for homes is dragging its feet. We are insulating and damp-proofing some houses but at the pace we are going it will take around 50 years to retrofit the 300000 homes that have inadequate ceiling insulation alone. New plant is still being built that will cost its owners dearly in wasted energy over its lifetime. The Government commitment to solar energy has been derisory with it providing only $400000 a year for a loan scheme even though the industry has made great strides in that time. I have been inundated for years with letters from people who see the sense of using the sun to heat their water and want to invest in it but find that the price is too high. We will bring down the price of solar water heating only by building capacity in the industry and with bulk purchase by competitive tender. That is what I want to organise so that we can get half a million solar panels on Kiwi roofs over the next 5 years. 
My late colleague Rod Donald was to have been given responsibility for a Buy Kiwi Made campaign to identify New Zealand - made products and raise awareness that whenever we spend a dollar it is a political act. We can choose to spend it to support Kiwi businesses and Kiwi jobs and reduce our balance of payments deficit or we can use it to support jobs and profits in other countries and worsen our economic difficulties. The Greens are committed to undertaking that work both in honour of Rod Donald and because we know its importance. We will be working with the Government to finalise who will drive this work. 
Metiria Turei will be working closely with the Minister of Education to build capacity for environmental education so that eventually the very good guidelines and strategies developed by the Government some years ago can be implemented in every school. If we are to face the challenges of the future we must have citizens who are ecologically literate and understand cause and effect in our use of resources and our management of wastes. 
Sue Kedgley will be working with the Minister of Health on a range of initiatives to improve the nutritional quality of the food New Zealand children eat especially in schools. We know that one-third of New Zealand’s children are overweight or obese. We know that many of them will get serious illnesses like type 2 diabetes. We know that much of the food they eat offers huge doses of fat sugar and salt but few of the nutrients they need to learn and to grow. We know that that will cost us millions of health dollars in the future unless we act responsibly now. If we are serious about improving the well-being of our children and their readiness to learn we must reduce the overwhelming commercial pressures on them to eat unhealthy food and we must create environments that encourage healthy eating. That means starting with schools. We want all our schools to teach children basic nutrition cooking and gardening skills and to encourage healthy eating. 
The agreement between the Government and the Greens acknowledges the intention to increase support for public transport to extend eligibility for student allowances to increase the level of overseas development assistance and to further reduce levels of child poverty. In addition it commits to several new policies and Budget initiatives. 
The Greens made it clear that although we would not insist on the reinstatement of a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms we would expect some progress towards greater security around genetic engineering. The Government is committed to working with us to provide segregation throughout the production chain between any GE organism that might be grown in the future and other products. That will give producers greater security that they will continue to be able to provide the level of product purity for GE-free food that their markets demand. The Greens continue to believe that the release of any live GE organism would be an act of crazy self-destruction in the farming sector but we still consider it worthwhile to improve the rules governing any such release that might occur in the future despite the wishes of the 70 percent of the people who do not want that release as shown in successive polls. 
Sue Kedgley will also be working with the Minister of Agriculture on a Budget initiative to provide enhanced advisory services to the organic sector. New Zealand lags way behind Europe and other countries in organics with less than 1 percent of our agricultural land in organic production and we are missing out on the expanding international niche market for organic food. Our organic sector needs the sort of reliable political and institutional support that organic sectors in Europe receive. We hope to work closely with the Minister over the next few years so that we can encourage approximately 200 farmers to convert to organics each year and can achieve the goal of organics becoming a billion-dollar industry by 2011. 
The Green Party believes that the Maori seats should be entrenched in the same way that the number of South Island seats is entrenched. The Government has committed in our agreement at least to retain the Maori seats for as long as Maori wish to do so. 
We have negotiated a conservation Budget initiative to provide intensive habitat management at additional sites in order to restore populations of endangered species in cooperation with local communities. This combines two key issues for the Greens. We are still not turning the tide of extinctions of native species and more effort is needed to protect the places where they live. But that cannot be done by only a Government department. We strongly believe that communities must be involved in conservation and this is an opportunity for the Department of Conservation to work jointly with local people who care about their environment. We look forward to discussion with the Minister about where those additional sites will be. 
The Greens are keen for New Zealand to carve out a role as peacemaker—not war-maker—in the world and through our agreement with the Government we will be working closely together to enhance New Zealand’s role in peacemaking. We will also be defending the traditional legal protections of citizens and will argue against any new anti-terrorism legislation of the sort that has recently been introduced in Britain and Australia and has been much criticised by civil libertarians. 
Tomorrow we welcome Nandor Tanczos back into our parliamentary team not to fill the shoes of Rod Donald but to fill his own shoes again. He left a big gap in our caucus when we just failed to win enough votes for a seventh MP. Nandor Tanczos will be taking on the environment and justice portfolios where I know his experience and interest in sustainable land management waste management permaculture prison reform and restorative justice will serve the Greens well. 
So the Greens are ready for another parliamentary term. We are still grieving for the loss of Rod Donald but we are encouraged by the mark his life made on so many people and determined to honour his memory in the way he would most have wanted: by actively pursuing the causes of social and international justice peace ecological integrity and democracy; by taking responsibility wherever it is offered to us to create the transformation this planet and its people need; and by holding the Government to account when it needs reminding where the public interest lies. We have a sense of urgency that there is not much time to make these changes. The planet’s capacity to endure the effects of human greed is limited but we also know that change to be lasting must be non-violent evolutionary understood and broadly accepted. It is about states of mind not just laws. That is where our challenge lies. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 First of all I want to acknowledge the Governor-General and to congratulate the Hon Margaret Wilson the Hon Clem Simich Ross Robertson and yourself Madam Assistant Speaker on being elected Speakers of this House. I also want to acknowledge the Prime Minister all the leaders of political parties and all our colleagues who are here in this Parliament. 
It is my privilege to respond to the Speech from the Throne in this entirely new Parliament—a Parliament that for the first time includes within its midst a party dedicated to the advancement of a strong and independent Maori voice and Maori people. The Maori Party is committed to making a positive contribution to Parliament and to advancing our kaupapa in the best interests of the nation—a nation in which “one law for all” can truly be said to represent all within its brief. We have tested the concept of “one law for all’ from our first utterances in this house in swearing our oaths and affirmations. It was right and appropriate to swear allegiance to the Queen; it was also right and appropriate to swear allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Some members will recall a speech made by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on her 50th jubilee. Speaking about the resolution of Treaty issues she said: “There still remains some way to go but I would like to express my respect for the courage of all those parties who have been working in good faith towards resolution. I am sure that a stronger nation will emerge from your efforts to address the past and move forward towards a shared future.” Elizabeth a direct descendant of Queen Victoria understands the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as providing the constitutional framework for this nation. She recognises the Treaty as providing the context for all to live harmoniously in this land. It is the context that we sought to swear allegiance to but were prevented from doing so by the laws of this house. We would suggest that the rational and informed dialogue on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi described in the Speech from the Throne would extend within this debating chamber in our first symbolic actions. It must also extend throughout domestic law. 
Eighteen months ago many tangata whenua and other New Zealanders came to this Parliament asking how a Government could legislate to confiscate the lands of tangata whenua and remove the rights of hapu and iwi to due process before the courts. In 2 days’ time the world’s gaze will extend to these shores with the arrival of Rodolfo Stavenhagen the special rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. His visit here follows the findings of the United Nations that the foreshore and seabed legislation contained discriminatory aspects against the Maori in particular in its extinguishment of the possibility of establishing Maori customary title over the foreshore and seabed. The Maori Party as a priority will be working on a member’s bill for the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
Members of this House may recall that the United Nations committee recommended that the Government resume dialogue with Maori regarding the legislation and take steps to minimise any negative effects. The Government responded by saying that the committee did not understand the complexity of the issue. It suggested that “discriminatory” could not really be seen to be breaching the convention. It criticised the United Nations forum as “a committee that sits on the outer edge”. This is the same Government that last month went to New York and criticised the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People as being “unworkable and unacceptable”. This was after 10 years of Government delegates working through the 45 provisions gaining acceptance for the declaration. 
Throughout the globe indigenous communities have signalled their disappointment at the actions taken by New Zealand in arguing against indigenous peoples. A treaty between two peoples at home is suddenly interpreted overseas as discriminating against other citizens as suggesting two standards of citizenship or two classes of citizen. It is like being on a see-saw except that since the signing in 1840 one side has progressively swung upwards and the other has hit the ground with a thump. Now with the latest actions overseas it appears that the Crown is willing to jump off and let the relationship agreement be dumped with it. 
There may be one law for all but the question that needs to be asked is whether it is applied equally or whether people are treated differently. In order to make the difference to see the changes we all desire in the best interests of the nation we may need alternative strategies. It may mean we see a world of abundance and not limits. Sometimes it is a simple matter of asking the right questions and looking at things differently—strategies such as projects for youth academies and focus areas of sports drama culture and the arts; academies that seek to develop students’ special interest so that their learning is relevant and challenging. It is a national disgrace that the Education Review Office annual report describes a group at the bottom perhaps as large as 20 percent who are currently not succeeding in our education system. 
The Speech from the Throne stated that it is time to not dwell on the past failures. Well that is exactly right. We do need to celebrate success rather than fear success. We have had too many successful Maori providers coming to us in recent weeks concerned about what appears to be this minority Labour Government through its institutions undermining the successful delivery by Maori of both health and education programmes. We are all for celebrating success but we also will not turn a blind eye to the present failure of the system to respond to the distinctive needs of this nation. We must start bringing balance back to the see-saw. We must enable the distinctive strengths of all peoples who call this land home to be truly understood and respected. That is why we have called for an inquiry into the application of tikanga including the use of powhiri throughout the State sector. Last week we witnessed the ceremony of the carrying of the Mace and the knock-three-times procedure of Black Rod. Just as the House observes these conventions the Maori Party wants to ensure that when others’ cultural protocols are being adopted respect for their significance must be upheld. 
Bringing balance to the see-saw will also mean restoring a decent income for all New Zealanders. It was curious that the Speech from the Throne talked of a significant decline in poverty levels when we lack a clear poverty line from which to measure progress in the first place. We must set tangible goals if we are to achieve one law for all—the right to a decent standard of life. Central to this is an agreement on a specific target date to reduce child poverty. The speech confirmed that the Working for Families package will be extended from next year. However it is grossly misleading to say that there will be tax relief for every low and middle income family when 250000 of the poorest children in this country will miss out. In 2 days’ time when the special rapporteur observes the state of the nation will he see a see-saw tipped in favour of one side? Who will explain away the inequalities the disparities and the variability in understandings of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I will conclude by talking about the retention of the Maori seats. It is the intention of the Maori Party to ask this Parliament to entrench the Maori seats through a member’s bill. We think back to the words of Chief Judge Durie who said: “Like the Treaty of Waitangi the Maori parliamentary seats stand as an enduring symbol of their constitutional status and historic statements of principles like symbols are essential tools in rebuilding a national identity.” That will be a land where one law for all actually means something. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I begin by congratulating you and the other presiding officers on your election and assuring you of the support of the United Future members in this House for the difficult job you have ahead of you in presiding over this Parliament. I also pay our traditional respects to Her Excellency the Governor-General for the outstanding job that she does as our head of State and for the quiet dignity that she brings to that role. I note that this is the last time we will do this in respect of our current Governor-General whose term will expire during the life of this Parliament. 
I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of this debate on their speeches and in advance congratulate all other speakers who will make their maiden speeches in the course of this debate. It has been said many times but it is worth repeating that this is probably the most important speech that any member of Parliament gives because it is the speech in which they talk about themselves their own aspirations and the things that drive them to serve their communities. I share the view of others that these are speeches worth reflecting upon in years to come to see how far one has held true to the goals and aspirations that one sets out in that maiden speech. It can be an illuminating experience from time to time. 
I acknowledge too the support of my constituents in Ohariu-Belmont. I am very humbled and grateful for the fact that for an eighth time they have reposed their confidence in me and I will do all I can to repay that as their representative over the next 3 years. I acknowledge the efforts made in the previous Parliament by my colleagues who are no longer with me. We are somewhat reduced in numbers but I place on record my acknowledgment of the contribution of that team of members of Parliament who served with us between 2002 and 2005. 
This is a vastly different Parliament from that and the challenges that will be upon us will consequently be different and greater. In that respect I acknowledge the previous speaker Tariana Turia for her contribution and for the dimension that her party brings to this Parliament. I think all of us who may not previously have given the issues that she speaks about the attention that they deserve will have to listen and be guided by the interpretation and the wisdom that her party brings. I look forward to the relationship that will develop between our parties as this Parliament goes on. 
One of the key features of the election its outcome and the Government formation that has taken place is that for the first time since MMP was introduced we have a Parliament that now has the genuine prospect of decisions being made on the floor of this House because the narrowness of the numbers means that there will be many occasions when amendments from one side of the Chamber or the other succeed. The days are gone when the automatic Government majority however it is constructed will be sufficient. That will impose a challenge on all of us to be constructive to work in the best interests of our country and to promote those policies we see as important not just because it is about getting a headline but because for the first time for many there is a chance they may be able to succeed. 
