Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
[Volume:634;Page:5439] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise for the first time in a general debate and I am proud to do so. In doing so I am proud to be a member of the Labour Party as well because the Labour Party is the party of consistent and progressive social policy in New Zealand. Since 1999 we have kept growth high we have invested in infrastructure and in retirement savings and we have governed for all the people not just for a wealthy or privileged few. As a result we have built a mainstream—and I use that word advisedly because it is time we reclaimed it—coalition of New Zealanders. It comprises working people and their families of all descriptions: Maori Pacific peoples ethnic communities women gay and lesbian New Zealanders environmentalists disabled New Zealanders and here is the key urban liberal New Zealanders. That coalition has won us three elections in a row and if we keep our focus and our humility it will win us a fourth. That is the lesson from the recent Queensland election. No one buys our policies and there is no economic benefit for us in enacting our programme. We follow the programme because we know it is the right thing to do. It is born of our strong commitment to social justice—what one of our early leaders described as applied Christianity. 
The National Party once had a proud record of liberalism. One of its constituents was the old Liberal Party. The National Party introduced the Humans Rights Commission Act in the 1970s and it also reformed matrimonial property law. In the 1990s Doug Graham progressed Treaty settlements. So I want to know what has happened to the National Party since then? What has caused the great change? What has caused this reversion to dog-whistle politics the politics of the lowest common denominator? Where are the great liberals of the National Party of the past? [ 
Interruption 
] I wish Mr Auchinvole good luck because its future is in his hands and in those of his new colleagues. 
Let us look at the National Party’s recent record on social policy. When Bob Clarkson said the most appalling things about Islamic New Zealanders and gay and lesbian New Zealanders what was the response? The “liberal” spokesperson for National Chris Finlayson said: “Oh I agree with everything he says.” Some liberal! When Georgina Beyer introduced legislation that would have protected one of the most marginalised groups in our society—transsexual and intersex New Zealanders—what did Richard Worth supposedly another liberal on the National back bench say? He went on about cross-dressing teachers cross-dressing soldiers and cross-dressing prison officers appealing to the lowest common denominator again and forsaking and burning off that important urban liberal constituency without which it is not possible to govern in this country. 
We all know about the subliminal message given when the leader of the National Party—for the time being—talks about one law for all New Zealanders. We know what it means; we know the implicit permission it gives for racist New Zealanders to vent their prejudices on talkback and elsewhere. That is a disgrace; it is an absolute disgrace. How can Maori votes be courted while a party espouses that line? The number of urban liberal New Zealanders who have said to me they did not vote for National last time because they did not like the racist undertones of its policy is very significant. 
For our country’s sake I hope that the National Party will return to its proud tradition of liberalism because a consensus on human rights and social policy is important in a small country such as ours—a small country that has suffered unduly from the pendulum swings of policy. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I do not think this is an amusing question; I think it is a fundamental one to the health of our democracy so I would not laugh as hard as that about it. I think it is a great shame that the National Party has lost its liberal traditions and that it is now a case of “policy for sale” it would appear. That is not the case on the Labour side of the House but it is certainly the case over there. That is a very very bad thing for the National Party and a very very bad thing for New Zealand. But it is a great thing for the Labour Party because people see through this—they see through the capture of policy by big business and by weird extremist religious sects. They see through it they know what it is and they know it for what it is. Having seen it they will reject it and they will leave Labour in power for a long time.