Volume 615 Week 47 - Thursday 12 February 2004 
Volume 615 Week 47 - Thursday 12 February 2004 
[Volume:615;Page:10945] 
Thursday 12 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement the first readings of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill and the Meat Board Restructuring Bill and progress on the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill and the Crime and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Questions to Ministers 
Leader of the Opposition—Orewa Speech 
1. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that fear of a damaging response “in the international courts” will hold Dr Don Brash back from doing what the Orewa speech indicates; if not why did she not correct the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s statement after he made it on the day of the speech? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Dr Cullen actually said there would be a damaging response to ripping up the treaty both within New Zealand and in the international courts. While strictly speaking it might be more accurate to refer to international fora such as the UN Human Rights Committee I agree entirely with the tenor of Dr Cullen’s remarks. 
Stephen Franks 
: As she has agreed with Dr Cullen’s remarks does she believe that those international fora can interfere with block or overturn laws passed by this democratically elected Parliament; if she does what kinds of laws could they not interfere with? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows the Parliament of this country is sovereign. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Prime Minister think that unelected judges should be able to overturn laws passed by this elected House; if she does not why does she not tell New Zealand that she does not agree with Dr Cullen’s statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that Parliament is sovereign but there appears to be a view on the other side of the House that the Crown should not uphold undertakings it has given courts. It gave courts an undertaking in respect of the transfer of television assets that it would introduce Maori television. That is what those politicians opposite want to do away with and that draws into question their commitment to the rule of law in this country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting that the Prime Minister and other members of the Labour Party have been trying to tell New Zealanders that Dr Don Brash cannot introduce some of the reforms he has proposed in his speeches so far will she tell the House if Parliament is sovereign on what basis would any court question the legality of Dr Brash’s reforms once they are passed by Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not a question of a court overruling an Act of Parliament. A New Zealand court cannot do that. But I believe there would be a serious constitutional crisis in this country if the Crown were to dishonour its own commitments to a court. What I say without fear of contradiction is that when the Crown sought to transfer television assets to the State-owned enterprise a claim was brought to the court under the provisions of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. The court then adjourned in respect of television assets to give the Crown the opportunity to submit a scheme designed to protect Te Reo Maori Television Trust if the assets were transferred. 
 In July 1991 Cabinet gave undertakings to the High Court to do among other things the development of special purpose Maori television. The High Court accepted the Crown’s undertakings and allowed the transfer of television assets. I say now that if a future Government were to dishonour that commitment it would be in serious trouble with the spirit of the rule of law. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With regard to the Orewa speech indicators and the so-called reforms implied in that speech why does the Government not just go along with Dr Brash abolish the Ministry of Maori Development and establish as indicated by the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 3 November 2003 a portfolio for Asian relationships which is what Dr Brash refers to? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is quite right to point out certain inconsistencies because the National Party no longer has a women’s affairs spokesperson and it does not want a Ministry of Maori Development but it does want a spokesperson on Asian relationships. We are left wondering why different people are treated differently. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how this country would be in constitutional crisis if Parliament introduced laws that effectively said the Crown had changed its mind? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think it would be seen as the Crown in retrospect dishonouring a commitment it solemnly gave the court of the land. Members opposite say they believe in the rule of law. That would dishonour the rule of law. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that New Zealand has an obligation to remove all race distinctions from our law under the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which this country signed up to in 1968; if so when will she begin? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In respect of discrimination under the law Governments from the early 1990s have been poring through all statutes to get rid of any discrimination that is prohibited under the Human Rights Act. But as the member well knows it is a long-accepted principle that equal opportunity initiatives may be used to ensure that there actually is equality. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that given the reaction to Dr Brash’s speech and also the events at Waitangi a week or so later there is a deep sense of unease amongst many New Zealanders about these issues; and if she does acknowledge that what steps does the Government consider necessary to deal with that unease? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would hope that Government leaders along with other leaders in the House would recognise that New Zealanders do not want their country divided. They want to see people given a fair go they want equality of opportunity and they want fairness. We stand by those principles. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Prime Minister is firm in her view that Parliament is sovereign and has pre-eminence over the courts will she then agree that Dr Brash can do as he promises and as 80 percent of the citizens of this country want him to do? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Parliament is sovereign but I and every New Zealander have an interest in seeing that this country’s rule of law is not reduced to a standing joke. That is what it would be if Dr Brash ever had his way and undid the solemn commitments given to a High Court by Jim Bolger’s Government. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the Prime Minister’s acceptance that Parliament is sovereign why could not any Government simply delete section 9 of Labour’s State-Owned Enterprises Act which contained the references to the fake principles that forced the court to pursue the line it did and extract the undertaking; and why could a Government not instead simply say it would end racially separate broadcasting because it is not in the public interest—the same reason the Prime Minister gave last year for ignoring the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that oil and gas had been taken from Maori in breach of the treaty? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will endeavour to answer a couple of aspects of that question—the underlying assumptions of which I utterly disagree with. I am appalled that in this House a member would refer to fake principles of a treaty that his party’s founding leader said was fundamental to New Zealand. I put it to that member that when Dr Brash conceded on Linda Clark’s programme yesterday that the kakapo is unique and should be protected the same applies to the Maori language. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Which party first introduced racially separate broadcasting in this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The court matters I referred to arose in 1991 under the National Government led by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. His Government gave those commitments to the High Court. It was only on the basis of that commitment by the Crown—bound to uphold the rule of law—that the High Court transferred the assets to Television New Zealand. That commitment I repeat was to see that Maori television would be established. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s strong defence of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi can she now stand in the House and tell us what they are? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am prepared to give the member a digression on that at some length in a future question time but I want to say today that I believe—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is too much noise. That is quite enough. Please continue. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The most fundamental of those principles is one of partnership and mutual respect and that is what this Government will uphold. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter of very great public importance as anybody who follows the polls will know as anybody who listens to talkback radio will know as and anybody who reads the newspapers will know. So somewhat unusually in a point of order I want to indicate that should the Prime Minister seek leave for the extended dissertation on the principles of the treaty for the House right now we would not oppose it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of getting the facts correct as to who is responsible I ask: is the Prime Minister aware that the first decision from the Waitangi Tribunal on the question of broadcasting—referred in 1991 to the then Minister of Maori Affairs—was consigned to the rubbish bin and never referred to Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not in a position to say what the position was of the Minister of Maori Affairs at the time but I know that a National Government gave the court its word and its successors now want to break that word—and that is reprehensible. 
Television New Zealand—International Travel Costs 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: How many employees of Television New Zealand Limited if any attended the International Broadcasting Convention in Amsterdam in 2003 and what was the total cost including all fares accommodation entertainment dining transport costs etc? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am informed—well at least today we are not fishing we are more precise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Carry on please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am informed that 14 employees of TVNZ attended this convention at a cost of $143000. All were technical and engineering staff including five from TVNZ’s satellite services. Their purpose in attending was to remain up to date with fast evolving technology in the broadcasting field and to determine which technology is applicable and appropriate to TVNZ’s market and business needs. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What was the benefit to TVNZ of the International Broadcasting Convention in Amsterdam last year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: TVNZ maximised the value of the trip by also meeting with broadcasters from the BBC in the UK and the RTÉ in Ireland. Both are public broadcasters and both had valuable insights to offer to TVNZ. Networking opportunities also resulted in TVNZ not going ahead with the investment of $1 million because it was proven to not be the right technology for the organisation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth would networking and other decisions of that type be made by 14 people from the engineering staff and would that not be more appropriately done by management—so what happened there? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not want to make a meal of it but I do want to suggest to the member that the obvious thing to do around a conference that deals with things like digital technology is to take people who are dealing with that. That is explicitly what they did. 
Property Development—Customary Rights 
3.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does she stand by her statement to Parliament yesterday that Maori customary-rights holders would have the “same rights and consequences” as attached to any other property right and does that mean that customary-rights holders have an “effective power of veto over development proposals” as stated by the Solicitor-General to the Waitangi Tribunal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes. This Government respects and upholds property rights whoever holds them. A power of veto will be exercised only if the development prevents the exercise of the customary right. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If the customary-right holder does exercise that right of veto and says no does that mean a yes answer could be purchased by the payment of a fee as indicated by Dr Cullen in a radio interview on 9 February? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am unclear as to what the question is. Could I ask for clarification as to what he means? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the member could ask the question again. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: To make it perfectly plain to the Minister: had an answer that would have originally been no been changed to yes by the payment of money as apparently indicated by Dr Cullen in a radio interview on 9 February? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I suppose as with all property rights one can sell them and buy them and whatever. But the point is that in this particular instance as the member knows there is a process that is gone through. So it is difficult to answer in the generality because it is meaningless unless the specific circumstances are known. 
Tim Barnett 
: What would be the process if the Maori Land Court determined a claimant group had a customary right over a specific area of foreshore and a developer applied for a resource consent that affected that area? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The territorial authority would determine whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on that customary right. If it determined that it was not a significant impact then the resource consent would be issued subject to the normal Resource Management Act criteria. If however it was determined that there was a significant impact on that right so that it could not be exercised then the developer would have to negotiate with the customary-right holder. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister then confirm based on her previous answer that the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposal does not confer a power of veto to Maori because it is the territorial authority that decides whether a Resource Management Act application will be declined if it has a significant impact on a customary right? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It would be the authority that would determine whether there was a significant impact on the basis of evidence given. If there was not agreement with that assessment then of course there would be a right to review that decision. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Now that the Government acknowledges that customary rights are capable of commercialisation including sand extraction and mining why would that not result in at least some limitation on the right of access in the area of sand mining? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I was not aware in that generalisation that commercialisation in terms of digging up a whole beach—if that is what the member is implying—is in fact the situation. I think there is a fundamental difference here—and I am sorry if I sound like a teacher—but a customary right is specific to an area. 
Rodney Hide 
: Not a very good one. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Well it is the pupil of course; the teacher is not always responsible. A customary right is to a specific area and it has to be on the basis of continuous use. So to talk about commercialisation in relation to taking a few buckets of shingle or what have you I suppose one could argue that it is commercial. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given that it is still the territorial authority that makes the decision does the Minister agree that under the Government’s proposal Maori will have no more say than they do now? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No I cannot agree with that. There will first of all be the acknowledgment of a customary right which is not there at the moment. There can be no continuing of the hearing of an application unless that customary right is acknowledged and has the capacity to be able to be exercised. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Minister suggesting that the taking of a few buckets of shingle as she puts it would actually amount to a commercialisation of a sand-extraction right when everyone knows that commercialisation is on a much larger scale than that and would inevitably lead at least in the area of the extraction to the exclusion of access? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No as I pointed out yesterday in answer to a question there is a right of public access. That is there. If the use of a customary right does involve some danger to a person then obviously that person would not go there. But if the member is trying to say that as a general rule no he is not right. There is a right of public access there is a right to exercise a customary right and there is a process to see how that would excise out in practice in that particular circumstance. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that a customary right to extract a few buckets of sand cannot be turned into a commercial right to dig up a whole beach? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No not unless one is a member of the Opposition obviously. 
Tertiary Education—E-learning 
4.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: How is the Government supporting tertiary education organisations to develop e-learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 In December the Tertiary Education Commission announced that it was investing up to $14 million for 15 projects from its E-Learning Collaborative Development Fund. Those contracts are now being finalised as part of the tertiary education strategy to strengthen our teaching capability to provide education in a wider range of settings and to a wider range of learners. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House the sorts of initiatives that this funding will support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I give three quick examples. One is the XML editor project that will provide software enabling teachers across the sector to easily publish e-learning web pages and cross-reference their work. Another project supports polytechnics and industry training organisations working together to deliver applied e-learning in the workplace and a flexible learning leaders project will aid the development of up to 15 academic staff a year so that they can make use of e-learning teaching. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Of the 15 projects approved does any one of those projects address the rising problem at the tertiary level of cheating which Australian expert Professor Justin Zobel last month in Dunedin claimed is exacerbated by the culture of the Internet; if not is it because he does not consider that this is a significant issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No none of these projects addresses that particular issue but I know that institutions across the country now are moving to try to block this. For example it is possible for Brian Donnelly to be doing an essay at Victoria University and have it written for him in the United States at the present time and delivered in the format that the university wants. There is a major problem of plagiarism and that kind of work going on and I know that the institutions are moving to block it. 
Immigration Act—Security Risk Certificates 
5.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service 
: What steps is she taking to review the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service’s role in issuing security risk certificates following her reported statement that the security provisions of the Immigration Act will be reviewed after the Zaoui case? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service) 
: 
 As I have said on a number of occasions when the Zaoui case is completed whatever the outcome the Government will be looking at whether the law worked as intended. No review will take place until the case has run its course. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Security Intelligence Service take into account people’s rights—such as their right to criticise an oppressive Government such as that in Algeria—when deciding to issue a security risk certificate; if so why is the Government appealing a High Court decision that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must take into account human rights when reviewing a security risk certificate? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When the Director of Security takes it on his own judgment to issue the certificate he has in mind what might be a danger to the security of New Zealand. It is the Crown’s submission to the court that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security does not take into account the human rights issues because that is done by the Minister of Immigration when she considers the matter if the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security upholds the security risk certificate. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Minister of Immigration possibly adequately take into account Mr Zaoui’s human rights in the statutory maximum of 3 days that she has after the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security makes his determination when unlike the inspector-general she will not have heard all the evidence heard the witnesses been part of all the cross-examination or studied the matter over several months? It is impossible surely? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not agree with that. The Minister of Immigration is working on what the human rights issues might be. I understand she will be asking Mr Zaoui’s counsel for any matters they might like to draw to her attention in that respect so that if the certificate is upheld and she has to act within the 3 days she will be well prepared to make a decision one way or the other. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that it is inhuman that Mr Zaoui has now been imprisoned for over 14 months and why does not the Government use the legal provisions available to it either to free him or to move him to a more relaxed form of detention such as the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not accept that. Mr Zaoui came here on a false passport and he is a person of security concern to the Government’s security adviser which is the Security Intelligence Service. It has used its judgment to issue a certificate. There is a process to be gone through. The Government has looked very carefully at the interplay between the Immigration Act and other Acts of Parliament and it is the Government’s view that he is required to be detained in a penal institution. 
Avian Influenza—Preparation 
6.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action has been taken to prepare New Zealand in the event of avian influenza arriving? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Order in Council adding avian flu to the schedule of notifiable human diseases was signed on Monday and comes into effect today. The ministry has established a small response team which could rapidly be expanded if necessary and is maintaining regular contact with international and other Government agencies to closely monitor this flu. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why has the Government taken this measure now when we do not have any cases of avian flu present in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Although worldwide there are still no confirmed cases of human-to-human transmission of H5N1 it is prudent to be prepared for that possibility as well as being prepared for the possibility of someone becoming infected through contact with poultry in one of the affected countries and then travelling to New Zealand. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How does this Government plan to change its response to an overseas-sourced viral epidemic in light of its very slow reaction in 2003 to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) epidemic? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Only one person in New Zealand thought there was a slow reaction in New Zealand to Sars and it was that member. She was widely criticised by the medical profession for the comments she made. New Zealand was very well prepared indeed having undertaken a pandemic exercise the year before. I congratulate all our doctors and nurses who immediately swung into action in preparation for an outbreak of Sars in New Zealand—as well as border control Air New Zealand and other airlines who worked well together to ensure that we did not have any confirmed cases of Sars. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will she be recommending that the Government adopt precautionary measures that other countries such as the European Union have already taken to prevent the bird flu from arriving here in the first place such as banning the import of poultry products from countries that are badly affected by the bird flu—in particular high-risk unsterilised chicken feathers down and skins; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In New Zealand we are ensuring that there is no importation of poultry or birds for consumption by humans. Importations are already subject to sterilisation and this flu cannot survive high levels of sterilisation. The advice I have received is that there is minimal risk in terms of any product from birds we are bringing in from around the world. 