 My party is one that is founded on the principles of respect for life liberty freedom opportunity and community. We see issues relating to families as very much at the core of delivering those virtues because families are a foundational unit in our society. All of the things that we will be focusing on over the life of this Parliament take their inspiration from a statement made by Norman Kirk over 30 years ago in this place when he said that it is the primary responsibility of any Government to do things—and I am paraphrasing very loosely—that are good for families and to reject things that are bad for families. That wisdom is as true today as it was when it was stated way back in 1973 or 1974. Consequently the focus that United Future members will bring to this Chamber over the next 3 years is just that. The agreement that we have concluded with the Labour-led Government is in many areas about advancing the broad interests of New Zealand families. 
One of the reasons we want to have a thorough review of our business tax system to make it more competitive in the first instance with Australia is not because of some arcane argument about relativities but because in reality by having a competitive tax environment that fosters the growth and development of business opportunities in New Zealand we foster the development and growth of employment opportunities wealth-creation opportunities and prospects for our people here in New Zealand. The previous speaker spoke about so many who fall between the cracks. This is a practical step that we can take towards firstly minimising those cracks and secondly making sure that people will not be slim enough to fit through them. 
When we talk about the Families Commission taking an oversight role for programmes relating to relationships and parenting skills education that is practical recognition of the fact that at the moment in New Zealand by a conservative estimate each year we spend between $30 million and $45 million in a very uncoordinated way on such programmes. People thirst for information they call out for the opportunity but we have no real way of ensuring that the information they get will be in any way beneficial to them or have any value in terms of today’s parents their children and the parents of the future and that is a very practical point that we are focused upon. 
When we talk about the need to reduce the burden on parents and students because of the way in which the means test applies to parental income for student loans that is as much about reflecting household income and household opportunity as it is about reflecting the stresses and strains that are placed upon our students that actually create opportunities for them not to stay in New Zealand and benefit us from their education but to flee off overseas to earn more money to pay off their debt. 
When we talk about having a national medicines policy based on the quality usage of pharmaceuticals and looking at the role of agencies like Pharmac in relation to that that is about ensuring that every New Zealander whatever his or her circumstance has the opportunity to get the best access to medicines that is possible given the emerging conditions and given the emerging technologies. 
It is all consistent with being part of an arrangement that means we govern in the interests of New Zealand families and provide the wherewithal for those New Zealand families to prosper to have opportunity and to launch the next generation positively on the journey of life. We are not a party that wants to prescribe rules and directions that shackle people’s opportunity but we do want to create the opportunity and see Government’s role as working constructively towards that so that our young people can have an opportunity to be part of a vibrant and new New Zealand. 
The challenges we face are profound. This country stands on the threshold of a bold new future. We are questioning our traditional identity. We are talking about the sort of direction we want for our country a vision for the future where we fit constitutionally and where we fit in terms of our place in the world. All of those issues are ones that this Parliament has to take on board and start to address. With the diversity of numbers here and if the goodwill that has been emphasised in recent days remains in even a small dose we have the opportunity and the chance to do something constructive and make a positive step towards building the New Zealand of the future. I look forward to working with other parties in this House who share that vision—on different matters perhaps from time to time but none the less who are committed to New Zealand’s future—to see what we can collectively do to make the next 3 years ones that will be memorable for this country and positive for our citizens and will create strong opportunity for our people to come in the future. 
Madam Speaker I wish you and your colleagues well as you embark upon the role of overseeing us in the vigorous debates that will follow. I look forward to hearing the views aspirations hopes and challenges of the many new members who will make their maiden speech during the course of this debate. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT is back. I begin by passing on our best respects to the Governor-General to the Prime Minister to you as Assistant Speaker to Margaret Wilson to Clem Simich and to Ross Robertson. I also pass on my respects to the Green Party and our regret for its loss of Rod Donald. I take the opportunity here to welcome back Nandor Tanczos who will be with us tomorrow. I also welcome the new party the Maori Party—the new kid on the block—whose members are sitting beside me here today. I welcome all four of its members to our Parliament and I say this: that the foreshore and seabed legislation passed by this House was a travesty of justice and that if we are to mouth the words about wanting to live in a country that has one law for all New Zealanders then that means that each and every New Zealander should be able to have his or her day in court. It is totally unacceptable when a Government finds the courts going against the outcome it would prefer that it rushes to this House to change the law and deny a people their opportunity to have their day in court. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: A defender of the rule of law. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes a defender of the rule of law I tell Mr Cunliffe and a defender of the principles of justice. It stands for that whether it is one New Zealander having his or her day in court or whether it is a group of New Zealanders having their day in court. I ask Mr Cunliffe: how awful is it that a Government would change the law against a race living here in New Zealand? Because we know what that means. The day that law was passed was a dark day in New Zealand’s legislative history for each and every New Zealander. I wish the Maori Party every success in having that law overturned. 
I pay my respects to the good people of Epsom who voted for me who put their faith and trust in me and who elected me as their member of Parliament and ensured that the ACT party would stay on in this Parliament. I also note given that an inquiry may be coming up the outrage of the Television New Zealand poll. It was a shonky dishonest and unprofessional poll that showed me as being 14 percentage points behind. It was clearly false the day it was done. The questions that were asked were wrong and the candidates in the race were not identified. That is how badly out that Colmar Brunton poll was. It had me coming behind by 14 percent and I won by 9 percent. That poll was out by a whopping 25 percent. Of course that had a devastating impact on the vote on election day because the implication was that ACT was finished and that we could not win Epsom. I hold Television New Zealand and its poll responsible for the loss of some very very good MPs in this House. I think that both Parliament and the country are the poorer for the loss of the ACT MPs. 
I welcome all the new MPs in the National Party. I wish them every success and I wish them well for their maiden speeches. I certainly wish Dr Don Brash well because he ran an outstanding campaign and did very well in the election. 
I think the problem I have with Helen Clark is that she has gone back to the idea that she knows best. The reason the Labour Party struggled in the campaign and struggled to get back into power—having to resort to our colleagues in New Zealand First and United Future to hold up its numbers—was that Helen Clark and the Labour team failed to listen to what the people in New Zealand were saying. They have lost touch. Sadly it looks as though we will have another 3 years of that. Just take one issue: tax. New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet and we have a Government that is absolutely stuffed full with their money. It is spending it on all the crazy schemes that Michael Cullen Helen Clark and others can come up with and still there is a large surplus. 
What did people say during the election campaign? They said that they wanted to keep some of that money. Let us go around the House and see. United Future campaigned for big tax cuts. I remember the debates—$2 billion or $3 billion Peter Dunne said. New Zealand First campaigned for tax cuts—large tax cuts and indeed for some companies a top company tax rate of 20 percent. That was the campaign from New Zealand First. Maori Party members sit beside me. They too knew that New Zealanders were struggling to pay tax. They wanted large tax cuts and the company tax rate lowered to 30 percent. The National Party campaigned for large cuts as did ACT. Even Mr Jim Anderton sitting around the Cabinet table campaigned for tax cuts. What does that equal? That equals 65 MPs in this House—the overwhelming majority of this Parliament—who campaigned during the election to reduce the burden of tax on New Zealanders. And what did Helen Clark say in the Speech from the Throne? “No tax cuts.” It is that sort of arrogance New Zealanders are sick of from Helen Clark and her Government. 
I tell Helen Clark and her Cabinet Ministers a simple thing: they should listen to what New Zealanders are saying. We need only to look around this Parliament to see that 65 MPs campaigned for tax cuts. I neglected to mention the Greens. They too campaigned for lower income tax. They suggested a shifting on to pollution taxes and the like but they too campaigned for lower taxes on working New Zealanders. The Labour Party was the only party that campaigned during the election not to reduce the burden of tax on New Zealanders. Yet Helen Clark has the arrogance to stand up and deliver a speech here today and through the Governor-General deliver a Speech from the Throne saying that there is no opportunity to have tax cuts. I tell United Future members and New Zealand First members to please go back and read their election promises to New Zealanders. 
The ACT party will be campaigning hard through the next 3 years. I will outline the issues we will campaign on. First despite what Labour says crime is out of control. The police are overwhelmed and demoralised. They get no support from this Government and have to listen to lies that somehow crime is down when every New Zealander knows that it is up that somehow when one rings the police they will arrive when they do not and that crime is somehow not a problem now in New Zealand because we have the Labour Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is down. The member is making it up. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can tell Mr Cunliffe that if he actually got out and talked to people in Auckland—if he discussed this issue with people in Auckland and with people around New Zealand—he would discover that the issue of crime is huge and that crime is out of control. 
I also suggest that unemployment is a big issue. Yes the unemployment rate is down and that is a good thing. We have had a strong economy and more people are in work but we are suffering in New Zealand from large-scale welfare abuse. People who could be working are actually getting a benefit. It is not good for them it is not good for their families and it is certainly not good for the taxpayers who are paying for it. 
Here is one other issue: transport. The problems we suffer from in this economy by the failure to be able to get around smoothly and efficiently on our roads will ruin our economy. I do not see any measure any urgency or any hurry from Helen Clark to deal with those issues—issues that were raised at every meeting candidates went to. It was as though Helen Clark went through the whole campaign with her eyes shut and her ears covered. She failed to hear what New Zealanders were saying. Well in this Parliament the ACT party will be standing on those issues as I am sure the National Party will. The Maori Party the Green Party the New Zealand First Party and United Future will also be standing on those issues. That is a majority in this Parliament. We will not all agree on all things but I ask the Labour Party to lose some of its arrogance and to understand that there are parties here whose very existence is because of the Labour Party’s arrogance. I ask the Labour Party to actually involve everyone in this Parliament in the decision making and to stop using the high-handed tactics we saw it use in the last 3 years. Maybe then people will truly get what they voted for. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I have no difficulty in supporting the Government motion. The coalition Government formed in December 1999 has demonstrably been the most successful and progressive Government that New Zealand has had in decades. [ 
Interruption 
] New Zealand has experienced a sustained sequence of strong economic growth—even the member who just interjected will have to accept that fact. 
John Key 
: You’re on your own. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well in 2 years’ time I will have been in Government for 9 years. How long has the member been in Government? Nil. If the member thinks that the National Party will sleepwalk to victory in the next 3 years he has another think coming. 
Unemployment has fallen to the lowest level in the developed world business conditions are sound there is a renewed feeling of confidence and pride in New Zealand and security and fairness are being restored in homes and in New Zealand hearts. The Government has been tested as Governments are and has been found to be stable reliable progressive and sensible. 
So I pay tribute to the leadership of the Government. In being elected to a third term Helen Clark will enter New Zealand’s political history as one of Labour’s great leaders and one of New Zealand’s most successful prime ministers. 
The policy programme outlined in the Speech from the Throne shows why this Government will enjoy a third term as successful as the 6 years we have already had. I welcome the support for the Government in its policy programme from a broad cross-section of parties in this House. 
Each party inside the Government or supporting it brings its own perspective on the highest priorities for the term. For me and for the Progressive party the priority for this term is to sheet-in New Zealand’s economic and social progress and to make New Zealand a country which embraces again cooperation as the best way forward. New Zealand would never have become the nation it is without a strong culture of working cooperatively. We have made immense economic progress and of course we needed to. We have proved that we can create jobs and rising incomes without leaving behind tens of thousands of people. 
This is a more socially cohesive society than it was 6 years ago and it will be more cohesive still in another 3 years. There are places all over the world that abandon families and individuals when they fall on hard times. There are societies that let people get crushed by change by market forces or by the cruelty of one person for another. There are societies that we would not want to be part of. The first Labour Government of 1935 wanted an economic landscape where everyone could contribute and where all could enjoy a decent life. In that landscape there was a place for everyone—no one was deliberately left behind. That it is within our grasp that our country still has those values is something I think we can be proud of and that has been brought closer by the last 6 years of a Labour-Progressive Government. 
I believe there are lessons for New Zealand from the election result however. It was the last-chance election in my view—not the first—for the new right which caused so much damage and pain in New Zealand in the 1980s and 1990s. If National could not win that election with all the bribes that were going on its members had better ask themselves whether they will ever win another one. Successive Governments abandoned New Zealanders when they could have helped. They let people be crushed by change and they showed that they were not caring Governments at all. They allowed great injustice when they should have been making New Zealand a fairer place. They diminished hope. 
John Key 
: Rubbish! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If that member is as good at statistics and analysis as he would want people to believe he should look at the gap between rich and poor that developed over the 1980s and 1990s when the party he is a member of was in Government in New Zealand for 9 years. The 2005 election was that party’s last roll of the dice in my considered view. 
John Key 
: Oh yeah! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will take one bet with the member. The current leader of the National Party will not be there leading the next election. Is the member prepared to have that one on? There is silence. Is that not amazing? We have come back to Parliament for practically the first day and the National Opposition is silent when I say that the leader who supposedly led them in great triumph will not be here at the next election. As sure as I know anything about politics that is one stone-cold certainty. 
 This year was the National Party’s last chance to turn back the clock and to have that “level playing field” whereby so many families and individuals suffered. That is not to underestimate the toll it took on the nation as well. I believe the Opposition needs to learn from that. It is only a matter of time before Don Brash goes overboard—that is clear. If National brings on new leadership in this term I hope it will understand that New Zealand does not want to turn back the clock to the cruel uncaring past. 
We actually want a softer New Zealand where cooperation not competition is the main game and where partnerships work for people. The last 6 years have proved that we can transform New Zealand’s economy at the same time as we care for and protect the well-being of all New Zealanders. It was a privilege for me to lead the economic development initiatives of the Government in the last 6 years. 
John Key 
: They’ve moved you on. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes they have moved me on to preside over sectors of the economy that earn over half of our entire foreign exchange. What sector of the economy is that member in charge of in the next 3 years? He is in charge of the sector of rapping the Government over the knuckles with a wet press release. 
