Pillay Lynne: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Pillay Lynne: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4595] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I have to comment on all the debates and speeches except for those coming from the Government side of the House that I have heard tonight. The words “tragic” and “appalling” spring to mind. 
I will comment firstly on the young whippersnapper Simon Power who said what an old uninspiring bunch he thinks Government members may be. While he did that I saw sitting on the benches alongside him the vibrant and young exciting group of Richard Worth Anne Tolley Lockwood Smith and—last but not least—Bob what-ever-his-name-is Clarkson. I ask Bob is that right? 
Hon Member 
: The builder. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: “Bob the Builder”. We are led to believe that— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please use the correct address for members. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Mr Deputy Speaker you have correctly anticipated the objection that I was about to make in the point of order that I sought to be heard on. You have now dealt with it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I withdraw and apologise. I should not have said “Bob the Builder”; I should have said Bob Clarkson— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And Colin King. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —and Colin King. Those members are a young vibrant bunch. 
I feel a bit awful here because I also have to mention Chris Finlayson a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee who I must admit does not quite fit into the mould. He is just a little more on to it than that lot and just a teensy bit younger. But that is the face of the vibrant exciting National Party. Those are the members from whom we have heard all the criticism and who have been saying Labour is not cutting it and they have the one true way. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And you’re the first example. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Oh God here he is—“Mr Exterminator”! It is the PC exterminator and the father—if I can use that word; probably I should say “grandfather”—of the 90-day bill. That is the bill designed to help people to get into work. And how does National propose that we help people to get into work? It would make it easier to sack them. That party is so on to it! The National members say that by making it easier to sack people we will open up job opportunities. Well I know that the Maori Party said it would listen to Dr Mapp but I can see those members are over there listening attentively and thinking: “No way Jose; that is just not right.” 
 But that is enough of that because I am not into being tragic and appalling nor am I into focusing on trading in human emotions without actually providing practical solutions. That is what National is about. National makes attacks on beneficiaries. Anybody who is in any way living in hardship is deemed by that party to be not quite cutting it—to be less than whole. I ask my colleagues here whether that is whistle-stop politics. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They said it is. It is actually scratching at the sore—the nasty bits that make people think they may have a problem. Those members do not want to try to solve the problems but want to wallow in them so they can say how bad things are. That is an insult to this House it is an insult to the victims of violence it is an insult to New Zealand families and it is an insult to all New Zealanders. 
I heard one of the previous speakers talk about how bad it is that people now report cases of violence or abuse. The reporting of those cases has gone up and that is somehow seen by the Opposition to be bad. Well let us talk about that because when I was being brought up society thought—and I was led to believe—that we had no racial disharmony in our society. And that society included all the members on the Opposition benches who of course are far older than I am. At that time New Zealand society believed there was no racial disharmony no poverty no sexual abuse and no real problems of violence—and that if there were any problems then surely they were the fault of parents who were not doing their jobs properly. We know that was not the case and that there was simply a culture of not reporting those cases. No mechanisms were in place then so we could stand alongside families and say that if they had problems we would deal with them. 
Let us several decades later pick up the pieces of what was not resolved at that time—a time when young children and a number of people lived in families that did not support them and when family relationships were far from whole. People were unable to speak out then and say that what they were experiencing was not right because there was simply nowhere for them to go. The culture was one of non-acceptance and of not reporting problems. A person who was not mainstream—if I can use that term—did not count. And we hear members on the Opposition benches using that same old rhetoric about being mainstream now. They say that people who are not mainstream have failed somehow—that they are not delivering and that they are not bringing up their children properly. They say that if people are not helping themselves and require some assistance in any way then they are somehow less than whole. 
We know that is simply not the case. We know that from Charles Chauvel who earlier this evening gave his maiden speech. Charles Chauvel did not come from a privileged background. He spoke about coming from an ordinary working-class background that gave him the ability with some support to rise to what I think is the ultimate position a person can rise to today. The ultimate position a person can have today is to enter Parliament as a Labour politician. We cannot pay a greater compliment to anybody in this society than to elect him or her to this House so that he or she can advocate for working people—for ordinary Kiwis—as a Labour politician. I can see the Opposition members hanging their heads in shame because of what they advocate for. They whine grizzle and moan. They actually put situations before the House that have not been through the select committee. 
But I do not want to wallow in that; I want to talk about the achievements the hopes and the aspirations of many New Zealanders. Some of the most exciting of those are in the area of early childhood development. I absolutely cannot wait until next year when every 3 or 4 year-old in New Zealand will have early childhood education. There will be 20 free hours—the Opposition members got it wrong; I saw a press statement from them saying it was 23 hours—per week of quality teacher-driven early childhood education everywhere in New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: That’s wonderful. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is. We can add to that apprenticeships interest-free loans for students while they study and when they graduate paid parental leave rates relief for our older citizens and conservation. I see my good friend Chris Carter here. He proudly stands alongside me on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. What a proud moment it was when we stood in Waitakere and advocated for the saving of one of our country’s greatest icons. When I heard the pathetic arguments—I cannot not call them that; they were whimperings—put out by the Opposition— 
Steve Chadwick 
: Carpings. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is a good word. The carping I heard from the Opposition—and I will not even mention whom it was from—was pathetic. 
I applaud this Government. I feel very proud to be part of it and I feel really proud that we will see a number of great initiatives in the future. Thank you.