Sentencing Act—Judges 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What guidance does the Sentencing Act 2002 give to judges when setting a minimum period of imprisonment for an offender sentenced to life for murder when the deceased was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Section 104 of the Sentencing Act states that the court must impose a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years if the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age unless it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Noting that the law is clear and that that Minister has bragged about how clear the law is—that a child murderer should face at least 17 years’ minimum non-parole unless that is “manifestly unjust”—is the Government prepared to accept the legal precedent set in the Steven Williams’ sentencing case that merely showing remorse is sufficient to allow judges to impose lower non-parole periods on child killers; if not when will the Crown appeal the 2-year discount given to Coral Burrows’ murderer? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have read the sentencing notes by Justice Wild very carefully. Of course I am not at liberty to express an opinion on the judge’s decision and the member has acknowledged that. Justice Wild made the decision on the basis that he believed that remorse and an early guilty plea meant that a minimum period of 17 years would be “manifestly unjust”. However I note in a higher court decision in the Court of Appeal—the  
Queen 
 v  
Parish 
 in December last year—the viewpoint was expressed: “Even in cases with more powerful mitigating circumstances the requirement to impose the mandatory term of imprisonment of 17 years might not be displaced if they have no direct bearing on the offence itself.” The sentence imposed on Williams may be subject to appeal and for that reason and for the reason I have already given I will not comment further on it. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How does the 17-year minimum starting point for aggravated murder under the Sentencing Act compare with the legislation it replaced? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Until the Sentencing Act was passed in 2002 including the period during which Mr Ryall was Minister of Justice the minimum non-parole period was 10 years. For aggravated murder the new 17-year minimum is now just the starting point and the maximum penalty can be much in excess of that. Courts have imposed sentences longer than at any time in the history of this country including 25 years for the child killer Bruce Howse and 30 years for the Returned Services Association killer William Bell. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister explain how it is possible that the killer of Anahera Lewis one Warwick Kershaw was given only a 3-year jail sentence when that wee girl died at the age of 3 after being brutally terrorised and tortured by this man? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Without notice of course I am not familiar with the particular case that the member refers to but I can suggest to him that if he wants to know what sentence was imposed and why he acquires a copy of the judge’s sentencing notes. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to help the Minister he is aware of this case. He received a letter that was dated 12 November. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I do not want him misleading the House and that is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the law states at least 17 years non-parole for murdering a child and this House would expect remorse of any criminal and not have that remorse rewarded with a lower sentence is this Minister prepared to defend the legislation that he has bragged about from one end of this country to the other or is he prepared to sit back and let judges rewrite the will of Parliament? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The High Court has made a decision. That decision may be subject to the Court of Appeal. It is appropriate for this House to wait and determine whether an appeal is made and what the decision of the Court of Appeal is. At that point we can judge the adequacy of the legislation. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that section 18 of the Sentencing Act which prevents judges from imposing a prison sentence on offenders under 17 years of age must be revisited in light of claims by the Police Association that recidivist teenage criminals are offending “flat out” and thumbing their noses at the law because there are no meaningful consequences to their actions—thanks to soft judges and Department of Child Youth and Family Services social workers who are only too happy to present glowing reports for the offender while completely ignoring the effect on the victim? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That particular section of course will have no application to the Steven Williams case because he was 29 not under 17. In relation to the other comments made by the Police Association the New Zealand law is essentially in line with other jurisdictions in that regard. I believe that the comments made in that respect do not reflect the views of all police officers particularly those working in the Youth Aid section 
Ron Mark 
: Having trumpeted the success of how the Sentencing Act would produce longer sentences for child killers and having received a letter from the grandmother of Anahera Ross Lewis is the House to take it that the Minister is happy with the sentence this child killer has received? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Once again I have to remind the member that as Minister of Justice I am not able to comment on a sentence imposed by a judge in a particular case. However let me make this comment about the general point the member was trying to make. I said that this law would be tougher law. Very soon the member will see the prison forecasts being published in this country which show that there will be a 20 percent increase in the number of people in prison because of the tougher sentencing laws enacted by this Government. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. 
Marc Alexander 
: I seek leave to table the  
Police News 
 article that documents the failure of the Sentencing Act to curb youth crime. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek to leave to table two letters. The first is from Val Lewis to myself dated 13 December stating that she had not had a reply from the Minister other than an acknowledgment. The second is a letter from the grandmother of Anahera Ross Lewis to the President of the Court of Appeal with a copy to Minister Mr Goff and Minister Margaret Wilson for their information. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Search and Rescue—Boating Accident Oamaru 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What changes if any is the Government making to search and rescue operations in New Zealand following the boating tragedy off the Oamaru coast last year? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Following the Oamaru tragedy the Government commissioned an independent inquiry into the incident. As a result of the inquiry procedures have been tightened. Any beacon going off now is treated as an emergency. The National Rescue Coordination Centre is opened in all cases regardless of the time of the emergency and is staffed with the relevant expertise. Since December 2003 there have been 156 emergency beacon incidents under the new procedures. In addition steps are well under way to staff the centre 24 hours a day 7 days a week and co-locate it with the existing full-time maritime operations centre. Extra funding of around $1.25 million per year is being provided by the Government and 16 additional staff are being recruited including 12 dedicated search and rescue officers. It is expected that this centre will be staffed 24/7 by 1 July 2004 at the latest. 
David Parker 
: What benefits are expected from these changes? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The benefits are significant. Whilst no amount of improvements will ever eliminate all risks associated with search and rescue operations a risk analysis identified that co-location and a change to a 24/7 facility could reduce the operational strategic risk to such operations by 70 percent. This is why the Government has taken action following the inquiry. 
Larry Baldock 
: What support if any has the Government received for the changes it is proposing to the search and rescue operations? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government has received considerable support for the changes including from the families involved. As I noted the change to the centre’s hours of operations and the recommended co-location are well under way. However the Search and Rescue Council also recommended that the co-located National Rescue Coordination Centre and the Maritime Operations Centre should be managed by a single entity. To effect this change as soon as possible the Government has proposed a simple amendment to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. I would like thank United Future the Greens New Zealand First ACT and Donna Awatere Huata for supporting the proposal and I take this opportunity to urge the National Party to reconsider its opposition to the proposal in the interests of the safety of all New Zealanders. 
Electricity—Supply 
9.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday that “the second electricity supply shortage in 3 years proved beyond doubt that there were fundamental flaws in the 1990s market model.”; if so what are those flaws? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes. The key flaw highlighted by the 2003 power shortage was the market’s failure to encourage generators to retain stand-by generation that is needed only in very dry years. The Government addressed that failing with its electricity supply security policies announced last May. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he expect Project Aqua to contribute to dry-year security or does he accept that in a very dry winter there will be little or no available water to take out of the river and pass through the six power stations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I understand the argument about more eggs in the same basket in respect of Project Aqua. The fact is that this country needs to have a variety of generation. Nearly all the generation that has gone in over the last 10 years has been in the North Island and has been non-hydro. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is he confident that the electricity system is now in better shape to cope with very dry years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The first 150 megawatts of reserve generation at Whirinaki will be ready before this winter. 
John Key 
: Will the Government approve future thermal generation plants along the lines suggested by Don Elder chief executive of Solid Energy; and does he agree that harnessing an energy resource to quote Mr Elder equal to 50 Maui gasfields should rank ahead of cuddling up to the Greens; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I draw to the member’s attention that the Government does not approve power stations. That is done through the resource management process. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister not accept that with the Caygill review and the Electricity Amendment Act of 2000 he could well have addressed this problem very very easily and that if it had not been for the Greens rolling over with support he probably would have done? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure which problem the member refers to but the Caygill report certainly did not suggest reserve generation. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with Professor Gerry Carrington of Otago University that Project Aqua will inhibit the building of wind generation by lowering summer prices and encourage the building of more fossil fuel – fired plant by raising the need for dry-year stand-by plant; if so how does that square with our Kyoto obligations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not actually. I think that the range of generation that is coming forward in New Zealand substantially—perhaps entirely but certainly substantially—mitigates that argument though I understand it and believe it has some validity. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he agree with the chairman of the new Electricity Commission Roy Hemmingway quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 this morning that: “In New Zealand there are many many investments in energy efficiency that could be made that are much less expensive than new generation.”; if so what work is being done to investigate how much energy efficiency could be purchased with the $1.2 billion going into Project Aqua? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I strongly agree with Mr Hemmingway’s comments and indeed would say to the member that she will be well aware of the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy which seeks to improve our nation’s efficiency by 20 percent by 2012. I am pleased to report that to date implementation of that strategy is bang on target. I think the question raised is whether the target itself needs to be reviewed. 
Hospitals—Maori Patients 
10.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she believe Maori New Zealanders should have separate rooms in hospital from non-Maori New Zealanders; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No. Separate rooms in public hospitals are allocated on the basis of clinical need and availability. I am advised no public hospital in New Zealand operates a policy of exclusive rooms based on ethnicity. However I am aware of the Kaupapa Ward at Tauranga Hospital which was opened in 1994 under the previous National Government and has had a steady stream of politicians visit it including Bill English and Jenny Shipley. It has been providing choice to all the people of Tauranga for the past 10 years. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does she find it acceptable for it to have now gone so far that an ill older non-Maori New Zealander has been asked to move from her hospital bed into another room because Maori patients want to be only with Maori; and can she explain if that is not racial segregation what is? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not know the case the member is talking about. However I am informed that there are patients who may want to be alone with family at particular times because maybe the person is dying or there is something particularly wrong with the person. This is not based on ethnicity but on the fact that the person has a particular need. I think there is perhaps only one party that would draw that long bow in terms of racial discrimination. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister believe there should be two standards of care and accountability—one for Maori New Zealanders and one for all other New Zealanders—and if not what has she done to ensure that Maori health providers are held to the same level of accountability as other health providers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Maori health providers are probably under greater audit than other providers. This is because audit tools have been put in place as we—and as the previous Government did—allowed non-governmental organisation Maori providers to provide services by Maori for Maori. I am pleased there are politicians now in Opposition who supported that in the past when in Government but I find deplorable that in Opposition they want to deny those same things they once supported just to get a few votes. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What does she intend to do to stop this racial separatism knowing that if it had been the other way round and a Maori patient had been asked to shift because a non-Maori wanted her bed it would have been seen as discrimination of the very worst sort? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no evidence that this is a practice in New Zealand hospitals. I repeat if a patient has a particular need—whether or not that patient is Maori Pacific Islander European or Chinese—I am sure that need is brought to the attention of the clinicians involved with the patient’s care and arrangements are made. Only somebody who wanted to cause trouble would say that was based on racial disharmony. 
Heather Roy 
: What action has the Minister taken since learning that Ngati Whatua has had to employ a private investigator Mr Michael Crawford of Advanced Investigations to track down money believed to have been misappropriated from Tihi Ora Mapo and given Mr Crawford’s frustration at the lack of cooperation he has received can she explain why the police have not been called? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is way outside the original question but I will allow the Minister to comment. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes it is and I can thank Rodney Hide for providing information about this particular issue. However I have to tell him that the Ministry of Health had already been advised that the trust itself is undertaking an inquiry. When the trust has finished its inquiry should there be a need for the police to be involved I am sure they will become involved. However it is probably true to say there are some bad eggs in all the baskets and I suppose ACT members have found that out to their own benefit. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table a press release from the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 last night where Elva Cooper identified what happened to her and said there should not be race segregation in our hospitals. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is. There will be silence when members ask their questions and that is the only warning. 
Small Business—Visits 
11.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What positive suggestions has he received from the recent series of small-business visits? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 Over recent weeks Government members and Ministers have been visiting small businesses across the country. The aim of these visits has been to hear what is really important to New Zealand’s small businesses without the filter of professional lobby groups that purport to represent them. One issue raised by a number of businesses was the option of paying provisional tax at the same time as their regular GST payments. The Government is listening to this taking it seriously and moving to implement it. On this side of the House we believe that the best people to tell us about businesses are those involved in running them. 
Mark Peck 
: In what other ways is the Government communicating directly with New Zealand’s very good small-business sector? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Starting here in Wellington tomorrow we will be hosting a series of 24 small-business days around the country. These will provide a forum where small businesses can speak directly with the Government on issues of importance to them so that we may develop policy informed by them and for them. This will allow us to hear what real Kiwi businesses have to say and we will work together on solutions free of the negativity on self-appointed spokesmen of business both inside and outside this House. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Does the Minister stand by his answer in chat session No. 1 to a question stating that tax revenue is running at 35 percent of gross domestic product and asking when the Government would get real about tax that: “The Government has previously signalled that there will be a movement on tax in the upcoming Budget.”; and how much movement will there be to reduce tax to assist small businesses? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: As always on behalf of this Government help is on the way and the Minister of Finance will advise members when the Budget is announced. 
Peter Brown 
: Taking note of the exchange rate does the Minister share the view that has been suggested to me by several business people that the best way to have a small business in this country is to start off with a large one? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I have not had that advice. 
Paul Adams 
: During the Minister’s visits to small businesses was his attention drawn to the frequently voiced concerns of small to medium sized enterprise owners and operators that the sheer volume of compliance issues being regularly laid down by this Government is stifling initiative consuming too much of their valuable time and resources and most important anti-growth? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Quite to the contrary. Compliance issues are always high on the radar of all businesses and are a cost of doing business. More particularly business people are looking at solutions not looking at only problems. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Call Centres 
12.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she agree with the comments of the former Department of Child Youth and Family Services Acting Chief Executive Brenda Pilott that “considerable progress” had been made towards improving the quality and consistency of the department’s call centre systems following the September 2002 Department of Child Youth and Family Services national call centre evaluation report; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes I do agree with those comments. Since the evaluation report the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ call centre services have been expanded the quality and consistency of the service have been improved through a number of initiatives and a communication plan promoting the call centre’s services to organisations such as schools and the police and to health professionals has been implemented. As with any infrastructural issue though there is always room for further improvement. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the fact that the department has already been told in December 2002 that its intake services were not good enough and that in response one of its goals was supposedly to “improve practice quality and consistency of work” does the Minister agree that it is simply unacceptable that Ailsa Duffy QC should have had to report in December 2003 that a lack of quality assurance was responsible for the fact that Ron Burrows’ call about Coral-Ellen Burrows was not treated as a notification? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It certainly is disappointing that the quality assurance recommendations in the previous evaluation report were not implemented to the extent it was necessary for Ailsa Duffy QC still to make that comment. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister seen any recent reports commenting on the quality of the call centre service? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. Ailsa Duffy QC in her report commissioned by the department late last year observed that call centre staff are competent committed and conscientious workers. However she identified professional support systems as needing further improvement and recommended better resourcing. Those recommendations have been actioned. 
Judith Collins 
: How does the Minister justify her Government’s race-based policies when Pakeha referrals to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services have dropped by 18 percent since 1999 but Maori referrals have remained constant despite the Government’s “reducing inequalities” programme formerly known as closing the gaps? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Because I and my colleagues take a much more serious and considered analytical approach to using statistics—rather than using them to attack and divide people on the basis of their race. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement to a child poverty forum this week that she is “Steve Maharey’s stunt double” and that in her “non-controversial portfolio” of Child Youth and Family Services “any publicity is good publicity”; if so can she explain to the House how the scandal that the call centre failure could have contributed to the death of Coral-Ellen Burrows could possibly be described as “good publicity”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I frequently introduce myself when I am replacing a colleague at a particular function as his or her “stunt double”. I am particularly proud to have been Steve Maharey’s on Monday night. With reference to the rest of the comments that the member made I will give her the same advice I gave to her colleague: get more reliable sources. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the fact that the September 2002 call centre evaluation had already identified a lack of effective and timely supervision and when the department’s policy was that each intake social worker should get at least 1.5 supervised hours a week can the Minister explain why Ailsa Duffy reported last year that no call centre intake social worker she interviewed was subject to that level of supervision and none had undergone an induction programme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I indicated in an answer to a previous question it is very disappointing that previous recommendations supported by the Government were not fully implemented with regard to the recommendations made in the Ailsa Duffy report I alluded to in my prior answer. Those recommendations have now been actioned. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the fact that an organisation charged with the care and protection of our children totally failed to implement the recommendations of a 112-page call centre evaluation report—which might have saved a child’s life—is the Minister at all surprised that New Zealanders have no confidence in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and no confidence that it can be fixed by anything less than ripping the whole outfit down and starting all over again? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I do not agree that that would be a sensible or practical solution. It is hard work ensuring that the public gain confidence in an organisation—confidence that is clearly required in order for us to work satisfactorily. I have confidence that through the recommendations outlined in the baseline review and with the genuine goodwill and commitment of the staff of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services we will win that confidence back again. 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 11 February. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I want to reflect on some of the comments I made before the interruption last evening specifically those to do with my comments surrounding my tipuna. I want to assure members that if they feel a cool breeze whilst listening to my speech they should not be alarmed—they have come to taitoko my speech. 
I want to reiterate my support for my colleagues in relation to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Government is focused on needs for all New Zealanders and we are accelerating those policies. We have certainly got the pedal firmly to the metal and there is a raft of needs across our communities. In some cases there are special needs—for our disabled for our women and of course for our ethnic groups. That is not to mention iwi hapu and whanau. Wherever the need is wherever that disparity emerges this Government is committed to extending help and assistance. The Government has made huge inroads towards addressing those needs. We do not need to be colour-blind to realise that. 
What are some of those needs? We have over 40000 more Maori back in the workforce actively contributing and participating within our communities. Maori unemployment is down from 17.9 percent to just 9.6 percent. That is an all-time low. That is so significant that it deserves to be placed on the public record: Maori unemployment down from 17.9 percent to just 9.6 percent. We have not been there since 1987 and the benefits are far-reaching. They include significant boosts not only to the morale of whanau who are able to afford health care and education but more important to continued contributions to our economy and I think that is absolutely marvellous. 