I look forward to concentrating my efforts in the primary production portfolios of agriculture forestry and fisheries. Those are New Zealand’s most economically crucial sectors. Has the National Party given up on them? It was interesting to get press releases fired at me from National Party members who represent the primary production sectors of forestry fishing and agriculture but who range from number 10 to number 27 in the pecking order of the National Party. Gone is the day when the rural sectors of New Zealand can look to the National Party for any representation or leadership. I am happy to pledge to those important sectors of the New Zealand economy my efforts to maximise their potential and to acknowledge the contributions they can make to New Zealand’s prosperity. 
Currently New Zealand is borrowing its way into an increasingly indebted future. We have been doing better in the last 6 years but we need to do better still. We have to earn our way from exports in order to pay our way in the world. It is a truism but it is nevertheless a stark fact. We have competitive advantages over many of our trading partners in primary sectors and I intend to continue the partnership approach I took with other sectors when I was Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Industry and Regional Development. I want all parts of primary industry in Government to work together to identify barriers to growth and opportunities for development. The overwhelming majority of New Zealand’s research and development takes place in the primary sectors which is one of the reasons why we are so productive in terms of our output from our primary sector industries. 
I will also continue to work in the health sector on drugs and alcohol policy and on suicide prevention. I am proud of the progress the Government has made in those areas over the last 6 years and I am proud enough of New Zealand’s performance to know that we have to and will do better. We need to do better at controlling the abuse of drugs and alcohol. We are winning the battle against P—methamphetamine—with far-sighted community partnerships strong enforcement education and treatment. I have often heard it said that opposition to drug and alcohol abuse is a conservative position. That claim puzzles me. Reducing the harm caused by drugs and alcohol is about creating a more caring and softer New Zealand. There is nothing enlightened about standing by while lives and even whole communities get ruined by harms that we can avoid. 
I know that my Labour colleagues and our colleagues in the Green Party are committed to that kind of New Zealand. I look forward to working with them and with United Future and New Zealand First to move forward sensible policies that protect New Zealanders and maximise opportunities. In my view the next 3 years will be another term of progress and all those goals will be realised. I look forward to the success that I believe this new Government in its third term will undoubtedly achieve. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I also support the Government motion. Madam Assistant Speaker I congratulate yourself Ross Robertson Clem Simich and Margaret Wilson on your appointments to the Chair to preside over matters in this House. I look forward to the opportunity to have robust debate but also for the Government to continue to build on the agenda it set out in the Speech from the Throne. 
The Speech from the Throne underpinned a forward-looking New Zealand and a progressive Government agenda—one that acknowledged strength and diversity and the many challenges that presents. The Speech from the Throne set out an agenda that intends to build on the progress made over the past 6 years by this Labour-led Government—progress that restores fairness inspires excellence fosters collaboration and generally gives a hand up to those most in need in our society. 
I want to take a little time to talk in a very local way from a Maori electorate perspective and that of my own electorate Tainui on the progress made over the last 6 years. Firstly there was a huge investment—led by the previous speaker Mr Anderton—in the last term of Government in regional development. But what did it mean locally? What did it mean for many of our communities? In Tainui it meant that in regions such as the Waikato we were able to create a hub to attract investment into our region. We have created an aviation hub and I think that both Dianne Yates and Martin Gallagher will attest to the opportunities that has provided in terms of regional development initiatives in Hamilton. In the Waikato region the Waikato Innovation Park with investments in that area has been created. We are attracting new investments into our region which is good for the community the local region and regional development and brings more jobs into my electorate. 
In the King Country area for example investment in regional development has meant that people are looking at tourism in a broader way to ensure that the tourism dollar does not stop in Rotorua but stays in the King Country a bit longer. That requires the commitment of local government to work collaboratively with tourism operators local business and central government to be able to create more opportunities in the region. That is what a regional development strategy under the Labour Government has delivered in the Tainui electorate. 
That bodes well for the general theme of what the Government has tried to achieve over the last 6 years. It is about economic development but is not driven from a centralist view. It is about getting back into the regions and communities and attracting opportunities back to where it really matters because we know that that is where employment for local people is actually created. So I certainly want to ensure that that continues to happen in our regions. Let me just put out this figure: the amount of investment in regional development stands close to $250 million. I am sure that many of my Government colleagues can attest to what that has meant in terms of stimulating growth and opportunity. 
My next point relates to education skills and training. Once we have a prosperous economy the issues become of course employment and making sure that we invest in the skills and talent of every individual in our community so that people can get the jobs that are out there. In fact we have a lot of employee shortages because the Government’s strategy is doing so well. The Labour commitment to going back to apprenticeship training and to investing in the skills and talents of our people bodes well overall. There are 7100 Modern Apprentices throughout the country and we are on target to reach 9000 Modern Apprentices by December next year. That is a good thing. Why? When we look at an electorate like Tainui we see for example that Fairview Motors is attracting Modern Apprentices from Piopio. Who would have thought that kids who drop out of school and are told they do not have a future can get onto a pathway that enables greater investment in them so that they can make a contribution and get a job? That is a really important thing because it affects the lives of real people in our communities. 
The Government has doubled the investment in industry training since 1999 and that is important because we know that more than 150000 New Zealanders are involved in industry training. That has stimulated a whole lot of other sectors to look at Modern Apprenticeships—Genesis Energy for example. I applaud its commitment to fund 60 Modern Apprentices in the electricity sector and to engage in local training initiatives to ensure local jobs for local people especially in communities where there is a high contribution to servicing the national grid such as Huntly—fantastic! 
The commitment to education also bodes well because the Government has said that it will commit to 20 hours of quality free early childhood education for all 3 to 4-year-olds at teacher-led community-based early childhood centres by 2007. We have put an extra 3040 teachers into our classrooms so that the quality of the educational experience in the classroom is much better. We have increased operations funding. We have made progress in tertiary education which is really important. When we talk about having a high-skilled workforce investing in skills through tertiary education is an important part of achieving that. All the progress we have made in student loans is really good. In my electorate in particular more and more Maori students have gone on to post-graduate education than ever before and that is a fantastic achievement. 
I want to talk about the support for Working for Families. I particularly want to talk about some of the local initiatives that are doing really well like Family Start which the Government has continued to build on and roll out into the Tainui electorate. That initiative is going very well because it supports young parents to be better parents. It helps them to network well into the community secure the support they need just to get by and explore the options that they have as young parents with regard to their own skills training and education needs. That has been done under a Labour Government. We certainly built on that success in the last term of Government and we will continue to do so. 
We have expanded the Social Workers in Schools programme. For a lot of schools that means that a lot of our kids have access to social workers so as to be able to deal with some very complex issues. I have met with people from a number of the schools in my electorate and I know that that initiative works well because the parents who are part of a whole wraparound approach for some very difficult issues are benefiting under it. So we have to support that and I look forward to the continuance of that programme. 
The support being given in education is best seen when we go into schools and see what is happening there. A number of students are now doing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and a number of them say that it is a good initiative in terms of valuing their skills. In my time over the next term of Government I want to continue to build and invest in youth potential because I know that young people are an important part of the type of New Zealand we are working towards—the type of New Zealand that inspires excellence; the type of New Zealand that inspires people’s ability to look forward and to build on the strengths they have. That is the type of New Zealand and the type of future we are creating—where everybody has a role in this country. Some people might not think so but I do and I know that this Government does. 
The future under this Government will also include building on Maori development. The Government will accelerate initiatives to support Maori development. It will not do it for them but will support Maori development where it can be best supported. The touchstone for that is the outcome that emerged from the Hui Taumata. People said that they did not want the Government to take a major role in defining or implementing development goals but wanted support from the Government and we will do that over the next 3 years. 
So the type of New Zealand we are building is one where everybody belongs where everybody has an opportunity to succeed and where we value education invest in skills training and ensure that people are in a position to do things for themselves so that they can go forward. No reira tena koutou katoa. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 It is truly a privilege to be a member of this Parliament. I have been a public servant for over three decades and any adviser whether official or unofficial obviously from time to time has some influence over policy but I never doubted that the beginning of every major policy shift whether good bad or indifferent has its roots in the great campaign for electoral support that this Parliament represents. I suppose in many cases members here have some misgivings about having put aside earlier career choices but in my case perhaps it represents an extreme example of the cliché: “If you can’t beat them join them.” 
It is true that in the distant past I started on the left as a student activist. As somebody who enjoys a paradox—I may not be the only person in this room—I rather enjoyed that part of the National Party application form that asks: “Have you ever held any previous office?” The only thing I could think of saying was that I had once been president of the Victoria University socialist society. This was I should emphasise before I came across Oscar Wilde’s observation that the essential problem with socialism is that it does not leave the evenings free. 
In my mid-twenties I moved away from those views. I began to embrace a view of politics that does not deny the importance of social change—provided it is examined critically and not adopted like some transitory fashion item—and seeks to put the primary not the sole emphasis for individual social and economic outcomes on the individual and not transfer that responsibility to the State. So I got my waka-jumping in early and since then I spent most of my professional career before coming to this Parliament on one theme—economic reform both domestic and international. I believe finally that they are two sides of the same coin. 
Let me start with some observations about the domestic side of the reform equation. There is no doubt that we have made tremendous progress in this country over the last two decades or so in wrenching our formal trade policy our fiscal policy and our micro-economic policy structures into the modern era. We have made great progress and I celebrate that. But I am already less optimistic having heard some of the contributions made in my brief time in Parliament that the New Zealand public and the New Zealand electorate really have some understanding as to why in this country for example we have almost doubled the growth rate of our per capita income over the last 15 years compared with the 20 years between 1970 and 1990 and why it is that we are today concerned about inflation rising over 3 percent when 20 or more years ago in my youth we were worried about double-digit inflation. I am much less confident that that message has got through. Finally I believe it does matter that societies work out correctly what went wrong in the past and why things have gone right in the more recent past—at what explains their relative successes and at what explains their relative failures. 
The late Michael King said early on in his brilliant synthesis of New Zealand history that one of his reasons for writing that synthesis was “to identify the myths that have shaped New Zealand. Societies are conditioned not so much by events as by group memories of events.” Allow me to illustrate the point I think Michael King was making by deliberately taking a non - New Zealand example. I will take a French example—always popular with New Zealand audiences. 
What does not work well in France is the job market. The general unemployment rate is about 10 percent. It has not fallen below 8 percent for 20 years. If members think that is bad they should spare a thought for the youth. The youth unemployment rate in France is a tad under 25 percent and there are regions of France where it is above 50 percent. The Prime Minister today rightly drew attention to the riots or near-riots now tearing urban and parts of provincial France apart. She did not talk about the causes of them and the causes are certainly deeper than youth unemployment but those riots are inexplicable without reference to the pervasive lack of jobs facing young French people. 
Unfortunately for France there is a vast appetite for the continuation of policies that entrench the problem. Draconian legislation exists to protect those jobs in existence. The 35-hour week is intended to share around what work is available. The minimum wage is set at a very high proportion of the median wage for production workers. Collectively these and other policies—all introduced with the best of intentions—vastly complicate the task of the non - State sector to employ additional workers particularly young and low-skilled workers. 
Unfortunately France is no exception to Michael King’s point about the potentially damaging nature of collective myths. The particular collective myth here is that all the real solutions to France’s sclerotic labour market are immediately labelled by the French political elite as “ultra-liberalism of the Anglo-Saxon type”—end of debate end of discussion; we may have to wait another 20 years until the real problems are addressed. 
I turn now to New Zealand. New Zealand unquestionably is performing at or a little better than the OECD average growth rate but we are still below par in terms of productivity as Dr Brash observed today. The reason why we are doing relatively better I think is obvious. It is because finally we did start to tackle economic fundamentals and that is the message that needs to be repeated and repeated often. I believe that in a democracy if people believe that fundamental myths are responsible it prepares the ground for bad solutions. It does not prepare the way for getting electoral support for sound policy frameworks that have given us a better future in this country. Misleading and occasionally even malign interpretations—I will not quote the obvious example I have in my mind—will mislead the public and provide the basis for complacency and if they persist long enough will lead frankly to political sclerosis of the type we saw in this country 25 to 30 years ago. 
Let me turn to the other side of the reform agenda: the international side. Unquestionably there are great opportunities emerging for New Zealand from for want of a better word the globalisation process now under way. There are great opportunities and it is up to us to put up our hands and take those opportunities. None is more important than the Doha round agriculture negotiations which I had the privilege of chairing until recently. As with the Uruguay round before it these negotiations have the potential to add significant new opportunities to New Zealand and to add significantly to our long-run potential growth rate. 
Understandably I am following the round with more interest than most and with some pretty serious concern right now. Things look very difficult. Those difficulties will be at the centre of the APEC meetings this week. We can certainly expect a strong and standardised—one would almost say “boiler plate”—reaffirmation by APEC leaders of the absolute importance of concluding the round. And they should make that declaration because the absence of such a declaration would send perverse signals to certain political markets right now and would be very damaging. 
That in itself however will do nothing to fix the problem. To fix the problem we now need to identify some middle ground on market access that is consistent with the objectives of the negotiation. Sure New Zealand is sitting comfortably and there are some others who have further ground to make up in that respect but some serious discussion I hope will take place out of the public gaze amongst the delegations on putting something together in a few weeks’ time in Hong Kong because this country has more at stake in this negotiation than anyone else. Wishful thinking will not suffice at this late stage in the negotiation. A bold political declaration is essential for the reasons I discussed but will not address the substance of the problem at all. I hope that our delegation will engage in those serious discussions away from the public gaze so we can look forward in Hong Kong to getting at least some elements agreed to carry this negotiation forward. 
