Jones Dail: Financial Review Debate 
Jones Dail: Financial Review Debate 
[Volume:607;Page:4180] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I took this call because no other member in this House seemed to be interested in doing so. I appreciate New Zealand First’s opportunity to have another speech in this debate—a speech that was not “budgeted” for which seems to be the appropriate phrase. As I understood it a member from the United Future party was supposed to speak but he or she was not prepared to take the call and has obviously given it away. United Future has failed to support its Government partner. It seems to have kicked the bucket as far as this bill is concerned. New Zealand First is well and truly here in this House. We had a slight lull but can New Zealand First fix it? Yes we can! We were here to fill the slot left by United Future’s failure to take the call. 
Of course it is probably not surprising that we were able to take the slot because from what I have heard from the United Future speakers in this debate so far they have not really considered the bill. New Zealand First speakers in the debate certainly have. Brian Donnelly spoke earlier on speaking as usual in his very fulsome way about education. I am sure there is no one in this House who knows as much about education in New Zealand as does Brian Donnelly a New Zealand First member of Parliament—and I take into account the Minister of Education. Brian Donnelly’s speeches are well prepared well delivered and clearly of a superior intellectual content compared with those of the Minister of Education—which would not be very difficult. I am sure we would never find Brian Donnelly with an empty Heineken bottle. He would be much more cultured than that. 
The next speech from New Zealand First was from Mr Pita Paraone who is one of our party’s six Maori members of Parliament. Bearing in mind that there are 13 Maori members of Parliament I point out that six of them belong to New Zealand First and Mr Pita Paraone is one of them. He spoke on matters of health as referred to in the bill and on housing. He made a very good speech for a first-time member of Parliament. 
After that speech we heard from Mr Brent Catchpole who is an up-and-coming member of Parliament for New Zealand First and up-and-coming member of this Parliament. He really put the Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel in her place when it came to speaking about leaky homes non-weathertight homes and suchlike. He really got her going because what he said in this debate was so appropriate. This Labour Party Government has let down the families of New Zealand in so far as non-weathertight and leaky homes are concerned. 
In relation to this Appropriation Bill when we consider housing and the housing needs of New Zealanders we find we have a situation now where time and time again builders are going broke on a simple $1000 company. This is a problem. As a solicitor in practice I know that in the old days when one got an agreement for sale and purchase one did a search on the company of the vendor to see whether the company was sound. Regrettably today’s solicitors because of the pressures of conveyancing practice seem not to search to see whether the company is a $1000 company or has any substance or history. When those companies go broke it is the poor old house owner—so often a young family person with children—who carries the can. This Labour Party Government is really not interested in the homeowner. 
During the debate on this bill we have heard a lot about rental properties. We see how homeownership has been reduced from 71 percent to 67 percent; it is going down under Labour. All that Labour wants to do is put people into State houses. We see from the provisions that for example more State housing is going into the Hobsonville area. That is the future for New Zealand under a Labour Party Government—State housing. The Labour Government wants to take that lovely land at Hobsonville built up by New Zealanders in the past and bang State housing on it. It is remarkable. If we look at the history of New Zealand at around 1900 and at 2000 we see a remarkable change. Hobsonville is one of the areas that quite clearly encapsulates it. In 1900 people were working in Hobsonville in the potteries there. They earned their money they were the backbone of New Zealand they owned their own homes and they were developing things. Hobsonville was a thriving community at that stage at Limeburners Bay where I used to live for 18 years. What does Labour have in mind for Hobsonville today? State houses State dependence social welfare. That is the comparison between New Zealand as it used to be in 1900 and the way it is in 2000. Labour has no concept of people owning their own homes working and developing their future. It wants to take land that the people of New Zealand have built up over all that time and bang State houses on it. 
The other disappointing aspect is that even if one does support State housing even if one does have a social conscience the place to put State houses is where there is work. What is the point of putting someone who is eligible for a State house who probably is on an unemployment benefit or a domestic purposes benefit and is caught up in that culture in a State house where there is no work where he or she can never possibly get out of that particular frame of life? It is a tragedy but of course this Labour Government wants to make sure that people who do not have any way of getting out of that trap are even more deeply caught in the trap—putting them in places like Hobsonville where they will find it virtually impossible to get work because there is no work in Hobsonville. At the moment the only work is at the airbase. The Labour Government is closing that down. I have to say that on looking at the Quigley report I see that National was also going to close it down. That is what is happening at Hobsonville and the Labour Government is making sure that the airbase at Whenuapai closes down as well over the space of 5 years or so. 
I say on behalf of New Zealand First that if the inevitable happens and the Labour Party removes the Whenuapai base to Ohakea then clearly we must have a good look at what we can put in its place. I was very pleased to be the local member of Parliament in 1975 when there was a change of Government and that Government developed Albany. Albany was going to be a State housing area in so far as Labour was concerned in 1975. From 1975 onwards we developed Albany to be the area it is today. I was on the committee for 3 years and Don McKinnon followed me. Have members ever been to Albany to see how it has developed and all the jobs—probably 10000—that have been created there now? Members should look at the houses that have been created there now. They are high-quality homes. That is the type of development I hope to see taking place in the Whenuapai area if the airbase goes. 
I would like to see the Waitakere City Council working with local people. I was at a meeting at Whenuapai the other day. The hall was full and the meeting spilled out on to the road. Officials were there giving their opinion of what the Government is going to do. The Government’s solution for Whenuapai is to establish an officials committee to look into it. I want to see people from the area involved in that officials committee and having an input into what happens in Whenuapai. Myself as the member of Parliament for Waitemata then Don McKinnon as the member of Parliament for Albany worked to try to develop Albany away from the concept of having just State houses into one of the most thriving parts of New Zealand. I see Mr Cunliffe agreeing with me. I thank him for his agreement. He is a member for the Waitakere area. It is a pity that no Waitakere members of Parliament have spoken in this debate. It is a great shame. I would have liked to hear what they have to say about this issue. 
It is a burning issue. There are 218 hectares of land in Waitakere City at risk. We in New Zealand First want to see that land developed effectively and economically for the benefit of all New Zealanders so that everyone there can have a job can own their own house and the like as opposed to Labour policy which is clearly just to bang families into a State house give them a benefit and let the taxpayers of New Zealand carry the can. I know of no one who is living in a State house who really wants to live in a State house. I am sure most of them want to own their own home be part and parcel of the productive community of New Zealand and see their children grow up and own their homes as well. But that unfortunately is not the Labour attitude. 
Finally with regard to education I am disappointed at the size of schools like Rangitoto College with a roll of 2800 and Massey High School with a roll of 2200-odd and growing. This Labour Party Government is allowing the size of schools to get out of control. Who of us would have liked to go to a school with that number of students? When we look back at our school days at the smaller schools we attended we remember that we tended to know everybody who went there and we remember whom we went to school with. What chance do students attending a school like Rangitoto College with a roll of 2800 have of remembering that? It is not surprising that the North Shore has seen growth in the number of private schools. People want to get their children out of schools that have massive rolls. Private schools on the North Shore and I will not name them are doing very well because of this Government’s failed policy. 
I would like to thank United Future for this slot.