I want the National Party to be accountable and enlighten us all on its policy to abolish the Maori seats. How will that policy reduce Maori unemployment? The Government is addressing Maori unemployment as we speak. The statistics are evidence of that and we all know that the Maori seats under Labour are currently intact. How will that policy to abolish the Maori seats initiate skill-based training for Maori? How will it promote senior Maori students? How will it work for our work-based qualifications? In all of the above the Government has made significant change. There are 800 Maori in Modern Apprenticeships— 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am obviously apologetic for interrupting my colleague but the interjection that Mr Hide shouted out across the Chamber was highly offensive. “Dopey niggers” was the phrase used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that phrase was used the member will stand withdraw and apologise. He did not use it? All he has to do is say “Yes” or “No”. 
Rodney Hide 
: I didn’t hear what he said the phrase was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the member use an out of order statement in interjection? 
Rodney Hide 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right I accept the member’s word. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: As I say 800 Maori in Modern Apprenticeships promotion of the Gateway programme— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The chief Government whip just pointed at my colleague and said: “The liar.” I could hear him from here. It is outrageous to question a member’s word in that way and I ask that the chief Government whip be asked to stand and apologise forthwith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member did that he will stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I pointed at— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said the member if he made the comment will withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I did not call Mr Hide a liar. I was talking to my colleague. I was certainly pointing at him and talking to my colleague. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right carry on. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: Eight hundred Maori are in Modern Apprenticeships the Gateway programme has been promoted and 654 clients—that is Maori clients—have been assisted into economic development business facilitation. The list goes on. I cannot see where there are special privileges. No one is forced on to the Maori roll. Maori do not get dual voting rights. They cannot cast their vote twice. It is understood that the Maori seats and their future will and should be determined by Maori. Is the National Party saying that it has Maori endorsement? I do not think so. After all it is common knowledge that the only Maori National member opposes that. So I ask: who endorsed that? 
I turn to the issue of tangihanga leave—branded again as a special privilege for Maori. I have in my hand the draft of the Holidays Bill. There is not one mention in the entire bill of the word “tangihanga”. I would like to know from National Party members why they are branding tangihanga leave as a special privilege when there is no mention of it in the draft bill itself—no mention at all. 
I will shift to an issue surrounding Waitangi Day. Following the celebration at Waitangi I travelled to Kororareka—for some that is called Russell. I went over there to visit my whanau. When I arrived at the Waikare estuary my whanau were exercising a traditional historical exercise of catching flounder. I thought that was a wonderful way to celebrate our national day—by having the opportunity and the right to exercise a customary right. 
I say finally that our Government’s core mission is to build a confident and dynamic nation based on an innovative growing smart economy that can deliver more jobs more opportunities and higher living standards together with the resources to fund world-class public services especially in health and education and world-class infrastructure. The nation we seek to build is creative and it looks after its environment its values its diversity and its tolerance. It takes seriously its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi and it is a good international citizen. 
We will always be the indigenous people of this land. We are tangata whenua and there is a specialness inherent in that which we will continue to celebrate in partnership with other New Zealanders. Kia ora. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 On Tuesday I waited for the Prime Minister’s answer to New Zealand’s most burning questions. Are we working towards a State where power is parcelled out and haggled over by the anointed of two tribes: Maori and Pakeha? Is the goal a land where ethnic quotas—instead of need merit or the votes of one’s fellow New Zealanders—decide what power people have over their neighbours or what they can take from them? Or are we instead working towards the kind of humanity I marched for more than 30 years ago as a student urging the All Blacks not to play in South Africa? 
I thought the struggle was for a land where people would be free to live work marry and associate with whomever they liked and where the State was colour-blind. I thought it would be a land where people could express their culture and religion without interference from the police their neighbours or anyone else—provided they were respecting the same rights of others. I thought in particular we wanted a land where politicians could not use the levers of the State to shower State patronage on groups one has to be born into—a land where the State could offer opportunity to all without regard to their origins. 
I thought we wanted a land where there would be no respecting of skin colour by the State but where all would be equal before the law—a land where one person one vote democracy decided who ruled not a land where elected representatives could be trumped by special “involvement in decision making” as the Local Government Act archly calls it or by nepotism race class entitlement or any other perversion. I thought we wanted a land where words would keep meanings they have earned over centuries of honourable use and where sincerity would be a virtue—not something to be mocked in floods of Orwellian personal abuse. 
I ask the Prime Minister exactly when racism ceased to be a determination to discriminate on the grounds of race and became instead a refusal to discriminate on the grounds of race. When did racism flip its meaning? What does the Prime Minister now think of the ideals that I believe I shared with her? Are they just quaint to her? Are they just naive and too unsophisticated for her world of spin and of deals for votes? Should we just move on? 
Her address veered and wove to duck the most important issues for her Government this year. Her Cabinet is desperately peddling the idea that the courts the common law and the treaty force all the generous and idealistic people who live in this country to bind themselves in a kind of feudal subjection to fewer than one in 10 who will get brand new and unprecedented ancestral privileges over the coastline. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: A common law. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: That is not true. Neither the common law nor the activist judges required any such thing. The judges said there would be few if any areas subject to customary interests because the common law required continuous and exclusive use of those rights. It is not true that this is a worldwide movement. The Crown’s expert witness to the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that the common law courts in Australia and the US have said there could not be any aboriginal title over foreshore and seabed. 
The common law would not give claimants anything remotely resembling what Labour is now bribing its Maori insiders with. Group veto powers exclusive development rights and immunities from local authority control and Resource Management Act processes are unprecedented and Dr Cullen is not believed by anyone on this issue. The highest law officer for the Crown told the truth on the issue. He said that the new rights go well beyond anything the courts could have given Maori—even if they had proved customary rights. 
So of course Ms Clark wants to move on. She started out swimming strongly—although in the wrong direction—by announcing she would simply reverse the judges in the legislation but by mid-August she was gasping and treading water. Her venal supporters watched her knowing she could not swim sideways out of that rip and they were not throwing any lifebelts—no they wanted to see just how much she would pay to be rescued. The lifeguards will not come to her rescue because she has always pretended to be the top swimmer around. Now she cannot swim back to the beach because everyone on the beach realises she had been planning to steal their belongings and hand them over to the gang she relies on to stay in power. Now of course they might have to do a bit of swimming themselves because the people on the beach have all started to yell: “Stop thief! Don’t steal a culture and a law that was colour-blind. Don’t take our property and hand it over for ancestral privileges.” 
It was interesting that when the Prime Minister delivered her speech on Tuesday she could not meet the eye of Dr Don Brash of Richard Prebble or of anyone else on this side of the House as she babbled about the common law and the difference between customary titles. Dr Cullen was whispering in her ear but he could not keep her safe. 
The real story is coming out. These new ancestral overseers will get power to block uses proposed by their neighbours. Of course envelopes full of rustling dollars might charm away a few of the spiritual and cultural wounds but Maori will be entitled to develop commercial activities on their beaches and elected local government will be able to object only if that damages the environment. In other words Maori will be exempt from most of the Resource Management Act in that area. 
The treaty requires none of that. It was not required by common law or by the Court of Appeal; it is required only to secure the re-election of Labour’s Maori MPs. Would the Solicitor-General have lied to the Waitangi Tribunal? Would Dr McHugh have been duplicitous? No it was someone else’s duplicity being exposed. 
I ask also whether Judge Heta Hingston and his two associates on the Maori Land Court were lying when in 1994 they rejected the notion that mana moana was any part of tikanga Maori. Let me read to the House the  
New Zealand Law Review 
 summary of the issue. A L Mikaere stated in the 1995  
New Zealand Law Review 
 when referring to Judge Hingston’s decision: “The court was particularly scathing as to the arguments about mana moana a principle which asserts that where an iwi exercised customary authority over a stretch of coastline its mana extended out from the coastline to include the sea as well. ‘We find there is no such and never has been until very recently a Maori concept: ‘mana moana’. It has become the vogue probably since the fisheries settlements began. We are of the view that it is rooted in greed and ignorance not tikanga Maori. It has no place in the matter before us.’ ” That was Judge Hingston—the judge who later set the foreshore and seabed case on its way to appeal. Here is a judge who held that the fundamental principle on which Dr Cullen wants to allocate these new feudal privileges is born of greed and ignorance not tikanga Maori. The court emphasised that. 
This was drawn to my attention by one of New Zealand’s foremost Maori land lawyers—a wise old man named Marcus Poole. Does Dr Cullen or the Prime Minister think that it is Marcus Poole who is lying? Is it Marcus Poole who has one story for elite Maori another story for ordinary Maori another story for Pakeha and another story for the Waitangi Tribunal? 
Those titles are not in the interests of Maori. They are precisely calculated to benefit that small elite—that political elite of tribal leaders who will exercise the feudal rights. For all others the titles will simply breed contempt frustration and corruption. The people who do the work on the foreshore and seabed—the people on the mussel farms; the people who take the risks and endure the risks of trying to run businesses on the coastline—will come to hate their incompetent lazy corrupt ignorant and careless overlords. 
 The only powers those overlords will have will be negative—to say “No” and to block things—because the Government is taking from them any positive property right. They do not have the property right that was guaranteed by article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Instead all they get is a right to interfere with their neighbours. Without the true property right they cannot be positive and they cannot propose; they can only block hold up irritate and take blackmail fees. 
In the long run this will be a perpetual blight for the neighbours who have to live in all the towns and villages around the sea coast of New Zealand and who have to accept these feudal rights. It cannot advance hapu other than in chances to extract blackmail fees. To be given a customary title that points them straight towards obstructing their neighbours is not building the kind of country that we all sought. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. Mr Speaker I wish you and all my parliamentary colleagues a very happy New Year. I hope you all had a good holiday. 
In early January Cyclone Heta struck Niue with devastating force. On the international hurricane scale of 1 to 5 Cyclone Heta was a 5. On Tuesday 13 January I accompanied the Hon Phil Goff the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade on a visit to Niue to assess the damage meet Niuean Cabinet representatives and the private sector and support the community. The devastation to Niue particularly to the capital Alofi has to be seen to be believed. On board the RNZAF plane that carried relief supplies equipment and experts to deal with the problem of asbestos contamination was Wellington Niuean community leader Folo Pahetogia and two Niuean electricians Ikiharry Pahetogia and Tuki Tutaki who have stayed on in Niue to assist with the clean-up and the rebuilding. A large part of the New Zealand - based Niuean community live in the Mana electorate. They were very upset by the effect of the cyclone on their Niue-based families and were keen to help out. It is not a wealthy community but its members raised money and they have sent their tradesmen to help out. 
The people on Niue are still traumatised by the cyclone and will take time to come to terms with the aftermath. The immediate humanitarian needs have been addressed and plans have been developed for the long-term sustainable development of Niue. New Zealand responded quickly to the disaster in Niue and we can be proud of the governmental and community responses. One very touching response came from Ngati Porou. Members will remember that the people of Niue contributed some $40000 to assist in the clean-up after Cyclone Bola hit the East Coast some years ago. Ngati Porou responded when it was Niue’s time of need and made a generous donation of more than $50000. Kia ora Ngati Porou. I have been most heartened by the responses of all New Zealanders to assist Niue; Maori Pakeha Pacific Island people men and women—all New Zealanders—have pitched in. I even had a 73-year-old Pakeha retired electrician from Titahi Bay volunteer his services. 
I have talked at some length about what has happened following the disaster on Niue because there are some important lessons to learn. The disaster of Cyclone Heta brought out the real Kiwi spirit of helping neighbours in their time of need. There was unity of purpose. People pitched in and contributed what they could. So it was with sadness that a few days later I listened to the seeds of disunity being sown at Orewa. The events of the last few weeks have brought into sharp relief the choices that we have as a nation. In her statement to Parliament the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark said: “We set out to be a Government with a clear direction and vision for the future supported by the broad mainstream of New Zealanders. Our aim is to have the people come with us knowing that despite an uncertain world beyond our shores this Government provides the stability on which New Zealand families communities and businesses can plan their lives.” This Labour Government stands firmly for a pluralistic society where diversity is honoured and unity is treasured. 
Strong independent communities contribute to the social and economic development of a strong independent nation. A nation divided by populist rhetoric will weaken and fail. In my maiden speech I said: “Our nation needs a new politics of honesty hope and healing; a politics that brings our communities and nation together so that all New Zealanders can fully participate and live a life of dignity.” The Labour-led Government of the last 4 years has given New Zealanders greater dignity and hope for the future. 
Porirua City in the Mana electorate is a good example of a strong growing community where citizens can live in dignity. Mana is the future face of New Zealand. Around 20 percent is Maori 21 percent is Pacific Island there are increasing Asian and other ethnic communities and over 50 percent is Pakeha. That proportion is roughly New Zealand’s demographic in 40 to 50 years. 
Our diverse community is going well. The local economy is booming and that is proven by Porirua’s retail sales figures which shot up 14.9 percent last year compared with 6 percent nationally. Business growth is up and that means more jobs. Unemployment is at a 16-year low. Porirua City is replete with examples of successful manufacturing and high-tech industries. Official crime statistics for 2002-03 released in August showed declining rates of robbery and serious assault in the Kapiti-Mana area which includes Porirua. Robbery offences dropped by 15.2 percent and the resolution rate for robbery in the area rose to 42.9 percent which is well above the national average of 36.4 percent. Not only that; serious assaults continue to decline from the previous year with 332 offences recorded down from 401—a drop of 17.2 percent. 
Economic development is racing ahead in Porirua City and up the Kapiti Coast. Business confidence is strong. Retail sales are booming. Unemployment is falling. The upgrade of Kenepuru Hospital and Kapiti Coast health facilities is under way. The new public health organisations are now providing many of our families with affordable access to basic health services. The $20 million upgrade of State housing in the Porirua basin is progressing and when completed it will make a big difference to the quality of life for many of our families. Of course we like any other area still have problems and challenges in our community but we are working on them together as a community. 
At 6 a.m. on Waitangi Day I attended a welcome at the Maraeroa Marae in Waitangirua. In sharp contrast to events at the first Waitangi at the second Waitangi—Waitangirua—there was a celebration of difference and diversity with Maori Cook Islanders Samoans Croatians Germans Swiss and Kiwis peacefully sharing and telling their stories and listening to each other with respect. The Festival of Elements in Te Rauparaha Park in Porirua continued the theme of unity and diversity throughout the day and into the evening. 
Later that day I went to a service at Rangiatea Church in Otaki where the Governor-General spoke of the rebuilding of the church and of the 110 women of all faiths and races who had each embroidered kneelers for the church. For me that service was a wonderful metaphor of the diverse unified nation that New Zealand can be should be and at times is. We stand at the crossroads. Do we take the path of division or will we continue to travel the road mapped out by our Prime Minister of a strong confident nation proud of our many cultures proud of our achievements proud of our economic success and determined to see it widely shared among us and not kept in the hands of a few? 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 One needs only to look into the eyes of a Labour Party MP at the moment to see the fear and nervousness. They have seen the polls they can smell the coffee and they know an obituary for washed-up Labour MPs when they read one in the newspaper. A few of them will be looking for a job soon. There is no doubt in my mind that they will be the “MP for No One” in an electorate yet to be discovered on Mars come 2005. 
But alas the looks of fear and nervousness are not isolated to the Labour Party and to Labour MPs. When one travels around the country one needs only to look into the eyes of business people to see that all is not well. However according to the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on Tuesday one could be left with a very different picture indeed. In fact the Government has been telling the people of New Zealand for the last 5 years that the economic policies of the National Government in the early 1990s and mid-1990s were a failure. They were very quick to claim victory for the economic conditions that have rained on their term in office since 1999. 
Now it certainly is true that New Zealand’s real economic growth rate of 4.4 percent last year was the highest in the OECD. It is true that New Zealand’s economic growth rate on a per capita basis touched about 2.4 percent over the last decade—enough to stop New Zealand from sliding down the OECD rankings. But what the Prime Minister forgot to tell the people in her statement on Tuesday was that not only does the Government have no plan whatsoever to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD but that the real reasons for the stellar economic performance in the last 5 years have not been the Labour Government and its policies they have been a low Kiwi dollar high commodity prices high levels of immigration and dare I say it the economic reforms undertaken in the late 1980s and early 1990s in New Zealand. The growth of the last 5 years has not occurred because of this Government it has occurred in spite of this Government. 
Members should not just take my word for it. [ 
Interruption 
] The Associate Minister of Finance the Hon David Cunliffe is barking like a little puppy over there on the Government side. He should be reading his own ministry’s notes to him. He is embarrassed to tell the House that Treasury officials are constantly writing to the Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and to himself berating them for their economic policies which are destined to see New Zealand never get back into the top half of the OECD. But why should we listen to the 300-strong economists who work for Treasury the Minister of Finance and the Associate Minister of Finance? Let us not take their word for it. Let us take the word of the OECD which in its annual report last year stated: “The necessary acceleration in New Zealand’s growth rate is still not in sight.” That is a dismal scorecard for what this Government has managed to achieve in the last 4 years. 