I still believe—and I have always said this—it is highly likely that this negotiation will succeed. To some extent that is a straight extrapolation of the past. There have been eight rounds of multilateral trade negotiations since 1947. They have all been incredibly difficult. The last three have all gone over time. All the original game plans had to be redrawn and new road maps had to be prepared. But finally they all succeeded and I suppose it is less likely that this will be the first to fail. I suppose it will follow that pattern but it will require some very tough work. Mistakes are made in international negotiations and I hope New Zealand will be behind those negotiations urging a reality check at this late stage. There will of course be another round although armchair technicians will say as they did last time that there will not be. But there will be after the political wounds of the last negotiation have healed. 
International negotiations are many things but they are also very human affairs. It takes time to implement them. It takes time for these wounds to heal. A breathing space is sometimes required internationally. Perhaps to return to the domestic side of the equation a breathing space is inevitable domestically too. If that in the future is how observers come to see the political history of this country from 2000 until—well who knows—perhaps the next election then so be it. But there is a political agenda for carrying this forward. It will not change much. It will not vary in its substance; it will vary in its detail. It is an agenda that New Zealand will embrace when and if the New Zealand electorate collectively decides that improved though our lot has been this is not good enough—that this is not “as good as it gets”. 
And that agenda is unsurprisingly an agenda about further tax reform—lower taxes for all taxpayers and companies which will re-incentivise middle-income New Zealand. It is an agenda—and there is nothing surprising here—that will impose real disciplines on Government expenditure instead of masking it behind manipulation of data against a rise in GDP. It is an agenda that asks some tough questions about the explosion of social welfare beneficiaries in this country over the last 30 years while fully understanding that many of our folk need permanent support from these arrangements. And it is an agenda that prioritises excellence not mediocrity in our schools. It is an agenda about removing some of the more obvious and ridiculous impediments that stand in the way of our workforce our companies our farmers and our people building the next phase of wealth creation to build on the success. Finally I believe that this just comes down to a question of confidence—a belief that New Zealanders have done it in the past and can do it in the future—and strategic leadership behind it. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker I would like to begin by congratulating the Governor-General the Prime Minister Margaret Wilson Clem Simich yourself and Ross Robertson on the achievement of high office. 
I would also like to congratulate my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Unfortunately he cannot be here with us today because he has had to make a personal sacrifice and go to foreign shores representing our country—a country we all love dearly. We all understand that that is a tough job but somebody has to do it. He had to make the sacrifice and when he was asked to step up to the plate he did that proudly. We are very proud of him for that and I think he will do a marvellous job. 
Ribald and uncouth comment has been made about New Zealand First sitting on this side of the House—a side of the House that I am most comfortable with I might say because it is nice to be freed from the people who neither respect nor understand the way MMP works. One would hope they would get a handle on it. In fact when I was involved with the National Party the collective wisdom of the day was—and I remember people like Tony Ryall Nick Smith in his saner moments and people like them sitting in the seats of power in the National Party saying—that National needed to go into Opposition for a while. That was mainly because the people in the benches in front of those members were giving them a pain in the neck and they thought it was time they took over. They said that 3 years in Opposition would rejuvenate the outfit and get rid of a few people and that they would then be back in power. Oh dear how sad! Never mind those days have gone. 
The National Party is now entering its third term in Opposition. So help me those members opposite could spend four terms in Opposition if all they can do is yell and act in an uncouth manner as they have been doing since the beginning of this Parliament. It saddens me to see the party I was once a proud member of acting in that way. But I guess that the day I got out of that party and Tau Henare got in shows us where the job has got to since then. 
Let me tell members about how I see this term this Government and this enhanced confidence and supply agreement that New Zealand First has with the Labour-led Government. It is OK for those members opposite to laugh at us and carry on but that does not help senior citizens. The members who are laughing at us have not helped those people; New Zealand First has. We will gain for senior citizens a gold card entitling them to receive subsidies or help in their old age which National has talked about doing but has never done—and it is the same with Labour I might say. But New Zealand First is making sure it happens. 
Rodney Hide 
: Who resigned? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: That is the other thing I might say while they are interjecting on me which is really rude. However much those members might try to put about some crude urban myth that New Zealand First is going to split apart and that there will be disaffections and all sorts of mayhem they can forget it; it simply is not going to happen.. We are tighter stronger and better than we have ever been before. I can assure members that anything they can throw at us will be deflected with ease. 
On top of what I have already read out superannuation will be set at 66 percent of the average weekly wage which is something that National was never able to do. In fact people have suspected that both National and Labour would first raise the age of entitlement and secondly lower the rate of entitlement itself. New Zealand First is doing the opposite to that. We would have liked the rate to be higher—there is no question about that—but we could not get above that so 66 percent it is. 
Hon Members 
: When? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Soon. That addresses the problem that superannuitants had when their income fell below the level of 65 percent of the net average income from time to time throughout the year. New Zealand First has fixed that problem in the enhanced confidence and supply agreement. 
New Zealand First has also ensured that another 1000 front-line police will be out on the beat very soon. They will be out there doing the job. It is all very well for Labour and especially for National and ACT to rant on about these matters but it is New Zealand First that will ensure that another 1000 police are out there protecting our citizens enhancing our way of life and making New Zealand a better place. 
It does not end there. There is an understanding—sure it is not in hard copy—about the land access issue. Gerrard Eckhoff raced around this country and basically did a good job of telling people that the land access issue was such a terrible thing. God bless Gerry wherever he is right now! The National Party agreed with ACT and they were going gangbusters to scare people about that issue. But what happened to Gerry Eckhoff? He gave all the votes he garnered from farmers to the National Party which actually does not deserve them. Gerry Eckhoff is out on his tail and the National Party is here cooing away and making uncouth noises at me. Which party has ensured that the land access issue will not proceed in the way it was going? New Zealand First has. So rather than taking the mickey the National Party should be praising us. I am sure that National members are not prepared to admit it today but behind the scenes I think they really are saying that we are doing a wonderful thing. 
Then we come to the reintroduction of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which New Zealand First is going to support. We will do that not for the benefit of New Zealand First. Before my leader went away in the service of his country he asked me what we could possibly do for that sad old party that we were once members of. I will tell members what we can do. The National Party will be in trouble because it has all these talented new people here. They are wonderful; they have huge reputations. But they will sit on their backsides for 6 years yet they will not get any part of the ministerial responsibilities—they will not get anywhere near them—and they will upset the so-called front bench. Winston Peters said to me that we need to get the electoral integrity legislation back into Parliament to protect those people in the National Party that its newbies will be looking to kick out. New Zealand First will do that and I think that many people in the National Party will thank us for it albeit behind closed doors. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to join the debate tonight. I wish all the new members well as they give their maiden speeches. A maiden speech is a very significant speech. We all remember how nervous we were when we gave ours and I offer my best wishes to the new members who are giving their speeches. 
Tonight I also ask members of the National Party who are giving their maiden speeches to please not rewrite history. History is recorded very well in New Zealand in many forms. I am sure that a number of National MPs will talk about when they were members of the Labour Party and will then go through the throes of saying that they learnt the error of their ways etc. etc. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Trouble is they got richer. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Absolutely! I am reminded of Michael Joseph Savage’s comment that they walked to vote us in and they drove to vote us out. Under Labour Governments people do get wealthier. Some people may like to read a bit of the social and political history of New Zealand and to remember exactly what happens. 
I went to my first political meeting at the Hylton Hall in Aramoho when I was 8 years of age. My mother learnt to play cards and count when she was 4 years of age because some of the people who became members of the first Labour Government used to come around to my grandfather’s house to play cards and talk about politics. So I have done my apprenticeship unlike some of the people who learnt about politics a couple of years ago and have just had some sort of road to Damascus conversion. 
I encourage members to go back and read a bit of social history. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It was a road to Washington. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes it was a road to Washington but we will get on to that a bit later. Anybody who is interested in the social and political history of New Zealand will always say that the most interesting things in New Zealand history have happened under Labour Governments. What do National Governments ever do—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell those boys to settle down; it is very early in the term. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is the old double waka-jumper over there. 
JILL PETTIS 
: No he is “four-party Tau”—“old Tau four-parties”. Anyway I digress. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It was three parties. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Jill’s projecting the future.  
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes who knows? I am very relieved and proud that we now have a Labour-led Government in New Zealand with the support of responsible people who have New Zealand’s interests at heart in supporting it. I think that New Zealanders are quietly very grateful that National did not become the Government. They might have had a little flirtation and put a little tick in National’s box but I think that on reflection they are actually very grateful National is not in Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Especially John Key. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Especially John Key because as I said about him last term he should bide his time. The road to hell is littered with the bones of young men who were in a hurry. I tell John Key to bide his time. That young man’s time will come if he just waits. 
A number of people in New Zealand are quietly relieved that Labour is in Government because they have come to realise in the quiet reflection of the post-election period what some of the policies were that National was proposing. People were not aware of them in the tumultuous period during the election campaign. 
Dianne Yates 
: There weren’t many. 
JILL PETTIS 
: My colleague Dianne Yates is quite right. There were not many policies but those that there were were bad enough. 
The Labour Government has saved people from market rents. Market rents are the biggest contributor to poverty in this country and those Tories were going to re-implement market rents which would have condemned Tau Henare’s whanau to poverty. I say to Mr Henare and his whanau that they have been saved from poverty because of the Labour Government. It is ironic that in regard to such a key social policy as housing Don Brash did not even know on the day National’s housing policy was released that that was its policy. My opponent at a Grey Power meeting in Wanganui did not even know that the housing policy had been released that day and that it involved market rents. Those two men did not care less about the poverty-inducing aspects of the market rents policy and that is absolutely shameful. 
 There are many policies of the National Party that New Zealanders are grateful are not being implemented. As the mother of a son I am glad that we do not have a National Government because the National Party and its secret supporters would have sent people like my son to Iraq while their sons with their scarf-wearing apparel would have cowered behind a whole lot of secret beliefs and said: “I can’t go because I’m too old.” although they would have sent young people. It is all right for some people because of their age and rapid decline to send young people to war while they are safely ensconced in their own homes. The member who is wagging his finger at me knows that I am correct. He knows that he would have sent young men to Iraq while he was safely ensconced in New Zealand. 
Many positive things are happening in this country. I am proud to be a New Zealander and I am convinced that every person sitting in this Chamber is proud to be a New Zealander. We live in a great country and when we travel overseas—which we are privileged to do from time to time—and come back home I am sure that most of us silently say to ourselves when we sight New Zealand for the first time: “Thank goodness we were born here.” [ 
Interruption 
] Well we may say: “Thank goodness we have permanent residency in New Zealand.” Some fabulous things are happening in provincial New Zealand in particular. The economy in provincial New Zealand is performing at an outstanding level. 
Just today as I was passing a bookshop I stopped to buy this publication—I should not have bought it really because that fellow from Wanganui contributes to it regularly but never mind—[ 
Interruption 
] No Michael Laws—I am sure the member is with me on that. But nevertheless I succumbed and bought it because of the wonderful story on the front page about trades people the new elite in New Zealand. One of the reasons why they are the new elite in New Zealand—and God bless them because we need them—is that the building industry is performing at an outstanding level. Apprenticeships are at an all-time level and it is far better to have our young people engaged in apprenticeships than to send them off to Iraq to be shot at. Over 7100 Modern Apprentices are in training at the moment and more are planned. Apprenticeships are an absolutely wonderful way for our young people to be engaged and that is a Labour-led initiative which was supported by New Zealand First when we first came into Government. I remember those speeches about the Modern Apprenticeships scheme very very well. That scheme is paying dividends in literally thousands of ways. 
The provinces in New Zealand are a success story and that is because this Labour-led Government as well as the previous Labour Government has invested heavily in the provinces. Our unemployment rates are at the lowest level they have been at for more than two decades. It is absolutely inspiring to see the number of people who are actively engaged in positive employment which not only makes life a lot easier for their families but also gives them a lift in their spirits. That also contributes in many many ways to our local economy and to our region’s social structure as well. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is no wonder the good people of Whanganui had the sense to fling Jill Pettis out on her ear—and I welcome Chester Borrows to the House. I hear the Prime Minister has dispatched Jill Pettis from the chief whip’s position so she can win Whanganui back. Well God help the poor people of Whanganui if they have to put up with “Paint Stripper” there for 3 years knocking on their doors. I can firmly confirm that Chester Borrows will have the largest majority in Parliament come the election in 2008. As for her comments on provincial New Zealand I am not sure whether she has caught up with the news but National took 10 seats off Labour in the election. They came from provincial New Zealand and they are not going back. It is no wonder that the only thing going back is Russell Fairbrother. He is going back to Napier because he did the almost impossible: he lost the seat that Labour had held since 1951. Even Pania did not believe that he would lose the seat of Napier. Even Pania had Russell Fairbrother winning that one but away he went. 
Madam Assistant Speaker I congratulate you on your reappointment along with Margaret Wilson Clem Simich and Ross Robinson. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Robertson. 
