Stewart Barbara: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Stewart Barbara: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3438] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be monitoring the Government’s progress in asset testing closely and will be bringing any lack of progress to the attention of the people of New Zealand. New Zealand First has been pushing for a law change for many years in this area and we will continue to push on that front. The Labour-led Government let the elderly down in its last term by failing to deliver on its promise of removing asset testing for those elderly who need long-stay geriatric hospital care services. The Government has made these promises to get votes not in one but two elections and now cannot afford to stall any longer. Action is required on these issues as soon as possible. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The Prime Minister’s statement to this House last Tuesday clearly demonstrated that this is a Government that has a clear economic and social programme for New Zealand to go into the 21st century. That programme understands that our well-being as a people and as a country is dependent upon fostering those uniquely New Zealand characteristics of fairness when dealing with others equitable access to and distribution of resources of the country and of course support and encouragement for those people who are prepared to have a go—or as it is sometimes referred to in policy papers innovation and risk-taking.  
The statement also showed that this is a Government that does what it promises and thereby provides people with confidence and security. New Zealanders know where they stand with this Government and that is why they support it—unlike the National Party which is yet to overcome its identity crisis and start acting like a political party. However in fairness I must note that Mr English did acknowledge that this is a hard-working productive Government and that it will be rewarded for its efforts with another term in Government at least.  
I also detected in Mr English’s speech what I understand the psychologists call transference—that is he tried to make the argument that Labour is a tired divided caucus searching for direction. When the evidence is clearly stacked against him on this matter one must ask what he is really talking about. It is his own caucus of course. I can tell him that wishing it on to the Labour caucus will not make the agonies of splits and divisions in the National caucus go away. It will only prolong them until the inevitable happens and there is a change of leader and the hard work of listening to New Zealanders with an open mind to form a policy begins inside the National Party. As one who lived through a period of divisiveness inside a Labour caucus I can assure Mr English that as always he does not know what he is talking about. He is merely uttering his own fantasies but that will not make them reality.  
Although it is not the role of the Government to assist the Leader of the Opposition in one respect I think it is important to do so. Mr English has suddenly become uncertain as to what is meant by citizenship and whether there is one standard of citizenship. I want to assure Mr English that there is only one standard of citizenship. If he is uncertain as to what that means he should look at the Citizenship Act of 1977. Sections 6 7 and 8 of that Act clearly set out what it means to be a New Zealand citizen. I shall not matronise the member by reading out the sections. However it is clear that if a criterion is fulfilled through birth descent or grants one gains New Zealand citizenship. Further as  
Butterworth’s New Zealand Law Dictionary 5th Edition 
 states to be a citizen is to be a full member of a civil community who enjoys certain privileges in that community and is subject to certain obligations. It goes on to state that the status of New Zealand citizenship may be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act.  
In a legal sense the status of citizenship in reality attracts few rights and obligations and they relate mainly to participation in the democratic process. As some members of this House are only too aware to be a member one must be a citizen. However to vote one needs to be a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident. Increasingly we find that people can now hold dual citizenship which raises the question of what exactly is Mr English talking about when he talks of citizenship. If he wants to debate this issue—and we on this side of the House are very happy to engage in such a debate—then he should define his terms and stop shouting meaningless rhetorical slogans. I also remind the member that some of us treat these issues very seriously. We are aware of how important and precious it is to be able to participate in the democratic process and within the public life of this country. Labour members follow in the tradition of those who fought long and hard for the right to vote as individuals regardless of what property we owned and regardless of what our gender or race was. We take these issues seriously. Therefore we are prepared to debate with those who obviously do not.  
I want to take this opportunity also to congratulate the Prime Minister on that section in the statement that affirms the Government’s commitment to make available more information about the Treaty of Waitangi so that we can have an informed debate. I can only endorse and agree with her statement that it is unfortunate that so many of us know so little about this aspect of our country’s history and how it relates to the nation we are building. As the Prime Minister noted at a minimum the Treaty of Waitangi enables two peoples to coexist. At the maximum it provided the basis for the building of a relationship of respect and recognition that can endure down through the generations. I believe that it was in that positive spirit that she said that we must continue to build our unique and special nation that is now the home to the peoples of many lands.  
I fail to understand why as a country and as a people we do not celebrate the truly unique achievement of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is the envy of so many countries that seek to find ways to reconcile racial and cultural difference in ways of peaceful coexistence. As a country we were born not from conquest but through an agreement. While agreement I know does not always suit the temperament of those who wish to dominate others this Government believes that the well-being of us all as a people depends on the reconciliation of difference through the recognition that there are matters that bind us together as one people. That is the real stuff of citizenship. That is where the debate should be.  
I have noted that some ACT members seem to find it amusing or funny that the document upon which this country was founded by agreement—the treaty—should be still alive and well. I know they have trouble with their own corpses remaining dead but I can assure them that in fact we believe as a Government that the treaty is a living document; it is relevant and it is meaningful and those who wish to give meaning to that document through their actions will be those who will create the sort of country in which we can all be proud to live.