Dare I say it; the worm has turned fuelled by an exchange rate that topped 70c today that is on its way to breach the all-time post-float high of 72.5c and that is on its way to US75c or US80c; and with a Minister who had the audacity to come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee just 3 months ago when the exchange rate was 61c and tell the people of New Zealand he had options to control that exchange rate when he knew very well that he did not. What did he do? He came back to the House and back to the same committee 3 months on with his tail between his legs and he was a very sheepish Minister of Finance. He was embarrassed about his own advice that he had given to the people of New Zealand. He robbed those exporters of the opportunity to hedge their exchange rates. 
But members should not take my word for it Treasury’s word for it or the OECD’s word for it. Let us just go down the road to the Bank of New Zealand and hear what Tony Alexander the chief market economist is telling the dairy sector. He is saying: “Be careful because the payout for milk solids will be $2.50 in a year’s time.” That is half the payout from when this Government came into office. Jim Anderton runs around the country with his chequebook and parades up and down the provinces arguing that he has been the saviour for rural and provincial New Zealand. What an absolute joke! The real saviour of provincial New Zealand has been the low exchange rate and the high payout. Let us just see how strong rural and provincial New Zealand are when the Kiwi dollar is worth 80c and when the dairy payout is $2.50. Let us see whether the Labour Government will claim victory for that when it takes place next year. 
Winnie Laban said in her speech that we have the lowest unemployment rate. That is not true. Yesterday for the first time we saw an increase in the unemployment rate and that is the start of many such things to come. We already have 300000 New Zealanders of working age on a benefit. The Labour Government could not even get 300000 New Zealanders into a job despite the fact we have had the best economic conditions for quite some time. That number of unemployed people will grow under this Government. Many more Labour members will go from this House and join the dole queue. I cannot foresee any other particular career they would be naturally suited to but I am open to suggestions. 
The immigration that fuelled this strong domestic economy is on the way down. Net immigration numbers are on the way down. As the global economy picks up in the United States more trained and skilled New Zealanders will be lured to Australia to the US and to the UK. 
What is the real economic scorecard for this hopeless Labour Government which has claimed victory for things it has no control over—a low exchange rate and high commodity prices? What is the real scorecard? There have been 17 tax increases since Labour has been in office. What a robbing thieving Government it is. The tax take was $30 billion when it came into office in 1999. Government members do not like to hear that. It is $40 billion 4 years on. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in Asia-Pacific. Dr Cullen does not want to hear it. Labour has failed to negotiate a free-trade arrangement with the United States. It has proposed employment legislation that will bring back compulsory unionism. It has introduced 4 weeks’ holiday that will cost the country $1 billion and a Resource Management Act that is an absolute joke that spurns investment and growth in this country. There has been a complete failure to fix infrastructure an avalanche of red tape for small and medium businesses and an education system that breeds mediocrity. This is the reason why the OECD and Treasury are telling us that our country will not go back into the top half of the OECD. This Government is too busy doing the photo shoots doing the soft stuff and pandering to the unions. It is not prepared to tackle the real reasons. 
I hope that the Government will take some advice. I hope that the Government will realise that taxation is more than redistribution from the rich to the poor; it is about putting incentives into the economy. I hope this Government will realise that inflexible labour markets hurt the very people it is theoretically trying to protect. I hope Labour will get into the 21st century and bring private sector capital in for the provision of public assets. It is happening in every Labour administration in Australia. [ 
Interruption 
] The land transport legislation is absolutely hopeless. It is a joke. The Minister had to start new legislation before it hit the House. I know for a fact that David Cunliffe is personally embarrassed by it. It has been a dismal performance and the people of New Zealand are saddened by that. My prediction is that the economic conditions that will prevail in this country when we go to the polls in 2005 will send one very strong message—send those hopeless Labour MPs to the unemployment queue where they belong. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I listened for indications in the Prime Minister’s speech that we are working towards a similar future. Words like “New Zealanders working together to achieve our full potential” and “a nation that New Zealanders are not only comfortable with but are proud of” are noble thoughts but they tell us little about the actual shape of the country or the things about our nation that we should be comfortable with or proud of. There is more detail in ideas like building a creative nation that cares for its environment values diversity and tolerance treats its treaty obligations seriously and is a good international citizen. Words like “more opportunities higher living standards world-class health education and infrastructure” or “making a difference for parents and children” are all concepts that nobody is likely to argue with. But I ask how those ideas are manifested in the things that we do—the reality of our lives and the way we behave towards one another—and whether the Government’s programmes are really likely to deliver that. How will the innovative growing smart economy address the issues facing New Zealanders who earn too little to live comfortably or facing the others who for a variety of reasons have not worked for generations? And if they do work have they simply joined the many families where while they have never had so much stuff so many motor cars or such large homes the kids have a mum and dad who are working so many hours that they no longer have time to do the things that it takes to be a family—old-fashioned things like eating talking and playing together? 
If we are serious about our concern for the family and the quality of life that concern must be expressed in policies that address the threats to the family and that quality of life. I am encouraged by Margaret Wilson’s drawing attention to the work-life balance and by Matt Robson’s success at adding a fourth week of annual leave. But if that fourth week becomes just another 7 days of shopping or accumulating debt in some foreign destination to be worked off by two jobs plus overtime during the remaining 48 weeks of the year then I look forward to working with this Government to come up with more imaginative strategies to create the kind of culture shift necessary if we are to move towards measuring our success in terms of the quality of our lives and the state of the environment rather than by the quantity of our possessions and the gross domestic product. While growing the economy and creating more jobs has a superficial attraction when too many people are working for too long and a sizable minority has no paid work sharing the work around would seem to be a more obvious solution. If supporting families achieving a work-life balance and increasing the sum total of human happiness really matter perhaps working less ought to be the focus of our attentions. 
I want to talk about waste. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recently reminded us we are among the most wasteful people in the world. We throw away around 4 billion kilograms of waste each year most of it valuable and much of it toxic. Clean and green we are not! One hundred percent pure? I think not. Morgan Williams’ warning about our wasteful ways is timely because while few of us in New Zealand have yet to take the issue seriously many of the countries we sell to do and they are beginning to expect similar standards from their suppliers. One thing that is worse than doing things badly is doing things badly and laying claim to 100 percent purity and clean greenness. The 4 billion kilograms of waste that end up in Kiwi kleensaks wheelie bins and landfills are but a fraction of the waste generated by our wasteful ways. For every kilogram of product that we purchase there are 70 to 100 kilograms of waste somewhere else in the world. Then there is the energy that it takes to deliver products and the time we waste earning the money to pay for the stuff we throw away. We can add to that too the tragedy of ecosystems habitats and species being sacrificed in order to feed the cargo cult that consumes our lives and our planet. 
We Greens take some pleasure and pride in our role in shaping transport legislation that addresses our wasteful transport habits and I welcome any opportunity to work with the Minister to achieve the intentions of the Government’s waste strategy and to beef up the packaging accord. Our proposals are not cutting edge. They have their equivalents all over the world—in the United States Canada Europe and as close to us as South Australia. The packaging accord defines “sustainable” as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Meeting that definition will require a substantial change in our lives but rather than focusing on the things we may have to go without we would do well to contemplate a future offered by working fewer hours and having the time to make the choices that really do enhance life. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 A ka tu tenei tu tuatahi kei mua i a koe ka tukuna atu he mihi rangatira ki a koe i a koe e noho mai i runga i te tunga Kaiwhakawa o te Whare Paremata nei. Mr Speaker I begin my presentation by making reference to the office you hold in this House and the acknowledgment we pay to you and your kuia. Tena koe. 
I have listened very intently over the last 2 days to this debate. In doing so I have considered myself enormously fortunate; fortunate that as part of the Labour Party I have a leader who is not only a visionary but also has the commitment the integrity and the political courage to articulate those policies that are absolutely essential with regard to the tangata whenua and the Crown in terms of their treaty partnership and the courage to go beyond mere articulation of policy and translate it into a range of very positive initiatives for Maori. I initially plan to highlight some of those initiatives and to be very positive about doing so. I have the absolute belief that without those initiatives with regard to strengthening our families our relationships with our Polynesian people and their celebration of diversity Aotearoa New Zealand would be a less pleasant place to live in. The unpleasantness I shall refer to later. 
Maori are a highly innovative people. They make a unique contribution to this country. Our contribution is vital to the successful development of this country’s economy and society—that is absolutely right. We have engaged ourselves in a programme of positiveness for our people. It ranges even to include Maori television. Although Maori television has had a chequered career and it did so under the last political regime we have had the courage to continue to develop it. Maori television is going to air this year. 
John Key 
: You hope. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: I say to John Key that what it does is contribute to the preservation of te reo and also the promotion and development of Maori culture. It is not just about doing the haka boogie. A whole range of aspects of Maori culture are being positively promoted. Why? Because this Government is positive about developing all people in Aotearoa New Zealand under the leadership of our Prime Minister. It is going to add a further layer of rich fabric to our society. We are not only very good at playing sports as we know but also very expert in the arena of politics. 
We are going to move further on to deliberate on another issue and that is the allocation of fisheries. It has been around for a long long time. We are taking the first positive steps towards addressing it. 
I listened to someone say that there is a solution to the seabed and foreshore issue. The solution promoted by Dr Lynda Scott was that we legislate immediately. Well if that characterises the policy of the National Party with regard to the place of the treaty partner in Aotearoa all I have to say is that it is a bit like the hammer and the anvil. It has no positive outcome. It is just like what Dave Hereora was talking about—Maori seats. They have been called an anachronism. The only thing that is an anachronism is the attitude of that party in respect of political participation and the contribution of Maori seats. That is the only anachronism. Again a solution was offered by the honourable member Wayne Mapp. He adopted the same view. It is the hammer and anvil approach to our relationships between each other in Aotearoa. Well Government members are not going to do that. We choose what is the most difficult path to go down. The honourable member opposite was talking about fear before. The reason that the member’s party wants to legislate is that those members do not want to be put in a position of fear or debate or honesty or integrity. 
So we have the Maori achievements to date. Strengthening the management and governance of Maori organisations is a huge achievement. I do not want to hear someone talking about a Maori health provider losing a quarter of a million dollars. There is nothing in Maori history that could go anywhere near the debacle of the Bank of New Zealand let alone that of the board of Air New Zealand. So let us get some perspective about that. We have of course released our proposal on the foreshore and seabed for comment for discussion—and that is the polite word. Maori radio is going to go global and that means we have the ability to tune in. [ 
Interruption 
] That includes I say to Mr Key our whanaunga in Australia and anywhere else in the world because after all Maori are part of the global village now. They are not just stuck in their little kainga wearing their piupiu. We are well past that. That was in the age of the policy of assimilation that some Governments promoted and I will get back to that later. We are far beyond that. We have whanau in London Australia Europe England and America who can tune in. Brilliant! We are even trying to address very positively Maori literacy; that is part of  
Te Kawai Ora Report 
. It is excellent. It is about reading the word reading the world. We have a whole range of very very positive things to talk about. 
In terms of the Leader of the Opposition although I am very positive about our contribution I am hardly equally positive about the limp contribution that that party over there is making towards race relations. Here is a quotation: “… the voice of ignorance narrow political advantage and selfishness: the voice of Don Brash.” How is that? Let me read something else. If the political fortunes had gone another way that party would have had one of the most outstanding candidates politically and that was Hekia Parata. Here is what Hekia said in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 29 January: “I am ashamed to have stood for a party that has departed so far from its founding principles.” Here is another quotation from Wira Gardiner a good man—formerly the Maori vice-president of the National Party. This is what Wira said: “Nobody has consulted me. Don certainly never spoke to me. I think disappointment is a significant understatement. I am somewhat saddened because instead of looking forward to the 21st century we in the National Party are looking back to the 1960s and the 1950s to the assimilation policies of the past.” Those assimilation polices have effectively and spectacularly failed. Shame! 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 We on this side of the House the Labour-led Government have a very positive story to tell about how much is being achieved in this country. We have so much good news that it is coming out our ears. In the time that I have this afternoon I want to cover some of the excellent stories that are happening around our provinces. 
I represent a provincial electorate. I have had the privilege of doing so for a decade and I intend to do so for a very long time. One of the issues of particular interest to me at the moment because of its topical nature is rural health services. We in this Government believe that rural communities should have the same access to all health services as urban areas and it is a priority for this Government. 
At the moment a maternity services review is taking placing within the Taranaki District Health Board to consider services at Stratford and Hawera hospitals. I want to state quite clearly in this House that I do not support any reduction of services in the maternity services area because this is a time of considerable vulnerability not only for mothers and young families but grandparents and wider extended families. Having maternity services close to where one lives is an important part of helping to make communities strong. While I have met representatives of the Taranaki District Health Board and advised them of my views I want it placed on record in this House that I am emphatically opposed to any reduction in maternity services in either Stratford or Hawera. 
 Some fantastic statistics are occurring in health as a consequence of the priority that this Government is placing on delivering health services to people of all ages based on their needs. Yes we are positively discriminating in favour of people who need additional health services. My first career was as a nurse and I am very proud to say that even all those years ago when I was a trainee nurse we discriminated positively in favour of people who needed extra health services. I am proud that this Government has the foresight compassion and courage in the face of appalling flak to continue to provide health services where the need is greatest. 
I am also very pleased that we have an intelligent and compassionate Prime Minister who is prepared to continue to put great emphasis and priority on the provision of those services. This Government puts it money where its mouth is with regard to health spending. Total spending for Vote Health under this Government in 2003-04 will reach $9.61 billion. That is an increase of 43 percent— 
David Benson-Pope 
: How many percent? 
JILL PETTIS 
: It is 43 percent since 1999-2000 based on need [ 
Interruption 
]—absolutely—as it has been in this country for years and years. This current scaremongering is so superficial and unresearched and it is just extremely difficult to understand why. 
I am proud of the extra health services that are available to older New Zealanders. I am proud that we in this country and most certainly under this Government positively discriminate in favour of the aged. I hope to grow into a very old woman and I hope that good public health-care services are there for me all my peers in this House today and right throughout New Zealand. I hope my male colleagues grow into very old men and enjoy long happy and fruitful lives. We have done some fantastic work in the area of public health services and are providing services in areas where they have not been provided before particularly in remote parts of New Zealand. As I said earlier we are putting our money where our mouths are. 
Some fantastic things are happening in my electorate. I am aware of being very privileged to represent the electorate of Whanganui which extends from the Whangaehu River in the south up to and including Manaia Kaponga and Eltham in the north-west and right up to Pipiriki up the Whanganui River. So it is a large and diverse electorate— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: With a great climate. 
JILL PETTIS 
: —with the fourth most equitable climate in the world. 
One of the fantastic events that occurred on Waitangi Day in my electorate was in the town of Patea. Patea has had some rough times economically and on Waitangi Day the townspeople absolutely came to the fore with the most fantastic “Paepae in the Park” concert. Three thousand people turned out to celebrate being a New Zealander. The people in Patea Wanganui and Taranaki who came together for this hui know what it is to be a New Zealander. They do not need some inept description from some incompetent person about what it is to be a New Zealander. They got together and sang laughed and cheered about being together. It was an emotional day for me because it was so wonderful and the sun was shining. It was just fantastic. 
One of the other good things happening in our electorate is the service the Heartland office has attached to our Work and Income New Zealand office in Hawera. It is providing services for housing the Maori Land Court and the Inland Revenue Department—all those services that were cut by that hard callous and uncaring National Government. 
The economy in my electorate is absolutely buoyant. I have pages of statistics with me in the House today about how buoyant Whanganui people and businesses feel. Ninety-five percent of the businesses surveyed believe that their business will continue to improve and that the likelihood of them employing more people is very high. The results of the survey show that the economy in Wanganui City in particular which this survey is concerned with is taking a “full steam ahead” approach in the short to medium term. 
Just the other day Jim Anderton officially opened a new Vitapower business in Wanganui which is providing additional jobs adding value to products and working in conjunction with Massey University. This is a positive partnership between business the Crown research institutes the universities and the community. It is a partnership that is working. 
We also visited Masterfoods—locally known as Lucky Pet Foods—which continues its wonderful success story and is being supported by the regional initiatives fund. This Government works with business it supports businesses financially by giving them research and development assistance and that money is being appreciated. 
 Those Tories over there know what is happening in the provinces know that the economy is strong know that people are feeling good and that is why they are scratching that ugly ugly itch. When I was a kid my grandmother and my mother used to say to me: “God will punish you if you say that.” I say they should beware of the implications of what they are saying. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I thank Jill Pettis for her valedictory speech today. I thank that member for the contribution she has made to New Zealand politics in the expectation that some day somebody will find her contribution. 
I start my speech by supporting the no-confidence motion as advanced by Don Brash on Tuesday. I fear that the motion will be lost because it will be noted that United Future will support the Labour Government and as a result that party and the Government will pay at the next election. 