JOHN KEY 
: Oh “Spot”. Last week when we were in Parliament Bill English made the comment that the Clark-Peters Government was a sad combination of the untalented and the unwilling. He was spot on and that is exactly why it will produce the unremarkable. We have had 6 years of the golden weather under Labour and it has squandered the lot. It has nothing to show for it. That is why it is in an electoral quagmire. It will be an absolutely do-nothing Government. Helen Clark and Winston Peters will be arm in arm in the quagmire—the more they try to do the faster they will sink together. The tragedy of that “heads they lose tails they lose” scenario is that the country will be on hold for the next 3 years until National regains the Treasury benches and takes this country forward. 
Here is a prediction: the only remarkable thing that will come out of this Government is that Labour actually managed to form one with New Zealand First. That is the only remarkable thing that it has done. New Zealand First has done something quite incredible in this Parliament. It has managed to do something unique for a party. It has a leader who is firmly and proudly in the Government while it has an entire caucus that is firmly and proudly in the Opposition. It has done that all in one Parliament. Sadly for Mr Peters not only is his dwindling caucus in opposition to the Government but also it is in opposition to Mr Peters—that is the sad news while he is off overseas. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Pita Paraone that I went up and down the country looking at the New Zealand First billboards and I could not work out what Winston Peters was looking at over his shoulder. The rumour was that he was looking at his backside. Actually he was looking at where the knives were coming from. I have a message for New Zealand First members to take back to Winston Peters in Korea: one bauble does not a happy caucus make. 
We on this side of the House had very very low expectations indeed of this Government and very low expectations of the Speech from the Throne. But even we were disappointed; it was subterranean. We have a country that faces some real challenges. We have a country that is sailing into very poor economic conditions. We have a current account deficit of 8 percent of GDP. Almost every economist in the country now says it will go to 9 percent of GDP; several economists are saying it will be 10 percent of GDP. They are under the numbers that Paul Keating said described a banana republic. That is what our country faces: a current account deficit that is in crisis. We have business confidence in free fall. Every single business confidence survey now says that the country is heading in the wrong direction by a significant margin—including the Bank of New Zealand today with minus 65 percent. We have interest rates that have gone up eight times—they went up just last week—and we have net migration that is virtually collapsing. Those are the economic conditions that this country is facing and they should not have been met with the kind of Speech from the Throne that we heard. 
What will happen when they write the history books about this Clark-Cullen-Peters Government? They will say that for the first 6 years in Government Labour rode an economic wave that it inherited and did absolutely nothing to create and when it crashed on the beach the Government was found to be hopelessly wanting. It will be seen as a “Dad’s army” sort of Government. It will be seen as a fair-weather Government. Why? Because everyone has lost faith in the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister has lost faith in him the tea lady has lost faith in him everyone has lost faith in him. He was persona non grata with his own caucus. He is the man whose next most significant speech will be his valedictory and we will hear it in this Parliament. That is his message. Heather Simpson is actually upstairs now jotting a few notes down that she would like to hear him say. 
Michael Cullen is the man who single-handedly nearly lost the unlosable election for Labour with Budget 2005. That was a document that cost Labour 10 seats in this Parliament—he knows it—and that cost him the faith and confidence of the Prime Minister. She now has had to turn on her own caucus; members like Jill Pettis have been dispatched into the holding queue. Even someone like Jim “Am I really going 170 kilometres an hour?” Sutton has gone; he is in the waiting queue. There is a whole number of them who are very very unhappy indeed. They are in the holding pen waiting to be dispatched to the dole queue all because Michael Cullen delivered Budget 2005 the equivalent of a  
Titanic  
sort of Budget for Labour. 
Well the only thing that saved Labour was not the Minister of Finance I can tell the House. 
Jill Pettis 
: National saved Labour. 
JOHN KEY 
: No it was not National that saved Labour; it was Helen Clark hitting the panic button and being prepared to write buy say and do anything. It did not matter what it took it did not matter what she had said and it certainly did not matter what it cost to get things going. Does anyone seriously believe that Michael Cullen believes in Labour’s student loan policy? I ask the member whether he believes in Labour’s reckless student loan policy. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Yes I do. 
JOHN KEY 
: I do not think so. You see I have a pretty simple question about this; I am a pretty simple fellow. Why does anybody think that Michael Cullen asked Treasury to go and do the numbers on the student loan policy document? It was not because he could not work it out—he has a masters degree in maths. I worked it out in my office in about 15 minutes; it did not take a long time. Michael Cullen asked Treasury to put together the numbers because he wanted to stop Helen Clark. He knew the policy was bad policy and he knew it was taking the country in the wrong direction. He knew it was going to feed the young New Zealanders of this country a diet of debt. But Helen Clark who for years had banged on about student loans and the problems they were causing threw all that out the window just to get into power. We on this side of the House say that that is wrong—that is totally wrong. 
But we found out this week what Michael Cullen does believe in because he has re-emerged as the new left’s Rob Muldoon. He is a man who stands up for intervention. He is not prepared to control his own Government spending. He does not mind the fact that he is driving up interest rates. There have been eight interest rate— 
Jill Pettis 
: What does the old man say about this? 
JOHN KEY 
: Well I tell Jill Pettis that she should not believe me; she should believe the OECD. Its officials said that the reason interest rates were going up was that this Government was spending too much and this week Michael Cullen went out and said that he is not prepared to get his own House in order he is not prepared to cope with his own Government’s spending he is not prepared to look in the mirror but he wants to decimate the price of every other New Zealander’s house—and that is wrong as well. He has Alan Bollard out there working on a plan that Alan Bollard does not believe in—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh no he does not. The member should go and look at his 2004 speech to the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and he will see that it is completely diametrically opposite to the speech Mr Bollard gave on Thursday. 
This country deserves a lot more. This country deserves a bright future; this country deserves opportunity. Most of all this country deserves a chance for New Zealanders to get ahead not a Government that believes solely in itself and is prepared to do and say whatever it takes. The people of New Zealand were robbed of a great Government in 2005 but their chance will come at the next election mark my words. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 When I heard the first speaker for the National Opposition the Leader of the Opposition lead off the debate this afternoon in what was one of the “less-lustre” speeches I have heard even from that member I thought the interjection from the leader of the Progressive Party was really spot on. He asked the member whether he had worked out why National had not won yet. I think the answer to that question is no the National Party has not worked it out. 
The concluding remarks from the member who has just resumed his seat Mr Key that New Zealand has missed out on a great Government is pretty much testimony because there is still the view amongst National Party members that the normal resting position of this country is that they are in Government—that the default position is that they are in Government and that the natural party of Government is the National Party. That party points to its very proud past to give evidence for that and indeed it has a very proud past. But the National Parties that existed during the 1950s the 1960s and the 1970s are not the National Party in front of us now. In that time there was New Zealand’s version of the post-war consensus where we did not attack people for being different or for having different proclivities. Their ideas religion sexuality or indeed ethnicity were embraced and deemed to be OK. 
I have just come through an election in which my party happened to come home first but I found that election a difficult one because I found some things about that election that were ugly. I did not like the idea of the word “mainstream” being a code for excluding and sidelining those people who are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants—and heterosexual. I did not like that. I did not like the idea that we could have an election campaign in this century in which the race card was played so repeatedly and with so obvious an attempt at sophistication—and so obvious failure. 
I did not enjoy that and I did not enjoy the subtext that went through emails and people’s speeches or the most ugly subtext that came out in the pamphlets that were put out we now know by the Exclusive Brethren. How did we know? We knew because the Green Party outed those people. 
Then we had the spectre of the then—and still—Leader of the Opposition saying: “I know nothing!” like some sort of Sergeant Schultz. The deputy leader of the National Party said that he knew nothing and the difference between those two utterances was that the first was not true and the second was true because the Leader of the Opposition had not told the deputy leader of the National Party what the Leader of the Opposition knew. He did not tell his own deputy. Instead we had a progressive unfolding of the truth as the Leader of the Opposition was put to the sword day after day by media that knew they were on to something—as indeed they were. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: We have a point of order and I just remind members that points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the last time I was in this House the word “liar” was not allowed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Did a member— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is quite clear that no one can accuse someone of lying in this House; a member can accuse someone of lying outside the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated; I am on my feet. I remind members again that there will be silence during the dealing of points of order. A member cannot accuse a member of being a liar inside or outside the House. If a member— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I want to make it clear that I did Madam Speaker and I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: And I think at this stage I should withdraw and apologise should I not? I will anyway. I would say none the less that whether or not the Leader of the Opposition— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Whether or not he lied to Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Right—lied to Gerry Brownlee he certainly went to the public and said he was sorry. But that was days afterwards. That was after we had learnt that the Leader of the Opposition had met with the Exclusive Brethren on one occasion and on the following day we learnt that the Leader of the Opposition had met with the Exclusive Brethren on two occasions. And a day or two after that we learnt that the Leader of the Opposition had met with the Exclusive Brethren “on a number of occasions”.This was the man who said he had no knowledge of those pamphlets. 
I believed Gerry Brownlee when he came on television opposite me and said: “I have no idea.” I believe Gerry Brownlee because the Leader of the Opposition runs a very tight ship. It was so tight that he did not even tell his deputy. 
This same Leader of the Opposition then went to the wananga and famously gave two speeches—the inside speech and the outside speech. The real problem with that was that there was a journalist or two on the inside. The Leader of the Opposition thought he would get away with it because that is how inexperienced he is. He gave two speeches thinking he could get away with it but he got caught. 
We had an election in which the Leader of the Opposition was standing up giving away $4 million per annum in tax cuts that this country does not have to give away and saying that the country does have that sort of money to give away. The Leader of the Opposition did not win the election despite the size of that bribe because he could not lie straight in bed and tell two stories 2 days in a row. He could not do it. The Leader of the Opposition found himself at variance with the truth too often in those 4 weeks. Too often the Leader of the Opposition found he was “nuancing” himself into the swamp again and again and again. 
The Leader of the Opposition cannot work out how to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Those are the three criteria. The first and the third will not do. If one tells the truth and nothing but the truth but does not tell the whole truth that will not do. 
So the Leader of the Opposition managed to blow the campaign. He pretty much bribed people with their own money he would have wrecked an economy he spent the 1990s trying to fix from his then job then he pretty much managed to make enough nuanced remarks to get caught day in day out every week. We just could not believe it. We said: “My God that was amazing. Next week will be better for them.” But on Monday there would be another stuff-up always from the Leader of the Opposition—unless it was from the member for Rakaia about logging which was the only non - Leader of the Opposition cock-up in the whole campaign. The rest of the party performed pretty well. But the Leader of the Opposition was a liability to himself and finally to his party and he came in second despite a bribe that was bigger than any I have seen in my political career. 
That man scratched every itch. He approached every—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Cullen should not be telling members that today it is for tomorrow. Dr Cullen has just leaked something but everyone was shouting so members did not hear it and I certainly will not repeat it. It is for tomorrow. The Leader of the Opposition scratched every itch he appealed to every prejudice and he reached in for the biggest bribe I have ever seen and he lost! 
Dr Don Brash 
: No no no. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member should not say: “No no no.” What happened was that $3.9 billion a year turned out to be not enough. It was an extraordinary bribe and it turned out not to be enough. 
I just cannot believe that a guy who preached fiscal restraint for all the 1990s would turn round and in order to get himself a name would then bribe the economy with $3.9 billion. I think the Leader of the Opposition has to be satisfied that his epitaph in history is to have signed each $5 note in this country and that is about it. He will not fight another election. It is not going to happen. He is not as a 68-year-old going to fight another election. It will not be feasible for him to stand in an election for a term of office that when concluded will see him aged 71 years. It will not happen. The member will in due course take his leave from Parliament give what I hope is a gracious speech and I hope he will enjoy a well-earned retirement but he will not be Prime Minister. He will not be Prime Minister because he could not keep a straight story. 
It was a very interesting and for me very revealing campaign. It was the most difficult campaign I have been in because there was a certain ugliness about it that I have not experienced since the 1981 tour. Even that tour had a certain friendliness about it that I thought was very sweetly recalled by Mr Brownlee in his comments regarding Rod Donald last week. I have not been in a campaign that had a thread of ugliness running through it as deep as rich and as damaging to me as in the last campaign. I found it very difficult indeed. 
I am very pleased that in this country when one brings together racism homophobia bribery and dishonesty one cannot win. I am very pleased that that is the case and I urge the National Party to find a new strategy next time. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 First I congratulate the Speaker the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers on their election— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: And the caucus secretary! 
DIANNE YATES 
: Yes—and the caucus secretary and the Governor-General for her Speech from the Throne. I congratulate all the new members of the House on winning their seats and becoming members of Parliament. I look forward to further maiden speeches of the quality we have had today. 
As my colleague Jill Pettis has said the National Party went into the election with only one policy and as Pete Hodgson has already said it was a bribe. I recently talked to an American in New Zealand. He was a very highly qualified American who said that he was proud of the people of New Zealand. He said that in America if people had been offered that sort of bribe they would have fallen for it but that in New Zealand people were much more intelligent more community-minded and they did not fall for that bribe. The people of New Zealand have greater intelligence and a much greater sense of community— 
Dr Don Brash 
: You said they were bribed with their own money! 