I have listened to most of this debate and without doubt the issue of race relations has dominated it. I guess that is inevitable as a consequence of the issues raised by Don Brash recently in his Orewa speech. The issue of race relations concerns many New Zealanders. As I have listened to this debate many Labour members have come to the House and accused the National Party of picking the scab or scratching the itch—as Jill Pettis referred to it—of Maori bashing or of being racist. I say to the Labour Party that this issue is worrying New Zealanders and that is why we saw more people than ever before vote on a  
Holmes 
 poll—34000 people—of whom 90 percent said that Don Brash was right to raise these issues. 
Labour has been asking the National Party to front up with examples of why New Zealanders are worried about race relations. I will spend my time doing that today with a very specific example. I will talk about what is now known in Christchurch property circles as the “Maori tax”. To do that I need to step back to 29 September 1998 when I and many members of Parliament who are in the House today voted proudly for the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act which settled 150 years of grievances. I recall that as I got ready to vote on that legislation one aspect worried me—that is the ability of Ngai Tahu to have first option to purchase surplus Crown land. Because I was concerned I spent a considerable amount of time in discussion with Sir Doug Graham. He explained that if there were grievances and if they were associated with land then if we were able to give an option to Ngai Tahu to buy back surplus land—provided it was bought at market value—there was nothing wrong with that. Doug Graham convinced me that that was fair and reasonable. 
As so often happens with legislation the intent was there by most members of Parliament around this issue but sadly that particular part is not working. It is 5½ years since that legislation was passed and I will share a specific example of why that part is not working. The Canterbury District Health Board signalled that it wanted to sell the land associated with the old Templeton Hospital. It was a good move—the land was surplus. I have evidence of a person who wanted to purchase that land and therefore submitted to the Canterbury District Health Board an unconditional contract for $2.4 million. That contract arrived on the desk accompanied by a valuation and a cash cheque for $240000 being the deposit for that contract. The Canterbury District Health Board returned that unconditional contract and said that it first had to deal with Ngai Tahu and offer the land to them. 
After 2 months Ngai Tahu purchased that land but they purchased it for $1.9 million. That is $500000 less than was offered in an unconditional contract. Why did the Canterbury District Health Board accept $500000 less than that land was worth? 
Jill Pettis 
: Why believe anything that member says? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis interjects but she should come down to Christchurch where people are waiting for hospital operations but they are not being provided because the hospital claims it is under-resourced. 
Why then did the Canterbury District Health Board sell that land under value by $500000? I will move to what subsequently happened with that land because Ngai Tahu did not hold it for very long before they on-sold it. That is a practice they are following with many pieces of land throughout the Canterbury district. When they on-sold it they sold it apparently for $3 million. I say to Jill Pettis to think about the figures now. That land was shown to be worth $3 million because Ngai Tahu sold it within a couple of months for that figure. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: They are business people. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: George Hawkins interjects that they are business people. I accept they are business people but I ask the member to give me a reason why they should buy land for substantially less than it is worth diddle Cantabrians who are waiting for health outputs diddle Cantabrians who are on the waiting list and then profiteer by on-selling it straightaway. I say to Jill Pettis and George Hawkins that that is wrong. That is exactly the reason— 
Jill Pettis 
: I think this is another Kermadec. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis said stupidly that this is another Kermadec. This is a case whereby land is being traded advantageously to one sector of the community. The legislation was done with good reason and I accept the explanation that Doug Graham gave to me. But it was done on the basis that the transactions would take place at market value. That seemed perfectly fair to me whereby land that was surplus to the Crown was then offered to Ngai Tahu at market value. 
I intend to front up to the House with many more examples showing that Ngai Tahu has not been paying market value. That is my issue. 
Jill Pettis 
: Here we go again; scratching the itch. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis says that I am scratching the itch. That is exactly the defence that Labour Party politicians are putting up day after day because they are defenceless. When we raise issues like this we are now accused of scratching the itch. I tell Jill Pettis that I am not doing that and I am certainly not a racist. I am here to make sure that the best outcomes are delivered to Cantabrians and they cannot be delivered when they are constrained by laws that give Ngai Tahu the advantage to purchase land but when it is done at a huge disadvantage to others. That is what is wrong with race relations in this country. There are many examples— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What about selling airports to their mates? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The only airport in Christchurch that I can think of would be Wigram and I am sure that in future I will be able to table documents in the House to show that that is yet another example of surplus Crown land that had to be offered to Ngai Tahu and portions of it have then been on-sold at substantial profits. Mr Gosche might say that that is right but I say that it is wrong. 
That is why many people I know in Christchurch who are dealing in the property arena talk about the Maori tax. That was not the purpose of that part of the legislation. It was not meant to be a means of Ngai Tahu quickly clipping the ticket and making a profit. It was about them picking up surplus Crown land at a fair market price. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis should go back and look at the case I am talking about. If there is a cash offer on the table for $2.4 million no strings attached at all and 2 months later the land is sold to Ngai Tahu for $1.9 million—for $500000 less—that land is sold at a 25 percent discount. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s not right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is not right. So I say to the House and I say to Jill Pettis who continues to interrupt that that is why this issue raised by Don Brash in Orewa is having such a resonance with people. They are concerned about the policy of the Labour Government that is continuing to embed separate treatment. It is not right; it must stop. Otherwise New Zealanders cannot be at one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Judy Turner has a 5-minute speech with a bell at 1 minute. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 Of all policy areas covered in the Prime Minister’s speech I want to focus on family policy because family policy needs to be built on a solid theoretical foundation and needs to be shaped by cutting-edge research and innovation—like all other areas of Government. If New Zealand families are to thrive due to effective Government policy then we need to re-examine the core principles that underpin our family policy here in New Zealand and determine whether our limited resources are being channelled in the right direction. If the Government genuinely wants to build fences at the top of the proverbial cliff—and I believe that every political party would want to own that claim—rather than sink millions of dollars into remedial social services each year then we have to develop social services that utilise current theories and not remain ignorant of them. 
There is an expanding body of internationally recognised ideas that attempts to map the factors that help individuals families and communities to change and adapt in the face of extreme pressure. For instance a nationwide audit of Australia’s prevention programmes 4 years ago discussed the strength-based or solutions-focused approach and family support models as already being a key facet of strategies to prevent social problems in Australia. The report noted: “Many agencies have begun to refocus their work with families to empower clients focusing on a family’s potential to change rather than just their problems and attempting to engage family members in a truly cooperative venture to find solutions to their issues. An underlying tenet of this perspective is that all families have strengths and capabilities.” 
In many areas New Zealand is a world leader. In the area of social services and development however it is time that New Zealand began to make up the distance—not necessarily in funding but in policy. In our present and historical approach we are very good at identifying risk behaviours quantifying both them and a raft of other forensic strategies. At the end of all our efforts we are left with a good idea of the problem but our ability to construct positive and lasting solutions for families lacks substance. The trouble is we cannot make someone change unless we are prepared to trample on a whole gamut of human rights enshrined throughout New Zealand law. Our risk-based paradigm is great for delivering us pathology but it tells only half the story. Therefore we need to be equipped with the tools to support and foster change and if we are to do that and make a dent in our shameful social statistics we will have to change our paradigm. 
The deficit approach we have been operating from sees the 14-year-old girl with a long history of school truancy and disruptive behaviour puts her life under the risk assessment lens and discovers that there is no address on her school enrolment form. There is no dad at home and her mum is known to be an addict by mental health providers. The girl is performing well below her peers academically. As we tease out the facts the picture looks gloomy and we wonder what hope there is for this girl. 
However the strength-based approach looks at the same girl and discovers these facts: she has a younger 10-year-old brother for whom she is the main caregiver; she cooks tea each night; and when there is a shortage of food she reduces her portion so that her brother gets enough. She often misses school so that she can accompany her mother to a weekly outpatients’ programme with a community mental health provider that specialises in addictive behaviours. The girl will sit for hours waiting for her mother to finish the programme. She shops with her mother to make sure she does not get sidetracked on the way to the supermarket. She has a good relationship with an aunt so that she can relocate her brother and herself when her mum brings home unsafe men. She is very insistent that her brother attends school every day despite her own truancy record. These obvious strengths do not change the deficits but they do give us hope that with the right help these strengths can be built upon to create patterns of living whereby this 14-year-old along with her family may be empowered to make the gradual changes needed to shape a positive future. 
We are developing a culture of victimisation that focuses on rights and entitlements and to change this to a culture of responsibility and participation it will require the Government to shift its thinking from problem management to change management. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Division in New Zealand can be whipped up not only along racial lines but also along “environment versus business” lines. I find such divisive tactics a waste of time and energy. In fact I find them contrary to our energy conservation strategy. 
The notion of sustainable development is a way of working through such conflict. We can and do need to have economic growth but in such a way that it does not damage the soil air and water necessary for the economic growth of the generations to come. It is this principle that underlines our two major pieces of environmental legislation: the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With those two pieces of legislation the community can develop the rules to ensure sustainable development when it is not “business versus green” but a search through plans and consents for a sustainable solution. 
My first meeting with the Resource Management Law Association was early in 2000 in Dunedin. The legislation had been in place under the previous National Government for 9 years. Members of the association told me that the Environment Court was overloaded and slow and was hindering the workings of the Resource Management Act. It is interesting to note that at that time there were amendments before the House to make the Resource Management Act work in favour of business and that was totally adversarial while the problem of resourcing the Environment Court—an easy solution—was being totally ignored. 
The overloading of the Environment Court was leading to blackmail practices. There was a backlog of 3000 to 4000 cases and there was a delay of 18 to 30 months to have appeals heard. What did we do? We did not bring in adversarial legislation; instead we brought in extra funding we put up an extra judge and commissioners we introduced and funded mediation services we brought in a new case management system and we brought in the production of digital evidence. I was told by several district councils in my trawl around late last year that the greenmail has stopped—that term has nothing to do with the Green Party; it is just the phrase often used. As at the beginning of this year the backlog is now at 1503 cases and the standard as at 1 April will be 6 months to have an appeal heard not 30 months. There are 1503 cases to be heard not 3000. 
In reducing the backlog and in taking away those powers that existed for some people to blackmail we have remained loyal to the principles of the Resource Management Act. We have found a way of not being divisive or adversarial but of solving the problem. I think that that is the way this Government acts. That is how we are builders—builders of hope builders of community—and not people who split and divide. 
We have found a range of difficulties in implementing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act a very complex but very well-intentioned piece of legislation delivered by the National Party’s former Minister for the Environment the Rt Hon Simon Upton. It is brilliant legislation. However prior to 1996 hazardous substances—that is chemicals: things that burn and things that explode—were managed under separate pieces of legislation. Under this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act we have to transfer the management of those substances from their different Acts to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The transfer process began in 2001 and revealed—and this is really scary—there were many many thousands some say 200000 hazardous substances in New Zealand that had never been registered and therefore were not subject to any risk assessment or risk management scheme. The job was much bigger than the Environmental Risk Management Authority had been resourced for by the previous Government. 
From 2001 when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act came into force businesses raised problems they were having. So what did we do? We announced a strategy to improve the transfer of substances to the new regime. We have a bill before the House now to make the transfer faster and to allow the Environmental Risk Management Authority more ability to vary controls on substances such as removing the default control that specifies that people filling their cars with petrol or using household fly sprays must be qualified. There really was a brilliant effort by Simon Upton on that part but he did not realise it was going to apply down at that level. We took that Act and said: “The spirit of the legislation is good. Let us move now to correct that legislation.”—and that is what we have done in answer. We have also substantially increased the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s budget from that which I inherited in 1999. 
These amendments will reduce business compliance costs costs to the Government and the time taken to transfer substances to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act controls while still being honest about the intention of the legislation—that is; the minimising of the risk to health safety and the environment. The amendments are needed urgently by the way to allow 1080 poison to be reassessed and to allow the transfer of some hazardous substances such as petrol to the new regime. So this Government has worked hard to enable the community to work together—not to divide each other but to work together—for a solution that meets the needs of the land of conservationists of businesses and of farmers. 
The community in all its guises must be involved in finding environmental solutions. We think that the preservation of sacred sites such as wahi tapu is only a New Zealand problem. I spent my holidays in Ireland and there they are having a wondrous fight which has spanned several years about building a motorway over an ancient monastic site—a sacred religious site. Worldwide there is conflict on such issues. I think sometimes we need to stand back and realise that these are issues not just in New Zealand; these are issues worldwide. Let us work our way through them rather than setting up either/or or black/white. 
We have some major problems in New Zealand but the solution is engagement not division. I think of something like Lake Taupo. We have a problem there of land use and therefore a problem of a loss of water clarification because of eutrophication caused by nitrates entering the water. The solution is to take the sewage away from the lake or the lakeside and to change the land use. The costs have to be shared—not just borne by the people who live around the lake but by all New Zealanders because the lake is an icon. Here is a political problem: for the next 40 years that lake will get worse even while ratepayers and taxpayers are putting money into the solution. That requires political courage. That is what this Labour Government is about: doing something for the better. I will be dead by the time the lake starts to improve—or I think I will be unless I make a century. 
It is the same problem with the Rotorua lakes. We had some really good issues where we had local members like Steve Chadwick come forward and raise a matter with me and with local people—and we responded. We respond by bringing in people and paying for them to come and find solutions and to work with the regional government and local governments responsible. We have done that with Fiordland’s guardians with dross in Invercargill and with tyres in Hamilton—I could go on. 
Then we come to a problem like the Waitaki River. If we think about the people of Dunedin we know that on one side they have the Clutha which has been taken up for hydroelectric power and on the other side they have the Waitaki. There are two great rivers on either side of them. The people of Dunedin look at that situation and they are really anxious. We had an Environmental Council that did not set up a water allocation plan. I know there are members opposite who say: “Oh don’t take any notice of that. Just roll ahead make the decision and get on with it lady. What are you on about? Get on with it. We need power. Just roll ahead.” Not us! We set up a methodology by which a community can have its say and work its way through. 
It is the same with dirty air in Christchurch. If I want an environmental standard to raise the quality of air I have to find I think an economic solution to solve that problem. This is a Government that works with business with farmers with the Fish and Game Council and with mayors to find solutions that do not compromise economic growth or environmental health. It is not a case of either/or. It does not have to be divisive. It takes time to accomplish that engagement and I know that. 
Labour builds and Labour engages; it does not have to set up division. That is the society that I get misty-eyed about when I fly back home. That is the society that I care about—the society built on number eight fencing wire the society built on engagement the society founded on finding solutions; not a society founded on throwing mud at each other. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 A tuatahi tenei te mihi atu ki a koe ki nga mema katoa o tenei Whare Paremata a tena koutou katoa. That was just a brief mihi to you Mr Speaker and to all members of this House given that this is my first speech of the year. In making this contribution to the debate I just want to say that I am proud to be a New Zealander to be Maori to be Waikato Maniapoto Ngapuhi and be a young Maori woman in 2004. But we have to ask ourselves each and every one of us what that means for us here today in New Zealand. I do not think it means we should polarise the views that exist within our society. I do not think that is helpful. I do not think it means that we should set one person against the other on the basis of slogans and not understanding. I do not think it means that we as a Parliament should purport to represent views without trying to peel away some of the underlying issues that create a negative perception that is not based on fact. 
In making this contribution today I want to highlight the positive things that this Government has done and to put on the record that at least this Government is not afraid of having the debate. At least this Government is not afraid of putting the hard issues right out there in front of every New Zealander and of arguing constructively in a way that creates understanding and generates more questions and debate but also in a way that seeks to genuinely pose the question to all New Zealanders of what it means to be New Zealanders. It is not a lump in the throat but a feeling that all members in this House get in their gut no matter whether they are Maori Pakeha Asian Samoan Tongan Cook Island Niuean Tuvaluan or whatever. I ask this question: does New Zealand celebrate my diversity? Does New Zealand celebrate the fact that I am different? Does being a New Zealander mean that I have a place to be? If we cannot provide that kind of vision for all members of our society then we should not be here. That is why I am concerned about the way in which the Opposition has raised the temperature and seeks to polarise opinions and not to have a genuine debate about the issues of diversity within our country as they exist today not as they existed in the 1950s. 
In the 1950s the grandparents in my heritage were prevented from speaking their own language in the schools. That was race-based legislation that worked against them. In the 1960s when Maori sought to assert themselves as Maori they were discriminated against in areas of labour—of work and of employment opportunities. That was not helpful and it worked against them. In the 1970s when Maori sought to assert themselves through education—and we had a few of them coming through tertiary education at that time—they were confronted with very very strong views about why Maori should be only in labour-intensive industries not excelling in the path of tertiary education. That was in the 1970s. What did we have in the 1980s? We had people asserting that it was important for people of culture to know and learn their language. What did we see? We saw the start of the kohanga reo movement. In the 1990s those kids have grown up with a positive affirmation of whom they are where they belong and what culture means—not so that they can differentiate in order to exclude others but so that they can identify what their culture means to them and can embrace and accept other cultures. That is the New Zealand that I will work towards. It is the kind of New Zealand that I think most people want and it is the type of discussion we should be having. 