DIANNE YATES 
: It was Dr Brash who said they were bribed with their own money. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not say that; he said it. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not going to argue with Dr Brash because in 10 minutes he will change his mind. Dr Brash is constantly “Mr Flip-flop”. He is constantly an embarrassment. He constantly did not know his policy on housing. One minute it was one policy but the next minute it was the other. He wanted to be Prime Minister but he could not remember his own policy at election time. He wanted to be Prime Minister but he did not know what his policy on forestry was and then he did not know what Brian Connell was saying. Flip-flop flip-flop—it is a very apt term. Dr Brash was going to borrow then he was not going to borrow then he was going to borrow then he was not going to borrow—flip-flop flip-flop all over the place. He said that no no he would not sell any State assets—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr Brash has had his opportunity to speak today and he muffed it. There were members of his own party who got much more applause and much more attention that he did. Why should he yell at me? He has had his opportunity to make a speech. As the leader of a party he muffed his own speech today. He cannot even make a decent speech in this House let alone to the people of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] I cannot say what Dr Brash is the member for because he did not even have the guts to stand for a seat. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He’s the caretaker Leader of the Opposition. 
DIANNE YATES 
: He is the caretaker Leader of the Opposition. How many times has he stood for a seat and lost? Goodness me. He does not know his own policy on assets. Will he or will he not sell Kiwibank? Does he know where he is from one day to another? The member does not know where he is on any policy. He has only one policy— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are in a bit of a difficult situation because the member’s own caucus is heckling her in an effort to get her back on to the topic. It is a wide-ranging debate on the statement that the Prime Minister prepared for the Governor-General to read which is therefore called the Speech from the Throne. From that speech it is evident that Labour does not want New Zealanders who are hard-working to get more money— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: They do not want New Zealanders who are ill to be treated in our public health system. They do not want to fix all the problems in the education system. So why does that member not talk about why they do not want those things? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I thank Mr Gerry Brownlee for his interjection. He was the man who insulted the Governor-General and then dared to say what I have said about the Governor-General. I find that extremely rich coming from him. 
Then we had Dr Brash say how much he would spend on roading—and what did that sum end up as in my electorate? It was exactly the same as Labour was going to spend so that was really amazing. Then he did not know what he thought on the nuclear issue. He was going to be pro-nuclear then he was going to be antinuclear then he was pro-nuclear and then antinuclear. That man wiggled all over the place.[ 
Interruption 
] I know that the member opposite who is shouting would not have done that. He would have been much clearer and probably would have make a very good bid for Leader of the Opposition. 
I have listened to Dr Brash and as a Kiwi I have been ashamed of what he has said. Quite honestly I do not think that Dr Brash has read much about New Zealand or lived in New Zealand since about 1953. The sort of rubbish and divisiveness he has come out with was fashionable around 1953. I want the member to tell me what he has read about race issues gender issues or any social issues in this country in the last 50 years. I do not think that having a wife who comes from Singapore will substitute for some decent hard work on where we are what the social issues are what New Zealanders think and what our country is. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Do you want me to say what my point of order is? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I understand what your point of order is. I would ask the member who is speaking not to bring members’ families into it at all. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
I refer members to the Speech from the Throne. I am proud that New Zealand has such a low unemployment rate. As my colleagues have said we have more New Zealanders—[ 
Interruption 
] I hear Mr Brownlee saying that we do not want New Zealanders working hard. We have more New Zealanders working hard than his Government has ever had or that we have had in this country for years and years. We have more people in training than we have had for years and years. We have promised another 5000 apprenticeships. The National Party ran down the apprenticeship scheme and trade training. I thank Jill Pettis for mentioning trade training because we have had people complain about a shortage of trade training. We have had a leaky buildings problem and we can blame George Chapman for that one—not the Labour Government. We can blame George Chapman and deregulation for bringing that about. I know that because I sat on the inquiry and so did Shane Ardern. He knows that deregulation brought about that huge problem concerning Kiwi homes. He knows all too well that it brought that problem about. The lack of apprenticeships is just one of those problems. 
We are putting huge amounts of money into tertiary education and I thank Michael Cullen for taking over that portfolio and for looking seriously into the whole issue. We have put more money and we are putting more money into early childhood education. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my own colleague and I know that Mr Speaker was distracted but there has been an absolute barrage. This is the start of the new term and it is already very obvious that the misogynous behaviour—[ 
Interruption 
] I am in a point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Quiet please. I think I have grasped the member’s point of order. 
Jill Pettis 
: Hang on—nobody minds a fair go. However I am just asking members on the other side of the House to give the member who is currently on her feet a fair go during this debate. 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any more information or any other comments. 
Simon Power 
: We have to listen to her dulcet tones. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I understand the position and the member was talking about too much noise basically. I think it was coming from all around the House but I ask members to give the member speaking a fair go please. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I do not mind. I imagine that Opposition members are like dogs behind a farm gate that sort of go: “Woo woo woo!” and all I can respond is: “Down down down!” There they go again all barking at once which is just fine. It is a lovely image; I can just see them. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Very excited by sheep. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Yes they are. They are very very excited by sheep! 
We have raised the minimum wage every year since coming to Government and we will continue to raise that minimum wage. We thank New Zealand First for its input into that. We are also lifting the rate of New Zealand superannuation. Primary health is another area where Labour is proud of its record and it will continue. It will continue on with school checks and it will continue to check babies’ hearing and improve the health of New Zealanders—even Dr Brash’s health when he is over 65. [ 
Interruption 
] We will increase the number— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The issue of too much noise was raised by way of a point of order just a few minutes ago. I think that the level of interjection is becoming not intolerable but undesirable. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague here was wondering how “Woo woo woo!” will be reported by  
Hansard 
 and what the spelling of it might be. That is really what my colleague was asking about and I think that it is a fair question. I am trying to help the  
Hansard 
 reporters on how they would actually spell “Woo woo woo!”. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is what he was asking across the floor. The member chose not to answer. 
DIANNE YATES 
 I certainly consider that rather canine noises are coming from the other side of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I will certainly check my  
Hansard 
 and check the spelling. 
I am proud to be a Kiwi but I am absolutely ashamed that Dr Brash actually said in a television interview that members of the Labour Party were not “mainstream”. Does that mean that Michael Joseph Savage David Lange Norman Kirk and Geoffrey Palmer were or are not mainstream New Zealanders? Does that mean that Dr Brash until he turned about 35 was not a mainstream New Zealander or Tim Groser or anybody else who suddenly had a magic conversion to some kind of economic theory that put New Zealand back 20 30 40 or 50 years? I ask Gerry Brownlee whether that means that the good people of New Zealand who work hard every day are not mainstream New Zealanders. I found that “Woo woo woo” very offensive. That is the sort of noise that comes out of that member and that canine attitude is what is not mainstream New Zealand. 
Mainstream New Zealanders are the Mabel Howards of this world. Mainstream New Zealanders are the people who fought for this country for their values and for a united and not a divided New Zealand—which is the image that has been portrayed by people on the other side during this last election and which has made me ashamed of them. Some of the people on the other side need to look very closely at their values. If those members are silly enough to laugh now they are silly enough not to call themselves mainstream New Zealanders. I think that that is absolutely appalling. 
I look forward to a Labour-led Government and to an inclusive and very valuable New Zealand society that will grow—a society that we will be proud of—and a Prime Minister who will go down in history as one of the greatest Prime Ministers this country has ever seen. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I just want to say to my daughter Kendra that I hope the next 15 minutes of good behaviour are the 15 minutes she remembers of the New Zealand Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon Margaret Wilson on being appointed Speaker and you Mr Deputy Speaker on your appointment. I am honoured that you are in the Chair tonight. 
Poet James K Baxter once famously called Wellington the “sterile whore of a thousand bureaucrats”. His rather unflattering description while it may have been accurate at the time is clearly dated. Wellington has truly changed as a city and it is anything but sterile today. It has also been a very long time since Wellington had just a thousand bureaucrats. I am extremely proud to have played a part in the transformation of Wellington from sterile to vibrant from a sea of grey to a field of colour. It was a transformation that started with pride and a shift in attitude; the physical changes actually came later. I want to see similar changes in New Zealand as a nation. I want to be part of making that change happen. Today I want to lay out my vision for the future of New Zealand and my role as a member of Parliament for the National Party. 
But I first want to thank the people who got me into this House where I have the opportunity to make a difference. I start by acknowledging the love and support of my family who are here tonight without whom I literally would not be here today. Not many people know that my dad John Blumsky stood for National in 1972. Our campaigns had a lot in common. We both ran against sitting Labour MPs—Tom McGuigan in his case—and unfortunately we both lost. Dad went on to carve out a stellar career in broadcasting and as for me I have entered the House—just not quite through the door of my choice. As a result I can assure members now that I am a huge fan of MMP and I hope to take this chance to carve out a career in politics that will make my dad proud. 
I also take some time to publicly thank my wife Corinne. I met Corinne Denis—as she was then—when she was 16 years old and had just left school with School Certificate English and typing. She started in a law firm as the boss’s secretary typing his letters and papers. She actually became interested in what she was typing and started her legal education from there. Seventeen years and many many exams later she is now a fully-fledged partner in that same law firm having been the Mayoress of Wellington and the mother of our daughter Kendra as well. I am in awe of her and what she has done. She is a role model and an inspiration for me and many many others. I am very proud of her and I do not tell her often enough. So thank you. I am delighted my daughter Kendra is here tonight. I will talk a little bit more about her later on. 
I want to thank Don Brash and Judy Kirk for welcoming me to the National Party. I want to thank the members of Parliament from the National Party old and new who have given me advice and support throughout the campaign and since the election. I would like to record my thanks to the many people who gave their time effort and support to my campaign. In particular I would like to thank Patricia Morrison David Farrar and the team who worked bloody hard to help me. It is nice to see so many of them here tonight. I also want to thank my executive assistant Susan Palmer who has my office running so smoothly that I fear it will take me months to catch up with it. Finally I must also thank the National Party delegates who gave me the decent list ranking which was just as well as it turned out. 
I stand in this House proud to be a member of Parliament and proud to be a Wellingtonian. When I say I want to be a voice for Wellington in the Chamber I mean it. This is not just the city where I live; this is a city I do deeply love. To me it is the best place to live work love and play anywhere in the world. It is a city that is absolutely positively thriving. Every day I stand on one of my balconies and look out over the inner city of Wellington—the heart of Wellington. I can almost feel the pulse of the city. I feel like I can almost touch the spirit of the city. People live everywhere in the city now—in buildings old and new. They live in little developments that even long-term Wellingtonians have never heard of or are unaware of. They do make the city what it is. 
However it is important to recognise that Wellington is not just a city of James K Baxter’s public servants. Wellington cannot be seen as just a Government town—Wellington needs new business too. Start-up companies and new businesses are what will keep Wellington growing. But one main constraint facing businesses is the cost and availability of office space. Demand from the public sector is making space in the city increasingly difficult to obtain. I actually found that out myself. During the campaign I was actually forced to move from my campaign office because the building I was in had just been leased by a Government department. That was almost a little too ironic even for me. 
Reservations about the size of the public service are nothing new. At one stage in our nation’s history the entire public service was housed in the old Government Buildings just down the road. In the course of preparing my speech as many have done before me I read the maiden statements of a wide variety of parliamentarians. One quote on this subject particularly struck me. It read: “… many of us express anxiety about the growth of the public sector … which we must control and even reduce.” I suspect—and the new razor gang may even agree—that those words are as true today as when they were spoken in 1979 by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
I firmly believe that life is a series of learnings. At every stage in our lives—at work with our families in our community or at home—there are lessons to be learnt if only we are open to those learnings. Over the years I have worked in a wide variety of industries with a huge array of talented and dedicated people. From the shoe industry Hannah’s and Mischief I learnt the importance of customer satisfaction and how to put myself in the other person’s shoes when trying to find a solution to a specific problem. As Mayor of Wellington I learnt the importance of leadership and the power of pride and attitude in making a change. From my work at the high-growth start-up incubator Creative HQ I saw and understood the power of inspiration and entrepreneurship. From my community work with the Wellington Free Ambulance and the Mary Potter Hospice I learnt so much about the strength of people and the strength of families in times of need and the impact and importance of volunteers. All those learnings will help shape my decision making in Parliament. 
The challenge in Parliament is to speak in terms of vision—what caused me to stand for Parliament. I want to set out my vision of New Zealand’s future and in doing so I can assure members that I am acutely aware of my place as a back-bench Opposition MP and part of a very large and very talented National Party class of 2005. I recognise my situation but I am here to make a difference. 
I am a naturally positive person but I am concerned at the way New Zealand is drifting. It is more of a drift than a conscious move but the trend is serious. As I look at New Zealand I do worry about our national attitude. When faced with a challenge too many Kiwis are saying “No” too early and too often. We need to be saying: “I think I can. Let me just think a little bit as to how.” Why are we now looking at things so negatively? We need to start teaching and talking with a positive attitude. We cannot be accepting of mediocrity or hostile to success. We seem to be lacking pride but accumulating cynicism. We seem to be moving away from self-reliance to an attitude that the world owes us a living. Young people are the future of this country yet too often their aspiration is replaced by apathy. 
To an extent I saw many of those traits in Wellington when I became mayor. I made it my priority to change that attitude. I promoted positivity pride big ideas innovation creativity and fun—and it worked too. Once the attitude changed the city could change. We could redevelop and grow and as a result Wellington has changed. We have Wellingtonians who are proud of their city acting as ambassadors to the rest of the country and the rest of the world. It is not actually a naturally Kiwi trait to be overtly proud of one’s city but somehow we made it work. I want to know why we cannot take that attitude nationally. We prove every day that our bands films food software wine fashion sport books beer and drama are world-class. Yet at home we seem to lack a national aspiration—a national attitude. 