 Many points have been raised in this House about special preference for certain groups. I think we just need to take a breath and if we look back long and hard at our history we will see that race-based legislation—in its earliest form it probably was not legislation but the right of pre-emption in the treaty for example—worked to the favour of a minority group coming into the country even though the majority interests could very well have not benefited. People choose to have a short memory when it suits them. 
The barometer of Maori opinion in 2004 is a very positive one. The barometer of Maori opinion today is looking forward and focusing on growth and opportunity. Why is that? It is because Maori want to be positive contributors to this society. What does that mean? It means that we see Maori engaging and wanting to engage more proactively in areas of entrepreneurship and the delivery of social services in a relevant way that provides good positive outcomes and in areas that improve our health and well-being. That cannot be bad can it? I do not think so. I looked at the Bartercard New Zealand Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2002 and what did that report state? It stated that Maori have an 11.9 percent rate of total entrepreneurial activity. In fact if Maori were ranked as an individual country Maori in New Zealand would be the world’s seventh most entrepreneurial country. That is quite a strong statement in terms of the spirit of entrepreneurialism that exists within Maoridom. That report goes on to state that Maori entrepreneurs are younger than other entrepreneurs and that they are able to identify opportunity. When we look at the positive aspect of that statement from that report—a study of entrepreneurship in this country—we see we can be quite optimistic about the contribution young Maori will make to this country. That is a good thing for us all. 
I reiterate that Maori want to be positive contributors to this society creating employment opportunities and becoming upskilled. They do not just want to be labourers—as people would have condemned us to be in the 1950s; they also want to help to be the responsible employers of the future generation. That cannot be bad can it? No it is positive. That is the way forward and that is where this Government is trying to take our people. 
In looking at areas specifically within my constituency in the Waikato I note that we are one of three regions to have received the roll-out of Project Probe. I am quite a fan of broadband Internet access. What does it mean? Certainly for the Tainui electorate it means that it will go to rural communities like the Coromandel—and I went to the launch of broadband access there. It will enable schools in rural areas to be able to receive learning through video conferencing—for all students not just for Maori. But in particular the students in those communities will have access to learning subjects that they never had access to before. That is great. Why is that? Because the window for opportunity for those students will be opened so much further because they have access to that learning in the first instance and they can dare to think that they can have a career outside of Hahei. 
When I talk about some of the things that are of concern I want to make one comment before I end my speech. It relates to the position of the Maori seats. I find it quite amusing that when people want to have a slang at Maori they have a slang at the Maori seats. In reference to the Tainui electorate I say anyone can ask me whether I turn anyone away when he or she comes to my office no matter what race the person is. I do not. When people come into my office I know they come in because they need help. I think that to create the perception that the members representing the Maori electorates do not have the opportunity to help all peoples is a mistruth. 
In ending my speech I say the barometer of Maori opinion is not on the things that divide us; it is on the things that will help Maori to grow positively. So the things that will be positive for Maori will be the creation of the Maori Television Service and the allocation of Maori fisheries in order to help Maori to participate in that industry and to actually get their people out doing the fishing. Maybe the one thing that challenges us all is the issue of the foreshore and seabed and there will be a lot of debate in the House when it is time to debate that matter. However I want to say that this Government is not afraid to have the debate in a real and meaningful way that deconstructs all the myths and that deals with the facts and the real issues affecting our people. Every New Zealander who is listening to this debate today will know that hard though it is and has been this Government is prepared to take a step forward in a genuine way towards trying to understand where we all belong within this country what a sense of nationhood will mean under a Labour-led Government and also in the long term what citizenship means for all of us. No reira tena koutou katoa. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Mr Speaker given that this is my first contribution in the House this year can I start by wishing you a happy New Year and wishing all of my parliamentary colleagues likewise. 
I support the motion of Dr Don Brash the leader of the National Party—the next Prime Minister of New Zealand in 2005 and maybe a bit sooner. It could be a bit sooner if this Government finally caves in and goes to the polls which some are predicting. The leader of the National Party when he moved the motion of no confidence in this Government knew what he was doing and I support that motion. 
The good hardworking people from Taranaki - King Country—farmers business people—have a simple approach to life and a simple saying. It goes like this: if it looks like a cow walks like a cow and smells like a cow then it probably is a cow. That is how they operate. 
I sat in the House on Tuesday when the Prime Minister gave her first speech of the year. I looked at the Prime Minister and saw that she had no passion no vision and no leadership. Her speech when I read it had none either—I have gone back through it. I looked around the House at a whole lot of Labour members—who were kindly described by Mark Sainsbury last night as resting their eyes—and they had no leadership no vision and no passion. So what does that look like? It looks like a Government with a Prime Minister who has no leadership no passion and no direction and based on a simple theory from Taranaki - King Country if it looks like a cow smells like a cow and walks like a cow then it probably is a cow. This Government had no leadership no vision and no passion—or it looked like that—so that is probably so. I say that it has no leadership no passion and no sense of where the country should go. That is the reality. This Government looks tired unimpassioned and as though it lacks leadership. 
So let us have a look at what it has promised to do over the next couple of years. It has promised to introduce a range of new legislation. One can ask the question: how does that fit in with the Prime Minister’s stated objective of lifting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD? Now when we have a look at the Prime Minister’s speech on Tuesday we see that the first piece of legislation she mentioned is an aquaculture reform bill. I am sure that will be very helpful for business. There is the Building Bill. I happen to be on the select committee where that bill is being discussed and all I have seen so far is a whole lot of costs being loaded on to industry. There is the Care of Children Bill the Charities Bill the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill and the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. All of those were mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech. I ask members: which one of them will help the Prime Minister in her objective of lifting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD? When one goes through those bills and has a look at them all one sees is a heap of costs being dumped on to New Zealand business and on to the growth of this economy. 
We can have a look at what is happening in the social area with this Labour Government—the Government that traditionally has always supported social needs. In education 300 schools in rural New Zealand are under review. Most of them will be closed. The Minister himself has given up now on going through the review process; he is just making arbitrary closure decisions around the country willy-nilly whether they are good schools or bad schools. 
Let us have a look at what is happening on the farm—the engine room of the economy. There has been 20 percent inflation since this Government came into power. Look at the forecasts in terms of what incomes will do on farms. The forecast in today’s paper is that the dairy payout will potentially fall to $2 or $2.20—well below the economic level of survival for most farms in New Zealand. These are all good indicators. 
Then we look at one or two of the other issues. What will happen in rural health? One of the issues the Government trumpeted up and down the country in 1999 in its manifesto was that it would provide improved health services. There is no mention of needs-based services. There is no mention of those. What do we have in rural health instead? There is a gradual incremental decline—not an improvement but a decline. It is harder to find services in rural New Zealand. It is not easier; it is harder. I tell Jill Pettis to go and talk to people in Stratford about their maternity service. She should go across the boundary and have a talk— 
Jill Pettis 
: That is not us. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well Taranaki Base Hospital or Taranaki Healthcare funds it so if it is not the Government’s whose is it? 
Jill Pettis 
: The district health board’s. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well the Government funds that. If it is not Labour’s responsibility then whose is it? 
The higher dollar is putting pressure on exports; there is no question about that. Who is in charge? What did those members say in Opposition when the dollar started to rise? Who did they blame for that? We can pull out speeches and ask members what they said about that. 
We have had 20 new taxes thus far from this Government and they are talking about more. In response to the 11 September attacks we have the Border Security Bill before a select committee. It will put $8 million-worth of extra cost on exporters alone and 70 percent of what used to be done by the Customs Service will be dumped on exporters. 
Jill Pettis 
: Not yet. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Not yet no but it is being proposed; the member is right—not yet. So how will that help to lift New Zealand into the top half of the OECD? 
The Minister for the Environment spoke before and she spoke with great passion about the Resource Management Act. That Act has needed amending for the last 7 or 8 years. She is quite right. There were a heap of proposed amendments under the last Government and under Simon Upton based on the Owen McShane report. What did she do with them? She put her red pen through the whole lot. She scrapped the lot and introduced further costs further delays and further humbug for anybody who wants to do something. 
Hon Member 
: Simon Upton talked about it! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: He talked about it but never got it done. I accept that. In 5 years the Government has not done a thing. In fact it has added a heap of extra costs. 
So what other types of legislative change can we expect from this Government? We will see a major change to the Employment Relations Bill and a huge amount of extra costs put on industry as a result of that proposed change. So where is this leadership and where is the grand statement now from the Prime Minister that we will lift this country to the top half of the OECD? It is history. 
Let us look at what has happened in the last few days with regard to discussion in this House particularly to do with race relations. We have a Government that is now clearly on the ropes. The Orewa speech made by Dr Don Brash has obviously struck a chord. 
I have listened with great interest to the Maori members of this House. Not one of them has disagreed with anything he said in that speech—not one. That is amazing. In fact I listened to Nanaia Mahuta a few minutes ago. She went through a list of issues and they virtually outlined exactly what he said in that speech. I listened with great interest. 
Now we have them banging on on the other side of the House about the National Party trying to cause racial tension. Remember it was the National Party that introduced the historic grievance process and in that process did more for Maori and got further down the track than anybody else. The  
Holmes  
show poll the other night demonstrated to members exactly what New Zealanders think of this issue and they know instinctively that Dr Brash is right. It is not racist; and it is not what they are trying to say on the Government side of the House. Dr Brash is actually saying what the majority of New Zealanders Maori and non-Maori believe. 
 Let us have a look at another area this Government is poking its fingers into. Around the country the Government is currently buying up grand blocks of land—23000 hectares in the case of Birchwood Station in the South Island—under the notion that somehow or other the State knows how to manage conservation better than anybody else. Let us have a look at the State’s record on that. We should look at what is happening in terms of preserving conservation through the hands of the Department of Conservation. That department is the worst neighbour in the country when it comes to weed-infested bits of land. It is the worst department in the country when it comes to weed and pest control. Members should go and have a look. They can find isolated pockets where the department is doing a good job but overwhelmingly the State does not know best. In fact in the Minister’s own comments with regard to Birchwood he said that it was a fine piece of conservation owned by the Williams family and for that reason he felt that the State should take it over. It will be interesting to see if it is in that condition in 10 years’ time. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Speaking as a Waikato member of Parliament I take this opportunity to convey my sympathy particularly to Shade Ardern and his team and to the Wilkie family on the untimely passing of Maureen Wilkie who was a very good example of a wonderful electorate agent. These electorate agents in terms of their professionalism serve people all around the country irrespective of the person’s political affiliations. It has been a reminder of the important community role played by people in our offices all around the country. I convey my sympathies to Maureen’s family the many many people who knew her and those who worked with her. 
It is with sadness that I also note the passing of the previous deputy chief executive of Environment Waikato and current Environment Court commissioner Bob Priest. He was a very very good public servant and I have to admit that it was not until I attended his funeral that I truly realised what a very accomplished and brilliant man he was. He was exceptionally humble but a very very good person to deal with and he will be sorely missed in our community. 
I also acknowledge the passing of Roma Lilley of Hamilton who was a life member of the Labour Party and I do so in the context of the many people who serve in political parties around this country but who never seek to be elected to Parliament. I acknowledge that everyone in this Chamber is here because of the efforts of the Roma Lilleys of this world—the people who do not seek to come here themselves but give up so many hours of their life to fight for the causes they believe in. Roma was a great contributor to my political party. I also acknowledge her work for people with disabilities in Hamilton. She was incredibly cheerful at all times and quite inspirational. She will also be sorely missed from community radio where she used to run a very excellent programme. 
I am proud to be a member of this Labour-Progressive coalition Government. We have a very positive story to tell about how much has currently been achieved in New Zealand and about how much more can be achieved as New Zealanders work together—I emphasise together—to realise our country’s full potential. We have built the foundations for change and improvement and now we can see those results emerging. After many years of sluggish growth and social decay New Zealand has picked up momentum and is moving forward on many fronts. 
This year’s Budget I am proud to say will bring important changes for families in this country. The new Families Commission will be up and running. I note and observe the speech made by Judy Turner and acknowledge the work of United Future in helping us to establish the Families Commission. It is a very good example in an MMP environment of positive collaboration between two political parties. We will be making major improvements to the level of family income assistance and introduce new initiatives for early childhood education. 
The new mortgage insurance pilot scheme between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank is helping people on low incomes to buy their own homes. Consultation will soon begin on a new housing strategy to make sure that all New Zealanders are housed. Norman Kirk used to say that one of the fundamental elements of social justice in being a Kiwi was having the right to have a decent roof over one’s head. We now have 176000 more people in jobs since Labour formed the Government in 1999. New Zealanders increasingly see themselves as creative people with much to offer the world through the creative industries such as film and music. 
I want to reflect briefly on the Orewa speech made by Dr Brash. Actually I think the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon was the last senior politician to give a speech in Orewa. In my view there was something of a time warp about the speech given by Dr Brash and choosing to go to Orewa says a lot about his vision for this country. The cynic in me says that the content of the Orewa speech was nothing but a cynical attempt in many ways to divert the attention of the people away from what members opposite would do to the people and working families of this country if ever they had another chance to occupy the Treasury benches. 
The Orewa speech did not give working families the message that if the Opposition formed the next National-ACT Government it would immediately repeal the holidays legislation and do away with 4 weeks’ annual holiday for working families; that it would remain at 3 weeks. The Orewa speech did not talk about that. With regard to the Families Commission I say that given the cynicism the vile and invective directed at United Future presumably that positive initiative would also be done away with. I talked earlier about the mortgage insurance pilot scheme between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that that would go down the tube because a National-ACT Government should it come to power would do two things—firstly it would get rid of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and privatise it and secondly it has promised to sell off Kiwibank no doubt to some foreign bank and do away with one of the only New Zealand – owned banks in this country. Those issues are the kinds of things that the Brash Orewa speech did not tell us about. 
John Key earlier in the debate today talked about some notion of fear in Labour MPs’ eyes. I tell Mr Key to look again and look into my eyes. They are the eyes of sadness. In my first term in Parliament as an Opposition Labour MP I accompanied the Rt Hon James Bolger Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Rt Hon Doug Graham to Turangawaewae Marae where they signed on behalf of the Crown the raupatu settlement that brought to a close a longstanding historic grievance between the Tainui people and the Crown and that enabled us in the Waikato to move forward. It is very clear that the party currently led by Dr Don Brash is a very very different party from the one led by James Bolger Prime Minister. 
Talking of cynicism the ultimate cynicism is the way in which the National Party is now treating its Maori constituency and the Maori members. In the 2002 election campaign we recall that Michelle Boag went out actively presumably with the support of Bill English to court Maori candidates. They placed people like Hekia Parata very high on the list. Even Bill English in his Southland speech to the regional National Party conference prior to becoming Leader of the Opposition talked about the changing demographics in this country and how the National Party would lose one seat per election based on the growth in young New Zealanders of Polynesian origin. How it all changes! Now on the basis of one speech the National Party has made a cold calculated determination that it does not need New Zealanders of Maori or Pacific Island origin any more and it has turned its back on that important section of our community. 
I think personally that National may have some short-term bump in the polls but in the long term the National Party that descended from proud Prime Ministers people like Sir Keith Holyoake—it was a party of so-called consensus in the 1960s and it was a Government of consensus—will rue the day it ventured down this particular track. 
I am very proud to be a member of a Government that will back all Kiwi families irrespective of their ethnic origin. We will aid Kiwis where they need it and in ways in which they need it irrespective of their circumstances. I am proud to be a Waikato member of a Parliament who is witnessing excellent economic growth and very low unemployment. I am proud to be part of the very very positive initiatives under the leadership of this Government. I am proud to be a member of a Government that wants to bring New Zealanders together not divide them in the most cynical way as we have seen from members opposite. 
In terms of division what a divided Opposition it is. A senior member of the National caucus Mr Brian Connell implied that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was some form of charlatan. That in my view is not coalition talk. I do hope New Zealand First notes the latest overtures being made by the National Party in that direction. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I have been advised by New Zealand First that it wishes to share its slot between two members. I shall ring the bell at 4 minutes with 1 minute remaining. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Prime Minister’s statement this week made vague references to beginning consultation soon to ensure all New Zealanders have access to affordable and sustainable quality housing. Come on Prime Minister! This is not a new problem. It has been around for years. Why is this Government just working towards beginning a consultation period soon? It is time for action now not further periods of navel-gazing. The Prime Minister and her Ministers should look at New Zealand First’s housing policy for some clear and immediately achievable ideas. For example I will quote two or three ideas from New Zealand First’s published 2002 election policy: “New Zealand First will build or buy sufficient low-income houses to address New Zealand’s current housing crisis. New Zealand First will provide a better match between the size and location of houses to the requirements oftenants. New Zealand First also proposes low-interest loans for first-time homeowners to help them buy their own home or convert to a rent-to-buy scheme.” 
As the newly appointed New Zealand First spokesperson on housing I say to the Minister that I will be watching listening to and looking at the performance of the housing portfolio. It is time for action now and I expect to see significant progress from this Government in the upcoming Budget to provide for a significant improvement in housing. This Government had 9 years of planning in Opposition 5 years in Government and has a $5 billion surplus. It is not good enough just to begin the consultation process soon. 
Of course we know why this Government has to go back to begin consultation soon. It simply does not know how to overcome the problems it has created by its irresponsible open-door immigration policy. This policy has resulted in a huge demand for housing from new arrivals. That demand has driven up house prices and rentals to the exclusion of ordinary New Zealanders—citizens with a genuine and in many cases desperate need to get out of cramped and substandard lodgings. New Zealand First will not allow such an immigration policy to continue when we form the next Government. We will not allow our citizens to be forced down the waiting list and made to wait while houses remain empty reserved exclusively for new arrivals. 
We have heard a lot about Waitangi Day over the last couple of days. I could not believe the naivety of Don Brash when he arrived at the entrance to Te Tii Marae and demanded that mainstream media be allowed to accompany him on to the marae. When those demands were refused he stamped his feet like a spoilt brat who was not allowed the sweets and refused to go on. It was obvious that Mr Brash was at Waitangi for the wrong reasons. He was not there to celebrate our nation’s day of unity or to meet and build bridges and relationships with Maori. Mr Brash’s appearance was nothing more than a publicity stunt. The lack of respect that he received he brought on himself not for his Orewa speech but for his arrogant treatment of his only Maori MP Georgina te Heuheu. That is the shame Mr Brash needs to face up to. 
I wonder whether many of the other critics and media commentators actually attended the same Waitangi that I did. Peter Dunne’s claim of disgraceful behaviour at Waitangi is a good example. I ask Mr Dunne what part of the Waitangi activities he attended because I did not see him there. Waitangi Day is a wonderful fun family day when local Maori and Pakeha alike enjoy a day of music and spontaneity. I strolled around the Waitangi maraes with my fellow New Zealand First colleagues. We were greeted with smiles and friendly handshakes everywhere. I ask the media whether they can honestly say that the selective reporting of sensationalism is a true and fair representation of Waitangi Day or just tabloid sensationalism to boost ratings. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker I would like to congratulate you on your position as Assistant Speaker and wish you a very good run in the House for the rest of the session. I also offer New Year greetings to my fellow parliamentarians. 
At the last election New Zealand First made three promises. We said we would fix immigration law and order and the Treaty of Waitangi industry. As far as immigration is concerned I think the Prime Minister is a little bit late in some of the statements she made in her speech. She said for example: “Net migration continues to be strong which also reflects confidence in New Zealand. In the year to December 2003 more New Zealanders came home and fewer left than in the previous year. The long-term visitor arrival numbers however are being affected by the decline in overseas student numbers.” The Prime Minister is hopelessly out of date. She does not seem to be aware that our promise we made at the last election to reduce immigration is coming into effect. As we know the current figures show when we annualise the last 3-monthly figures a bigger drop in immigration to about 17000. We are moving from a stage when at the time the 13 new New Zealand First members came into office we had an immigration rate of about 45000 to 55000; now the immigration figures are being annualised out to 17000. That is New Zealand First policy. We promised to fix three things. Can we fix them? Well there is one of them fixed already by New Zealand First. 
The second thing we said we would do was take some action on the Treaty of Waitangi. I am not sure whether we should appreciate the way in which the National Party has gone about its business as it is plagiarising New Zealand First speeches plagiarising New Zealand First phrases and plagiarising New Zealand First questions in Parliament but it cannot plagiarise New Zealand First principles which have been held by the leader of this party for 16 years. They are principles upon which he resigned but principles that he is not giving effect to in the same underhand sort of way that we see from this very sad National Party today. 
One of the things we would like to see in this foreshore and seabed debate is some more action from the Labour Maori members of Parliament. I was looking at the way in which the Labour Maori members of Parliament perform; I thought I would see what they were doing this year. So I looked at the bills before select committees. I thought I would look at what the Maori Affairs Committee was doing. How busy are those members of Parliament? Well they do not have a single bill before them. The Maori Affairs Committee does not have even one bill before it. I thought that maybe it would have some other work but the only other work it has is the financial review. Yet here we have another select committee being set up in Parliament to look at Maori issues. We have Maori members of Parliament who are lions on the marae but we know they are lambs in the caucus. We have been listening to them in this debate for the last 3 days. They have not said a word that matters on the foreshore and seabed debate. They have kept very quiet on that issue. So I thought that perhaps those Maori members are earning their money on the select committee. But they are not doing a thing. There is nothing happening at the Maori Affairs Committee. 
New Zealand First came up with a little slogan about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: “Taihoa taihoa and off to work we go.” What we have now is: “Taihoa taihoa and off to shirk we go.” They are shirking the job. What is the use of Maori seats if Maori members do nothing—absolutely nothing—in the Maori Affairs Committee and allow Russell Fairbrother and his group to run the business of Maori affairs? The Maori Fisheries Bill is being handled by Russell Fairbrother a general seat member from Napier. What are the Maori members doing? The nail in the coffin of the Maori members is well under way. 
As far as law and order our third issue is concerned my good colleague Ron Mark is running rings around the Labour Government Mr Goff and Mr Hawkins. Members will notice that most of the questions seem to be answered by Mr Goff these days not by Mr Hawkins. He has just about resigned his police portfolio because of the hard work being done by Ron Mark. We promised we would do three things before the last election. We are doing them. They are well under way and we will get them sorted out before the next election. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 Members will be interested to know that was the once-great Dail Jones a former senior National Party MP. When Dail Jones stormed out of the National Party when he was heavily defeated by another former National Party ally the Hon Jack Elder in 1984 he spent 20 years away from Parliament. Dail Jones spent 20 years in the wilderness only to be rescued by the New Zealand First list. One would think that after 20 years away the once-great National Party MP the doyen of National Party thought in those days would come back to the House with some very strong messages that he would be wanting to tell Parliament. One would think he would be wanting to tell New Zealand right across the nation some very important messages. But Dail Jones used the first speech of the year to tell members what committees are meeting in Parliament how many bills are before them who the members should be and what time of the day they should meet. This is a man who was focused very much on the small minutiae of parliamentary detail. There was no great idea no great statement— 
John Carter 
: What’s this member going to speak about? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: John Carter asks what I will say. I will get on to it soon and when I do the National Party will find out a whole lot of good things are happening in this country that will keep it cemented so far down in the polls that it will be several elections before it gets anywhere near the cross benches of this House. 
In rising to support the Prime Minister’s statement which I thought was just fantastic I want to say how proud I am to be a member of this Labour-Progressive Government and how proud I feel to be a young New Zealander at the beginning of the 21st century and part of a Government that is setting forward some future plans for our country as we decide to fix the problems that are there to build on the strengths we have and to make sure we have a country for everybody to live in that means something and that we can be proud of. So I am proud of the Prime Minister’s statement because she came to Parliament with a message. She came into the House and she read out some things that she believes in values she holds and policies that this Government is putting in place for all New Zealanders. 
One can whinge and whine about things all the time and members have heard that. Of this whole 14-hour debate half of it will be about complaining about saying this country is not good enough about saying the Government is not doing enough. But in the half that Government members have we are saying what we believe in and the differences we are trying to make. 
Over the summer adjournment I spent a lot of time in my electorate the Otaki electorate. It was a great pleasure to be at home for long periods of time without having to rush down to the city and be subject to the environmental pollution from the Opposition’s side of the House. There are some really good things happening around provincial and rural New Zealand that make me proud to be part of this Government but more important proud to be a citizen of our country. I went to so many events over the summer adjournment where there were New Zealanders of all different backgrounds shapes sizes and styles. Any kind of New Zealander one would want to mention was there at those big public events; people were enjoying one another’s company and being part of a community. That is why we are born and live in the same sorts of places—because we believe in communities. We believe in being around one another and supporting one another—not ripping each other to bits chipping away all the time and being negative. It is the big public events where people come together for positive reasons that attract numbers not protest rallies complaints or divisive tactics. 
It is the sort of thing we saw around the Horowhenua and Kapiti Coast over summer. I was very pleased to be at the 98th annual Horowhenua Agricultural Pastoral and Industrial Show in Levin where there were 20000 people. There was the major Organic River Festival also in Levin which attracted many thousands of people. There was the “big dig” at our beaches. There were the Waikanae sports days which people from right across the Wellington region turned out for. A Whopper Chopper was held recently and this weekend there is the Manakau Medieval Market Day. So it can be seen that there are lots of things happening around our area and region and people are coming together at those public events. 
Jill Pettis 
: Men in tights. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: There will be men in tights in Manakau this weekend I can tell the House. The event will be on State Highway 1 so there will be a lot of highway patrol cars directing traffic. Mrs Pettis should just carry on to Whanganui and I hope Mrs Turia ensures she gets there without stopping to check out the men in tights at Horowhenua. Maybe she could give her a ride! 
But it is the Government policies that I think are making a big difference in my electorate. In 2003 there were 135 new businesses. That means more people in my area are working in real sustainable jobs and more businesses are contributing to our local economy. Our regional partnership plan which is an important part of this Government’s economic strategy is beginning to take real shape now. The Kapiti and Horowhenua districts are working together on the kind of economic growth that we can get for our district. 
Ron Mark 
: The Labour members have more fun. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Mark chatters away through all of this because as a list member of Parliament—somebody who has failed in every general election he has ever stood in—he is not quite sure how to work as a constituency member to get economic growth. So he finds it a bit tough. He is still giggling about the Manakau Medieval Market Day. 
But what we are doing now is focusing on tourism. Our economic development agency is coming together to bring together the two district councils and business groups from the two districts to try to work out ways to lift the skills base of those already in work and to find jobs for those who are out of work. So there are very positive things happening on the economic front in my electorate which mirrors what is happening right around New Zealand. Opposition members do not like the fact that every single region in New Zealand is in economic growth. That is not true just for some people; it is true for every single New Zealander. Every single group of New Zealanders has seen unemployment go down and prosperity go up as a consequence. We are making some real differences because in the end it is jobs that make the best difference for ordinary New Zealanders and that is what we are seeing. 
On the transport front I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague the Hon Paul Swain for the legislation he brought into Parliament last year—the Land Transport Management Bill. My colleague Winnie Laban the member for Mana and I have advocated for a lot of the regional transport initiatives that our two seats between the cities of Palmerston North and Wellington need to make sure we get the transport infrastructure right. Last year we were successful in lobbying about the McKays Crossing overbridge. It will make a huge difference to commuters from the Kapiti Coast to Wellington. We have had progress on it and this year work will start on the construction of that overbridge. I thank the Minister for the work on that. Obviously Winnie Laban and I are working with the Hon Peter Dunne the member for Ohariu-Belmont to see what we can do to progress theTransmission Gully road because that is another road that as Wellington regional members of Parliament we have said is quite important. 
On the health side of events the health policies under the very strong leadership of the Hon Annette King are making real gains in my electorate particularly in Kapiti. 
John Carter 
: Name-dropper. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: John Carter says it is name-dropping. When it comes to Annette King he is quite right because she is fixing up the problems in Northland Health when he does not do anything about them. He knows that she is making a real difference to people’s health in the far north. 
The Kapiti Health Centre was opened by Annette King in October and Winnie Laban and I were very pleased to be there at that. Already after just a few months of operation the local people are saying what a fantastic health asset it is. Why is it so successful? Because we worked with the community to build up an initiative that people could buy into. Rather than take the National Government approach to health which was to roll into town tell everyone what the decision was and impose it on people we have worked with communities from the grassroots up to make sure we get solutions that work for those communities. I am very pleased to talk about the health centre in Kapiti because it has been very well received. The primary health organisation there which I was able to launch in July is now starting to step up. It is only an interim funded primary health organisation so it is not one of the lucky ones I guess that has access funding but we got stuck into it straightaway because we knew the Government had a vision for primary health and we wanted to be out of the starting blocks early in order to make sure we could eventually get that funding to deliver lower-cost primary health-care for ordinary people. 
The time goes so quickly when one is talking about all the great things this Government is doing in the health area. Later this year for over-65s we will start a new primary health-care package that will reduce even further the cost to them of primary care. They will pay only $3 in prescription charges which for older New Zealanders will make a huge difference. 
 We did not hear anything from the National Opposition members at any point through this debate about their vision for primary health-care. Nothing was said about what they would do to deliver primary health-care to low-income New Zealanders to older New Zealanders to young people and to those with real health needs. Nothing was said about it at all. That is why National members have fumbled so badly this week. They have been done over badly at question time in the last 2 days. The “stunned mullet” look on the Opposition faces was extraordinary. I knew this would happen. They came into Parliament on Tuesday all cock-a-hoop all puffed up in the chest because they thought they had one idea—just one. When they found out that they could talk about one idea for one day only and that the sun came up the next day and they had to have other policies across the wide range of government they were plastered all over the walls of this Chamber by the competent and dedicated Ministers who stood on this side of the House. 
It has been a bad week for National members at question time because they have learnt that being grumpy will not work. Members cannot just get up and say: “I don’t like that. I’m grumpy about something. Who can I pick on today?” then say: “Let us see the votes flock in now; this will be a tidal wave to take us to Government.” Of course it does not work. On every other policy area that party is totally bankrupt of ideas. We heard no new ideas apart from Don Brash an elderly chap saying he thought the onus of proof should change when people are arrested for certain crimes or something or other. That was the big bold idea from a man who holds himself up as an alternative Prime Minister. 
I say that the National Party members could have used this debate to put forward their ideas for Government. They did not. They used question time to allow themselves to be done over badly. It has been a bad week. Labour has the ideas the vision and the progress to make New Zealand a great place—not for some people but for all people. That is what is happening in my electorate and it is happening around the country. I am proud of the Government and I am proud of the Prime Minister’s statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I have been informed by United Future that its members wish to split their slot into two 5-minute speeches. The bell will go at 4 minutes. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 In my maiden speech I said: “I believe that the primary cause for most of the problems our nation faces amongst its families comes down to the usurping by the State of the responsibilities of the community and the demise of the Church’s role and status in relation to both the community and the State. The rebalancing of those three sectors of our society is I believe the only way to bring about a lasting solution to the growing law and order health education and welfare problems we face as a nation.” I went on to talk about the need for community autonomy from Government intervention. At the heart of the community is of course the family. Firstly I thank the Prime Minister and other members of the Labour caucus including Martin Gallagher this afternoon who acknowledged United Future’s success in putting the family back on the agenda. Prior to United Future coming to this House the family was barely mentioned. Now it seems that it is every party’s focus albeit disparagingly as far as the Opposition parties are concerned. 
It has been United Future that has put the family back into the centre of our society and that has taken active steps to ensure its growing stability and growing security. The family is the first government that our children are subject to. That is an important consideration. There is therefore an important need for Parliament to respect the family’s authority instead of usurping it and to intervene in the exercise of parental authorityonly when there is a clear imperative to do so. 
Later on this year I will lodge a member’s bill concerning parental discipline to set out criteria that the court should use to assess whether physical contact by a parent with a child is justifiable discipline or unjust abuse. There is a world of difference between the two. 
At this point I really want to address the relationship between the State and the community and the usurping by the State of the community’s role. We see it very clearly in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services mess—poor management poor methodology and poor performance. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services always has a dilemma. It is criticised for infringing on parental rights if it moves too quickly to remove a child from his or her home and it is criticised for failing to protect children if it moves too slowly. The problem is that when the Government gets involved in these activities it can work only as a blunt instrument. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services is a typical blunt instrument. Because it has usurped the role of the local community which knows what is happening in families far quicker and far better than any State agency the local community has been pushed aside. 
The Department of Child Youth and Family Services in its current form cannot and will never be able to cope with the demands placed upon it and deliver the results that it is asked to deliver. That is why having brought the family back to the centre stage United Future is now looking to re-empower communities in order to restore them to their role in building a healthy society. 
Having achieved all the policy goals that formed the basis of our support for the Government within 18 months of arriving in Parliament we have now set some new ones. One was alluded to in my maiden speech as well. I said: “Resourcing community groups through encouraging a greater level of giving by individuals and companies to community organisations is another valuable tool in achieving community independence from State intervention.” One of the things we will be pushing the Government for this year is to raise the donation rebate threshold to $5000 for donations made to registered charities. But we will do more than that too. We want to encourage a tax rebate for people who give time rather than money to registered charities. 
In both these ways we would encourage communities to become self-sufficient. We want to re-empower community organisations. Re-empowering will be done by individuals and businesses in these communities—not through Government handouts and not through other control mechanisms. 