 We need to wake up as a country and stand tall. Right now we have an education system that discourages kids from striving to excel. Right now we have a welfare system that discourages parents from working too hard to get ahead. Right now we are institutionalising the attitude that we should not stretch or strive to succeed and that we should do only what is absolutely necessary to get by. Right now we are telling ourselves and the world that this truly is as good as it gets. That is what John Key eloquently called the “Poverty of expectation and ambition” in his maiden speech just 3 years ago. We need to develop a national attitude that celebrates success supports hard work encourages excellence and demonstrates positivity and pride. I am becoming increasingly convinced that a new flag will be needed to reflect this new attitude—it may well be just the catalyst we need. 
I stood for the National Party because I believe that it has a mix of policies and leadership most likely to make the necessary changes to our attitude as a country. National is the party most likely to make New Zealand the place I want for my daughter—for the next generation. I stand for a New Zealand that has less government more business lower taxes and a better attitude. We as politicians should provide the environment where people and families and companies and cities can thrive. 
In this term I intend to work hard for the people of Wellington in order to earn their support at the next election in under 3 years’ time. I will be a voice for Wellington in Wellington. There are a number of Wellington issues that I wish to advance on behalf of Wellingtonians. We need to see progress on Transmission Gully. We need to see it now; it is necessary. Wellington needs more police. As part of the many agreements in place to cobble together a Government there is a promise of a 1000 new police in 3 years’ time. Be under no illusion Wellington needs its share. Out at the airport it is vital that the new generation Boeing 787 jets are able to land in Wellington. These planes represent the future of travel and Wellington simply cannot afford to be left out of that loop. Another reality is that there are simply too many councils in the Wellington region. It is hopeless. As an example I am not convinced that the needs of Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt are so different that they need completely different councils. We need to look seriously at some level of local government amalgamation. 
Finally I am convinced that we need to find some innovative ways of protecting Wellington from disruptive and abusive vagrants. It is simply not good enough for staff and customers at a Wellington cafe at 8.30 on a Tuesday morning to be abused by a vagrant who is high on drugs alcohol or methylated spirits. As a Wellington MP I will lead a response to this problem. Businesses are hurting. We need to solve the problem now. 
In conclusion my vision is a Wellington and a New Zealand that our children want to live in. Like 61640 other Kiwis Mark Blumsky Shane Jones Don Brash Jo Goodhew Damien O’Connor and Heather Roy all have children around 12 or 13 years of age—going on 18 if they are like Kendra. Most of us do what we do in Parliament for our children. MPs contrary to popular belief are not usually in it for themselves. I have entered politics to make a difference for my girl Kendra. I want her to learn and live and love. I want her to travel the world. I want her to want to come back home to New Zealand—to a good job to choices to safety to a clean environment and to a good education system that has marks. Ronald Reagan was at his best when he said: “Each generation sees farther than the generation that preceded it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You’re going to have opportunities beyond anything that we’ve ever known.” 
I want Kendra to have those opportunities. I want all young New Zealanders to have those opportunities because they deserve them. They deserve a New Zealand that does not force them to stay. They deserve a New Zealand that does not bribe them to stay. They deserve a New Zealand they want to live in. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker I want to start this Address in Reply speech by congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and Madam Speaker on her election. I have great confidence that this House will be well-led and well-organised and I am sure that as we all gather to make this respectful Address in Reply to the Governor-General on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne New Zealanders will get some taste of what the next 3 years will include. 
We had a very positive Speech from the Throne in which this Government set out what it intends to achieve in the next 3 years to consolidate the major work it has done over the last 6 years. We also recognise that there are major challenges ahead. Indeed we have to bring New Zealand back together in a way that we have not been challenged to do since the 1980s. I found the last election campaign to be nastier and more divisive than any I have participated in. After seeing the level of personal abuse of candidates through the campaign—often from anonymous sources—and after seeing the level of aggravation in the House in the last couple of days I think we are in for a pretty rough ride as New Zealanders. As the mover of this debate Shane Jones said at the centre of this Government we have a passionate belief in mainstream New Zealanders and in the decency and the values that hold us together in our families in our communities and as a nation. 
I am delighted to say that in Auckland Central 45.2 percent of the people who voted—and over 5000 more people voted in this election than in the last one—voted for Labour. That was a huge vote of confidence in the direction offered to Auckland by a Labour Government—and Auckland is New Zealand’s major international city. As I often say around New Zealand if Auckland is not moving well and effectively for the whole of New Zealand then our children and grandchildren will have to look for jobs in cities in Australia Asia North America South America or Europe. Auckland must work well for New Zealanders and I am proud to say that we received a huge vote of confidence in Auckland for this Government. 
I want to congratulate the other parties and I say to the member who has just sat down that I am not sure which party he was most recently in—whether it was the National Party or United Future. But I am delighted to be working in a confidence and supply arrangement with United Future New Zealand First and Jim Anderton’s Progressive and in association with the Greens. I believe that this Government does represent the broad range of values of mainstream New Zealanders and I acknowledge the disappointment which many people in my electorate have expressed that the Greens are not part of that arrangement. But as Rod Donald said when I spoke with him: “We didn’t get enough votes.” This Government is profoundly democratic and we have formed a Government that will work for New Zealanders and represent mainstream concerns. 
I want to talk a little about what this Government has done in Auckland and what the Speech from the Throne has foreshadowed. Our major work over the last 6 years has been around transport around a sustainable city’s work to develop sustainable public transport and good roading networks that work in with each other and connect up with public transport and around an environment where we have clean air and quality water available as well as energy. We are looking at the major infrastructure issues but we are also considering the people who live in Auckland. There are major programmes that are looking at youth development training and opportunities for young people to get the trades so as to get the technical capacities as well as to get the broader education they need. 
We have done a huge amount of work in economic development in Auckland and I am delighted to see the recent Treasury report that says that Auckland is indeed pulling its weight on an economic basis. It could work better. It could work in a more productive way but in terms of the hours worked Aucklanders are working extremely hard for Auckland and New Zealand. 
I also want to spend some time on what the Government has done in the creative industries because that is a vital part of what we are doing in Auckland. I first of all congratulate the member from the National Party who preceded me in this debate on his words about film. I want to give some credit to this Government which put $22 million into film 5½ years ago. We have since seen the best films that have ever been made in New Zealand and I am quite blasé about putting out an ad: if people have not seen  
The World’s Fastest Indian 
 they should go and see it. It is a fabulous New Zealand film of a fabulous New Zealand story. It is told by a New Zealander who has come back to New Zealand after being away for 30 years. There are thousands of people like Roger Donaldson who have something important to contribute to this country and under this Government they are having the opportunity to do that. I am delighted to say that the Film Commission in its latest report tells me that from that $22 million investment we have already seen $75 million of clear return. That is investment in jobs in opportunities and—as people in the tourism industry all around New Zealand say—in advertising and branding for New Zealand. 
I am delighted to see what this Government has been able to do not just in film but also in music. We have doubled the amount of New Zealand music being broadcast which means we have doubled the income of New Zealand musicians over the last 6 years. Toi Maori Aotearoa took a Maori visual arts exhibition to San Francisco to rave reviews. We saw the tourism potential in doing that but we are also seeing real jobs for New Zealanders across the communities of New Zealand and in our cities. 
This Government has foreshadowed that we will be looking at artists’ resale rights and a number of other efforts to protect and improve the incomes of artists in dance kapahaka drama and the performing arts generally. I am proud and excited to see what we have done in building infrastructure around New Zealand museums and galleries which again provide real jobs in tourism and in communities. These are real jobs with good incomes that this Government is delivering. I am excited to see what is happening in schools with the arts curriculum and with the development of training in all of those arts and creative industries which is where the jobs of the future will be. 
I am proud to say that this Government is working in this area under the leadership of the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Rt Hon Helen Clark for many reasons but I want to explain to Parliament that we are doing this because it is about our children’s stories and our grandparents’ stories. It is about who we are and how we describe our nation. It is about a multicultural country built on a bicultural base examining the issues around identity and culture. It is about how we have that debate across families communities and generations and about how we represent ourselves internationally. It is also about jobs and exports. It is about tourism and about economic return. I went to an exhibition last night  
Exposure 
 by Massey University’s transport design school in Auckland. It is proposing to transform the car industry and the boatbuilding industry and those people recognise that the work that this Government has done in those design task forces in that economic area was given credit by many people out there. 
I am proud to be part of a Government that was elected by a country that rejected the biggest bribe that we have seen since Rob Muldoon. The bribe of $3.9 billion was not enough to buy New Zealand because people did not trust the National Party led by Don Brash. The racism bribery homophobia nasty personal attacks and intolerance that I saw in this election campaign should make the other side ashamed. That bribery nearly worked until Don Brash described Helen Clark as not being mainstream. That is when Auckland completely turned off having a National Government. Unless one knows one’s own policy and one’s own people—and unless one is proud to stand up for New Zealand’s economy community and people—now and for the future the National Party will never be the Government. I am very proud to be part of the third term of a Labour-led Government. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This afternoon I joined New Zealand unionists outside the Australian High Commission to express the solidarity of the Green Party with those in Australia resisting the repressive anti-union legislation being pushed through by the Howard Government. The attack on union rights in Australia is part of a more general attack on human rights in that country with much-criticised anti-terror legislation also going through the Australian Parliament. The Green Party this parliamentary term will continue to be an internationalist party working with Green parties overseas to deal with global problems and expressing our support for those who are suffering—from Zimbabwe to West Papua from Tibet to Australia. 
Today we are standing alongside the Australian people including our fellow Australian Greens against legislation that takes away long-held union rights and against anti-terror legislation that betrays the centuries-old right of habeas corpus. Under John Howard’s anti-terror legislation people can be subject to house arrest or electronically tagged for up to a year without any charges being laid. Police will be able to impose shorter periods of preventive detention for terror suspects. Of course John Howard tries to sell that legislation as being necessary to confront a terrorist threat and with exquisite timing for Mr Howard some terror suspects have now been arrested. However the proposed new laws were not necessary to arrest those people and the introduction of this legislation is counterproductive. As an Australian Islamic community leader Keyser Trad said last month: “It’s just going to cause greater antagonism amongst Muslims and ironically could be used to justify a terror act.” 
Muslims in Australia feel under siege today and we do not want to see that happen here. We have a much more tolerant climate in New Zealand. Tomorrow there will be a celebration in Parliament marking the end of Ramadan—a month of prayer and positive reflection; one of whose themes is peace. However we cannot rest on our laurels. Prejudice towards Muslims is a by-product of the so-called war on terror spearheaded by the Bush administration and implemented in a repressive legislative form by George Bush’s allies particularly John Howard and Tony Blair. 
 We have some bad legislation of our own such as the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 that is now being reviewed by this Parliament. One of the goals of the Green Party this term will be to prevent us from following the British and Australian lead in introducing even more draconian anti-terror legislation. We hope the Government will resist the pressure of some hard-line officials like Assistant Police Commissioner Jon White who said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 19 August that he was watching the new Australian legislation and was worried that “New Zealand was a little way behind.” 
A second and related goal of the Green Party will be to promote racial and religious tolerance particularly towards Muslim people whose religion has been so negatively portrayed by such people as the leader of New Zealand First Winston Peters. Associated with this we will be trying to get people to understand the roots of small group terrorism of the al-Qaeda type. That has nothing to do with religion itself but very unfortunately it draws adherents out of the political social and economic crisis and injustice suffered by many people in the Islamic world particularly in places like Palestine. 
Thirdly we will try to get New Zealand to play a greater part in addressing these political social and economic problems. In the Middle East an essential ingredient in any such solutions is the withdrawal of the foreign occupying troops from Palestine and Iraq. We want New Zealand to be a peacemaker in the world beyond what we have already done in places like the Solomons and Bougainville in the Pacific. Under the Green-Labour post-election agreement we will be working out ways to progress this. To be successful we need to be seen to be pulling our weight in overseas development assistance and we are pleased that the Green-Labour agreement also prescribes an increase in New Zealand’s overseas aid. 
New Zealanders can crow about the economic boom that this country has seen in recent years but much of the world is in bad shape. This morning the  
New Zealand Herald  
reported that the number of rich non-Western countries had fallen from 19 in 1960 to nine today. It reported that overall downward mobility of countries was more common than upward mobility. It stated further that the market reforms may drive growth but that this tends to favour those already blessed with access to capital and other advantages—namely the already rich countries. The Greens as internationalists aim to get New Zealand and this Parliament to address such critical problems. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 First of all I want to say thank you to all those members of the public who voted for the Green Party at the last election. It was a very difficult election for our communities and we sincerely appreciate the support. We will continue to do the work that we were originally elected to Parliament to do and have continued for a number of years now. 
I am very proud of the Greens and the negotiations that were conducted after the election. We played a very straight and fair game. We were one of the few political parties—indeed perhaps the only political party—that truly played a transparent straight and fair game. I am very proud that we did so. Although the results for us and for large numbers of New Zealanders who voted both for the Labour Party and for the Green Party were very disappointing nonetheless the Greens have obtained a good-quality agreement that has enabled us and will enable us to get real policy initiatives through. That is after all the point of our being here. I am very proud of us for what we managed to achieve under those circumstances. 
For me it is a real privilege to be responsible for the environmental education part of our agreement with the Labour Government and to be responsible for that project as a whole from the Green Party perspective. Environmental education is truly a transformative issue. This has been recognised in our country by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in his report  
See Change: Learning and education for sustainability 
 and also by the United Nations. This year is in fact the first year of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Therefore we are part of a global international movement to build environmental education truly into the curriculum and the activities of our young people so that we will have a real environmental sustainable future. 