There also needs to be a radical overhaul of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services involving greater community partnerships in order to decentralise this unwieldy bureaucratic organisation. United Future will be pushing this year for that sort of reorganisation. This is the way forward for New Zealand and once again United Future is leading it. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister state that the Government is going to instigate a programme to promote positive parenting but does it really know what that is? Parenting is one of the greatest responsibilities a couple can ever undertake and it should be a lifetime commitment. In this debate we have heard much about our great nation but a great nation is built from great families. I am pleased that this year we will again see efforts going to rebuild the families of New Zealand. Within the family is the ability to teach the important issues of life. Family after all is the first form of government we all experience so let us make it good government. 
As a father there are three things that become very important to me and these three things are also important to our nation if we really do want to get ahead. Firstly I must have passion for my family. I must believe in them and believe the best for them. I need to learn of the differences in my children and build on and promote their strengths. I need to love and honour their mother and demonstrate to the children what true love and commitment is. It is my responsibility to train them about what is right and acceptable and teach them to be great citizens. They need to know I am there with them for the long haul. 
As an MP I have a passion for my country. New Zealand is the greatest little nation in the world. I believe in it and love all people who have chosen this land as their home. As in my children there are many differences but I will continue to look for strengths and build on those. Legislation needs to be fair and just and United Future intends to be here for the people of New Zealand—to bring long-term stability to our great nation. Secondly I must have focus. To build a great family requires focus. Many distractions can come and a family is very easy to destroy. If we do not have a long-term focus we might not make it. A father knows he has been a great father when he sees his children raising their children in a similar manner to the way he did. As MPs we must focus on things that will build our nation but for too long we have ignored the family. But then came United Future and we have successfully turned the focus right back on families. We will fight for families and for assistance that again will see New Zealanders succeed in building strong families that hang in there even when the going gets tough. As Zig Zigler once said “When the going gets tough the tough get going.” 
Thirdly as a father I am responsible for keeping unity and stability within the family and of course we are the Adams family. A family can have many opinions and my responsibility is not to inhibit each member’s creativity but rather to coordinate so we all help each other and keep pulling in the same direction. As MPs we need to work hard at keeping unity and stability within our nation. In club rugby we may play to a position: one may be a lock another may be a centre and that is what they focus on and what they concentrate on. But if people ever get the opportunity to don that black shirt with the silver fern on it no longer are they playing to a position. They are playing as a team because they have become All Blacks—and we focus on winning. 
So those three things are also important for our nation: that passion focus and unity—for after all are we not all New Zealanders? Let us wear our nationality with pride. United we will stand; divided we will fall. A nation is rarely destroyed from the outside influences it faces; it is normally destroyed from within. What is the most internal force we have? Our families! So let us rebuild them and rebuild them strongly. United Future came into this House with the focus on the family. Let me assure the House that we are honing in. We are seeing the things that are important to so many people and our hearts have been broken by some of the situations we have seen in our families. 
As I opened my speech I said I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister state that the Government is going to instigate a programme to promote positive parenting. We are thankful for the support we have had from the Government in setting up the Families Commission and we believe that by the end of this parliamentary term families in New Zealand will know that there is a difference coming from United Future. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I just want to make a comment to the member who has resumed his seat. Volume does not necessarily mean that it is a good speech. He might want to reflect on that. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Sometimes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Sometimes it does but not always. I want to refer to one or two issues— 
Jill Pettis 
: Sometimes it helps to yell like hell. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Sometimes volume from the junior Government whip can have an impact on us I must say but not all the time. I want to talk about a couple of issues. I listened to one or two of the speeches made from the Government benches and I also listened with some interest to the speech made by Dail Jones the former National Party member who talked about Maori seats—as did Dave Hereora. I want to pick up a couple of issues that are important for this Parliament to know about in that context and also particularly important for commentators. Often they talk about issues on which they do not have enough information. 
I want to make this point first of all: part of the policy of the National Party at the last election as it will be at this one is that it is our view that we do not now need the Maori seats. I want to put this before this Parliament because I have not heard this issue discussed yet. [ 
Interruption 
] It is this point if members will let me make it: 51 percent of people in New Zealand who claim they are of Maori descent are on the Maori roll and 49 percent of people who claim they are of Maori descent are on the general roll. That is the first point. So about half of the people of Maori descent who are enrolled are on the Maori roll and about half are on the general roll. I want to make this claim—and I think I certainly can do it factually on the basis of the information we have—aside from the Maori seats I represent more Maori people in the seat of Northland than are represented in any other seat in New Zealand. 
Jill Pettis 
: What do you mean by Maori descent? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I mean people who claim they are of Maori descent and who have indicated that. Nearly 6000 people are on the Northland roll in that category. I say also that there are even some Maori members in this House who cannot claim to represent the same number of Maori people that I do. It is an important point to understand— 
Jill Pettis 
: What do you mean by that? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well there are people in this House who will stand up and say: “I will speak for Maori; I will speak for this or that.” Quite honestly there is not one person in this House or indeed this nation who can do so. There are some who can speak—maybe—for their iwi. Maybe they can but I doubt that. But there is no one who can speak generally for Maori because they are of different groups and different views—and so they should be. 
 I want to say to some of the Maori members who are in here talking about things Maori that I am doing something that—to my knowledge and I am absolutely certain that I am right—none of them have bothered to do at all and that is to consult the Maori people whom they represent before coming here to speak. Today I have sent a survey out to people in the Northland electorate who claim they are of Maori descent and I have asked them some questions because I want to know what their views are. I will certainly make that public I want to make it public because I am certain we are going to get a different point of view from those people who are enrolled on the general roll for the seat of Northland for example as opposed to those who are enrolled on the Maori roll. I am absolutely certain of that and if I am not right I will still reveal the results so that members will know that I was wrong and they were right and that is OK. But the fact is I am absolutely confident that we will get a different point of view. 
What will be of interest is this: the Maori members will have to say “Well hang on a minute perhaps we are not representing the Maori view completely. Maybe we are representing a sector of it.” They certainly are representing a sector of it and I do not deny that. But the people who speak for Maori—the people whom the commentators run to and talk to—are often a small minority in a select group and indeed they do not bother to actually talk to the people at a grass-roots level as they do not with non-Maori. 
One of the interesting things that has happened in this debate as a consequence of Don Brash’s Orewa speech is that the commentators got it wrong. They were out of step with public opinion. Recent polls show there is an issue that the public are interested in and want to know about. That is why I decided I would undertake the survey in the seat of Northland. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s an old National trick. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Maybe. The member can call it what she likes or members can call it what they like but it is actually fact. It is something at least that I have done genuinely. I will declare the results in the House if I have the opportunity but I will certainly make them public so that everyone can share them because it is something of interest. 
I turn now to an issue that is also of concern to me as a representative of the seat of Northland and that is the way in which the Waitangi Day celebrations were carried out in Northland. The sad thing is that apart from one or two silly people—can I call them idiots Mr Speaker because a very small minority were—Waitangi Day in Northland was a great day. It was a lot of fun and in particular the Friday was a very good day. There were a whole lot of activities going on and hundreds of people across all races were enjoying themselves just mixing and getting on and having a day of celebration. The sad thing is that we did not see any of that at all in the media—I should say we saw very little of it because there were a couple of shots of it. But sadly the focus goes on those people who want to make a fuss. 
I am concerned about and—as other members have been—critical of the way in which Te Tii Marae organises itself to the extent that I am now of the view that we should bypass that marae completely. It is sad that we have got to this stage with that marae as it certainly has a lot of history around Waitangi Day. It is where Maori met and discussed the treaty before they went up to the top marae the site where the treaty was signed. If the trustees of that marae cannot organise the day properly and hold up the conventions of Maori—where when one approaches the marae one is welcomed on and asked to reply and following that the debate begins—then Te Tii Marae has to be bypassed and we should make it irrelevant. If correct protocol cannot continue on that marae then I say that we should not go there. I join with others who have made that statement already and I also say that we should not give it any taxpayer funding. 
We should look for another marae in Northland—there are many that would be only too happy to host us—and I would be pleased to attend. In fact I am sure that Sir James Henare’s marae would be only too happy to be the focal point of our Waitangi Day celebrations and indeed what a gesture it would be to such a fine gentleman. It would be an excellent way in which we could celebrate and I am absolutely certain that the people of Otiria Marae would run the whole thing in the way it should be run. The protocols would be observed those who wanted to come would be welcomed on and then there would be discussion as there used to be when Sir James was on that marae. There used to be very good discussions at the time that he was there and I am certain that that tradition would continue today. 
I think it is a sad indictment on Ngapuhi and many of the elders are disturbed and disappointed and have said so publicly. So are Northlanders. It is sad for us that we get this disgrace foisted on us when other areas around New Zealand can have a day of celebration of recognition of debate where it is needed but they do it without the stupidity that goes on in Waitangi. As one of the representatives of the area of Northland I for one say that we have had enough. I do not intend to go back in the future unless the whole thing changes. I will certainly go to the upper marae as it is now commonly known. I will certainly participate in that. But until we can be sure that the system is going to work for New Zealand and for Northlanders I do not intend to go to Te Tii Marae. As Don Brash has said we want to go and debate the issues that are important to all New Zealanders. We do need to have legislation that is colour-blind. We need to have debates. 
The worry I have is that finally we have a leader of New Zealand who has the courage to talk about something New Zealanders have wanted to talk about for a long long time and all we get now is the critics saying that we should not talk about these things. Well too bad! We are going to. I want to. I have a future in this country through my children and grandchildren. They are part of this country and they have every right to have this discussion. The National Party will ensure that this discussion takes place. It already is taking place and will continue to do so. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is with pride that I stand to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. Along with my colleagues I celebrate this Government’s achievements and our commitment to deal with the hard issues. 
Let me tell the House about events in my electorate of Waitakere over the past week. Waitangi Day was great. Four marae throughout the area welcomed the community and race relations representatives from overseas. There was a real cross section of people—young old new immigrants Kiwis whose families had been here for generations and a myriad of different cultures. For many it was their first time on a marae. They came because they wanted to know what a marae was like. They came because they wanted to know what the treaty was about. They came because they wanted to gain some understanding of Maori culture. 
The invitation was extended to them because Maori wanted to show what a marae was like. They wanted to explain what the treaty meant to them and they wanted to talk about their culture—and they did it with real humour at times so there was a meeting of minds. With knowledge comes understanding and with understanding comes tolerance and that is what race relations in New Zealand is about. I hasten to add that there was no mudslinging. Sure there was some debate but is that not what democracy is about? 
The race relations representatives were very impressed especially in recognising that we are the only country in the world that has a treaty and that there is a way to work through issues no matter how challenging for the ultimate good of all New Zealanders. People left those marae with a much deeper understanding and not once did we hear the terms “we are all one people” or “race-based funding”. 
Later in the week I attended another primary health organisation opening. It was a joint venture between the Waipareira Trust a Maori health provider and Waitakere Union Health Centre. This new primary health organisation brings enrolment numbers throughout Waitakere City to over 140000. That is cheaper health-care for more under-18-year-olds and from July this year for those citizens over 65. Primary health organisations are really good news stories for the health of New Zealanders. 
What about Dr “Let’s take a quantum leap backwards” Brash and his views on employing Maori? He would employ non-Maori in preference to Maori because he thinks that under the Holidays Act Maori have enhanced bereavement leave entitlements. That is absolute rot. The Act specifies that any leave over and above the statutory entitlements is at the employer’s discretion. I have worked in industrial relations as a unionist—another group on Dr Brash’s hit list—for over 16 years and I have never encountered on any occasion any abuse of discretionary bereavement leave or any dispute over it. Dr Brash’s statement is an insult to Maori an insult to workers and an insult to employers in this country. 
Fortunately our enlightened employers do not share his prejudice. Maori unemployment has dropped from 14.36 percent in March 2000 to 9.7 percent in September this year. Over 40000 more Maori are now in work than they were in 1999 under National. Maori in work support has an over 80 percent success rate in achieving stable long-term work incomes. 
What about unemployment generally? Our initiatives are working. Unemployment is its lowest in 16 years at 4.6 percent. There are more people in work now than at any other time in our history. Since Labour formed the Government 176000 more people are in jobs. New Zealand is below Australia below the USA and below the OECD average unemployment rate. It is below that of any of our trading partners. 
But this does not happen by chance. This happens by good leadership and good government. It happens through Government initiatives like matching skills to job opportunities like making tertiary education more affordable like assisting young people into trades through the Gateway programme through the Modern Apprenticeships scheme with over 6000 young people in apprenticeships and through industry training. Nearly 90000 young people—and older people—are in industry training. It happens by supporting small businesses—the lead performer in the economy and a 5.5 percent expansion in activity in the last year. 
It happens through fairer employment laws. The latest stats show that work stoppages have decreased in the third year in a row under the Employment Relations Act—the Act that the Opposition claimed would wreck the country business and the economy. Strikes would run rampant workers would hold their employers to ransom and unions would wreck business. Yeah right! Now Opposition members are in a frenzy. Well it is a subdued frenzy—their sort of frenzy—about improved holiday conditions for workers. It is the same tired old story. They said 4 weeks’ paid leave would wreck the country businesses and the economy. Yeah right! 
If the Opposition benches are not banging on about Maori or unions they are banging on about immigrants. Well the talent visa project has helped over 220 employers recruit people to fill skill shortages by targeting talented and skilled people around the world. 
So far this term has been great for me. It is great to be part of a Government that is good and stable tackles the issues and tells it how it is. People on the Opposition benches go around in funny hats and they bag the Government; but we are here we are stable and we are proud to be a Government that is delivering. It is delivering for all New Zealanders—for families for their children for workers through opportunity and fairness for businesses by providing support. Name it and we can do it! 
I feel proud to stand here in this House—in my first term of many I know of a Labour-led Government—and applaud the things we are doing. We have much to do but we will have a lot of time to do it and we look forward to doing it. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I see on the speaking schedule that the next spot goes to an “other” speaker not a Labour speaker. As that position is vacant I sought the call first and would expect to be given the 5-minute call to take the “other” spot. This is a 14-hour debate and there are two Labour speakers scheduled for later on at 10 minutes each. But this is an “other” debate and I would like a ruling on it. My understanding is that the spot is available to whoever takes the call first and I was the first to go for the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Tisch. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am the person who prepared the roster before us and circulated it to the other parties for comment. This matter was raised at the Business Committee at the start of the week. The “other” refers to an entitlement for Donna Awatere Huata who is an Independent. It is not an option for another party. Mr John Carter knows that. I discussed it with him about an hour ago so if Mr Tisch would like to discuss it with Mr Carter he will know that his statement is not correct. There are many occasions where there have been consecutive Labour calls because Labour has 360 minutes of this 14-hour debate. This call is either for Donna Awatere Huata or a subsequent call would be a Labour call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. I call the honourable Minister. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for a point of clarification. If the allocation of 5 minutes is not taken up by Donna Awatere Huata who gets the other 5 minutes? Because on the schedule that the senior Government whip has identified those times have been allocated out. My understanding is that that is a free 5 minutes and that is why I sought the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say is that obviously arrangements and agreements have been made within the Business Committee. I take the member at his word. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I want to begin by making a brief comment about Waitangi Day. I spent the day at the Orongomai Marae in Upper Hutt. That was an absolutely fabulous and fantastic day. It was a day of celebration—many cultures celebrating what it is to be a New Zealander. I want to congratulate the kaumatua and the kuia who organised that successful event and look very much forward to being back there next year. 
When I hear the whingeing and the whining from the National Party I wonder what New Zealanders think when they hear that. When I look across the House at the National Party it reminds me of looking at black-and-white television—if people can remember the old newsreels the pizzicato violins the breathless narrators talking about motherhood and apple pie; the kind of New Zealand of the 1960s when we were innocent and things were uncomplicated. That is exactly what the National Party is trying to present. It wants to take us back to the 1960s when everything was black and white and everything was uncomplicated. 
Of course every New Zealander—apart from National Party members and their supporters—knows that New Zealand is not like that any more particularly with race relations. That is a particularly important issue for New Zealand and we have to tread forward carefully but tread together hand in hand. If one compares the black-and-white television image of the National Party with the Labour-led Government it is like looking at colour television. There are different shades of colour it is more interesting more modern much more representative of the 21st century—and rightly so. So despite their whingeing and whining grizzling and groaning New Zealanders actually feel good about themselves and about New Zealand. Despite the fact that members of the Opposition are trying to run New Zealand down New Zealanders are proud to be New Zealanders and are feeling particularly good about themselves. 
I want to go on and talk about why New Zealanders have that particular feeling. It is because a Labour-led Government has introduced policies that are taking New Zealand forward—not like the National Party which wants to take New Zealand back. That is the critical message being shaped by members on this side of the House which is why so many of us are so very proud and pleased to be standing and supporting the Prime Minister’s statement. 
When we look out over the future and the choice between those who want to move forward and those who want to move back obviously the Labour-led Government is the one that will be taking New Zealand forward under the growth and innovation framework that was announced not so long ago. When one looks at the figures one knows that the economy is booming. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.