That part of the agreement builds on a previous Green Budget bid that enables resource people in teachers’ colleges and colleges of education. It builds on not just the money that we achieved those few years ago but also the community volunteers who have a massive environmental passion for environmental education and local government support to provide support for schools to develop environmental education in their curriculum and with their children. Certainly the Enviroschools Programme which was established by the Enviroschools Foundation is enormously successful with many tens of schools involved in Enviroschools and increasingly kura kaupapa is being a part of that project as well. It is an enormously fantastic development and it goes to show that communities really can make real change. 
The Green Party wants to see in that project much greater and more secure support for schools teachers and children making sure that they have access to the financial resources to promote and support environmental education in schools. There needs to be much better coordination of the logistics and policy support for environmental education across the curriculum across schools so that all schools and all children can have access to quality resources. In particular a personal passion of mine is the development of reo support so that more kura kohanga reo and wananga are able to be part of the Enviroschools Programme to develop resources for them for environmental education that truly recognise and reflect kaitiakitanga—the tikanga of Maori the indigenous people of this country—in environmental education and for that to flow on into the mainstream schools as well so that those values are part of our environmental understanding. 
Children need information and skills if they are to grow into responsible caring adults who recognise the limitations on our planet. Environmental education is the No. 1 key way of making sure that happens. It is about building strong personal responsibility in every young person to make sure they understand their personal connection to the world around them. It is about them recognising the power of collective action—that together with their personal responsibility and that of others they can make a real difference to the world around them. Finally it is about instilling in them the deepest respect for the limits of our environment to provide for us so that they are able to ensure that our environment will continue to provide for us all well into the future. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 The first thing I want to do tonight is to acknowledge the two previous speakers the great things they said and their commitment not only to the environment but to workers’ rights—to all the things that the Labour Party holds dear. I think it is really important that we stand and acknowledge the things that are happening. 
I also want to acknowledge our previous speakers from the Labour Party—Shane Jones and Sue Moroney—who I think did us proud in the House tonight. They stood and spoke about the things that they hold dear the things that made them want to stand for Parliament and the things that they want to represent their people on. I felt a real pride when I heard what they talked about today. I cannot go past acknowledging Sue Moroney who comes from a racing background like myself. I see my friend over there in the Opposition Lindsay Tisch; he is probably not quite from the same area. The Moroneys train horses and I think Lindsay Tisch and I have more to do with the riding side of things. We are a little bit disadvantaged in the height stakes. 
But I also know that they acknowledged Helen Duncan in their speeches. I think that was a wonderful thing that Sue Moroney did. I want to take a little time to acknowledge all that Helen Duncan did. She was here to represent workers to represent families and to represent all the things that she holds dear. It was really wonderful for us on this side of the House to hear her recognised in such a wonderful way today. 
It is time now to reflect on my first term because I am coming into my second term as the MP for Waitakere. I was really happy to win that seat again. It is time to reflect on what our Government has achieved in that time. There have been many achievements but I want to talk about the things that are special to me. We know that under this Government we have had the best job prospects in decades. We have the lowest unemployment rate we have had for years. We see training in skills. Our initiatives are really coming to fruition. If we look at other countries or if we look at Paris at the moment we see young people who do not have those opportunities. They are dispossessed. We can compare that with the opportunities and the success stories that we see with our young people. 
 Very recently I attended the Gateway programme in Waitakere and I was very disappointed not to see any members of the Opposition there. John Key did not manage to get there. However it was really great for me as one of the local members to represent my colleagues David Cunliffe and Chris Carter and my former colleague John Tamihere and to see the success of those young people in getting into training and skills. The uptake was the biggest ever from the Gateway programme and the reason that it has been a major success is not just the result of what the Government has put in but also because of the way that people—the stakeholders the employers the schools the parents and the young people—have embraced it and are moving forward with it. There have been major successes in that area. 
Then I went to the prize-giving at Massey High School. Again John Key could not make it. I do not know what he was doing that night but it was wonderful to see that celebration of success—a multicultural plethora of young people going forward and succeeding. Those are things we can celebrate. They represent a real future for our young people. I have talked before about apprenticeships. We are looking at there being no interest on student loans not only while young people are training and studying but also when they graduate. 
Now we are looking towards the future. Homeownership is not a dream but a reality with our savings incentive of $1000 upfront to encourage saving. We encourage that. After 5 years of saving towards a deposit for a home the Government will give people $1000 for every year they have saved. That is absolutely wonderful. It equates to $10000 per couple after 5 years of saving. That is good news for young people and it is good news for New Zealand. 
Let us look at early childhood education. There will be 20 free hours of quality early childhood education for every 3 and 4-year-old in New Zealand by 2007. There is a bit of self-interest here: I just may be a grandmother in a few years’ time. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Go on! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I know that Lindsay Tisch probably is a grandad and Wayne Mapp too. They certainly look as though they are. But I know we will all be celebrating for our young children because we know that early childhood education gives a real basis to achieving later in life. 
We have talked about the support for Working for Families. The Working for Families package will put much more money into the pockets of families with children. Families who earn from $45000 up to $70000 a year will benefit from that package. We know that if we invest in families our country will thrive and do well in the future. We know that we stand really proud on the world stage. 
I can see members of the Opposition looking kind of desperate. They are hanging their heads in shame. What I see when I look at them is New Zealand’s own answer to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Is that how I say his name? Members know the guy I mean—the one with rippling muscles. We have our own PC eradicator. Intellectually Wayne Mapp is exactly—perhaps he is not quite up to scratch—at about the same level as Arnold but the rippling muscles have yet to come. He does not look like an eradicator. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He looks like a plonker. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: A member is saying that he looks like a plonker. I would not be as rude as that. At the moment Wayne Mapp does not— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The word the member used is I think unparliamentary. Maybe the member could explain what she actually meant by using that word in referring to the good Dr Wayne Mapp. We know he is the eradicator but the word the member used is I think unparliamentary. Maybe she could use a different word. 
Rodney Hide 
: If we are to start saying that this word or that word is unparliamentary then it is getting a bit precious is it not? The word “plonker” is not unparliamentary; it has not been ruled out as being unparliamentary. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The issue has been raised. We will move on. Thank you for raising it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I will try to refrain from being too robust; the member is obviously a little sensitive. As I said intellectually Dr Mapp may not be quite there. I think he is almost at the same level as Arnold intellectually.I have big hopes for Wayne Mapp’s future in terms of the rippling muscle department—if the member would stand up I would not see it as an interruption—but we know that the member is not quite there yet. There have been rumours that he has been pumping down at the gym. We support that. Already we are seeing the buttons on that shirt just slightly straining—I am not talking about around the abdomen; I am talking about those biceps and chest muscles. We are looking forward to seeing that. 
But seriously what does eradicating political correctness really mean? It really means getting rid of the things that we hold dear and that we see as progress. The same thing happened under the Employment Contracts Act—suddenly “union” became a dirty word. That is what is happening with regard to political correctness now. I ask members what we have if we do not have political correctness. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Common sense. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is quite novel. I look back to the time when I was brought up. I know that kids adults and families were made to feel less than whole because of something that was perceived as being different about them. It might have been that they were Maori or of a different ethnicity—they might have been Indian or Chinese. It might have been that they came from a single-parent family. It might have been that they were gay. It might have been that they were elderly. It might have been that they belonged to a union. It might have been that they were low-income earners etc. etc. 
I do not know whether Dr Mapp has taken a call yet but I ask him to really explain what is so wrong about being inclusive in a society. I ask him what is so sexy about making anyone who does not fit in with the National view of the world or of the mainstream so wrong. It is a cheap shot and I know it has now become a slight embarrassment to the National Party. 
Steve Chadwick 
: A huge embarrassment! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: A huge embarrassment. 
MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker it is very good to see you back in the Chair—in fact it is very good to see that particular team back in the Chair working with us to make an effective Parliament. 
The most recent election was an honest debate in some ways—probably the most honest election we have had in years. Once we cleared the decks of racism mainstreaming and other illiberal sideshows and once we exposed the strange behaviour of Dr Brash and the secretive support by the Exclusive Brethren we got down to the kernel of what determines the differences between the two main political approaches—thank you Greens—in New Zealand politics. It goes like this: how much do we gather into the community pool and how much do we leave to individuals to pay for themselves? The debate very clearly came down to that—it certainly did in Wellington Central. 
In simple terms when we come to this Chamber we do two to three tasks: we make laws for the community so that we can get some order in our lives we raise taxes and we decide how those taxes are spent. In New Zealand we are mostly agreed that the community not the individual pays for much of our education health care safety and security and infrastructure—roads rail power generation and power transmission. In respect of education in New Zealand it is generally accepted—in compulsory schooling anyway—that the State provides the basics. Even in tertiary education the State still provides I think about 70 percent of the cost of tertiary provision. Less than 3 percent of our students are in private schools; we can compare that with Australia’s 30 percent. Again in terms of health we expect the State or the community to help to pay for our secondary and tertiary health care. In infrastructure individuals do not pay for the rail-track or the roads—the community does. 
Yet the National Party advocated during the election that there was money sloshing around in those basic areas. National members argued—and this is really strange—that as there was money sloshing around we should send it back out to the individual in tax returns. Yet their friends send children to private schools and they wanted that 3 percent to be supported with more money from the community than the current Government provides. So they argued for support for the 3 percent of students in private schools. At the same time they ignored the 3000 extra teachers above roll growth who went into classrooms. National called that at times “false” and “an expanding public service”. National ignored the fact that that public service consisted of more teachers more and better-paid nurses and more people working on the border—better border security. Instead National said that it was an amorphous expanding public service. 
While National MPs talk of excellence as against mediocrity—and I would have to say to Mr Groser that I did not expect to hear clichés from him—they ignore the increase in early childhood education which leads to a reduction in illiteracy to more productivity and to a better start for all children. We in Labour will remove the barriers to early childhood education. We will provide 20 hours’ free early childhood education a week. While the National members may talk of excellence that was not the tertiary model that the previous National Government left us; it left us a model of quantity of “bums on seats” and of those equivalent full-time students generating the income—a market model. It was not a model of quality. It was not a model of differentiation. It was not a model of excellence. 
National left us without apprenticeships which is an excellent example. It said that it was up to the individual plumber to train the next generation—a very difficult job to do. The Labour Government had to come in and create Modern Apprenticeships and to work with the industry training organisations so that the community responded to the glaring gap in skills training. That is the difference: to individualise—to leave it to individual plumbers to replace themselves—or to work as a community. That is what the last election was about. 
But it is very easy to tell the voters that there is money sloshing around in public community funds and that it is there to be individualised by reducing taxes. That shows a basic misunderstanding of the business demographics of New Zealand. It is to apply a model gleaned from societies with large businesses and corporations rather than from New Zealand’s very high percentage of small businesses that employ less than five or 10 people. A large company with hundreds of thousands of employees can pay for research. A large company can mount overseas trade delegations. A large company can punt and explore in the international market place. But the small local business in Upper Hutt or Petone cannot do that. Those businesses have to do it either very cleverly or with community support. 
Small enterprises depend on community financial support to move from small to medium size. Small enterprises need efficient effective roads they need an energy supply they need international airlines—that is why we stepped in—and they need a skilled and healthy workforce. In the past small enterprises in New Zealand have shown us that they work together. That is the basis of the dairy co-ops. By working together they built up research and markets. It was not done by an individual farmer taking his or her round of cheese over to England all by himself or herself.That was cooperation. And New Zealanders thank God understood that. They rejected the bribe. They rejected individualisation and plumped for communal support for each other. But they do have an eagle eye for waste and they do want improvement. And they do want protection be it in biosecurity—for example protection from bird flu—or protection from violence or from terrorism and Labour will deliver that. 
I did not enter Parliament for individual power and think that is quite obvious from my standing aside from a Cabinet position. I entered Parliament in order to keep building a healthier more thoughtful and more peaceful society. I wanted to work with others to do that. I come from the heritage in New Zealand that values people working together to achieve that. The reality of those on the Opposition side of the House may be one that says: “You believe you can do it; we believe that we can do it all on our own.” They believe that they do not need their colleagues. That is why it is always so exciting in the National caucus. Those members believe that they alone have all the insights and all the solutions and that they can pay for all they need outside of the community pot—private schooling private health-care private rubbish removal private research and private marketing. But our social make-up in this small society says that we do better when we cooperate—when we collaborate. We are competitive but not against each other in this small society. We are a competitive force in the world. We support our sports our arts our products and our designs and we want them to be the best in the world. To do that we need to work together. 
During the last election Dr Brash wanted to complete the individualisation that was begun by Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson and I heard mention of that again tonight from Tim Groser. New Zealanders rejected it—even with a tax cut bribe. That was what made me so happy on election night. I felt I was a part of the community particularly in the 69 percent red/green Wellington. That is a city where citizens work together. It is a city where there is much private philanthropy particularly in the arts but it is also a city where individuals contribute many many small amounts in order to create a large community good. An example of that is the Karori sanctuary or the frigate  
Wellington 
 which has just been sunk. That frigate was financed in the beginning by the community’s taxes—at both ends of its life. The project to sink the frigate was led by a vibrant and an exhausting Marco Zeeman but he did not do it alone. He built a team and he won the support of volunteers of local government and of central government. 
I am very proud to be part of that approach to our society and that is what we will continue to build over the next 3 years. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.