Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7477] 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 15 February. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 When I finished up my speech last week I was talking about National’s sudden change to style over substance and about the blatant plagiarism of style from David Cameron in the UK and the blatant plagiarism from Mark Latham of the Australian Labor Party in the Burnside speech. I understand that tomorrow Mr Key is off to Gisborne again. Of course National had its 3-day caucus meeting in Gisborne. They swanned in told us how bad we have it in Gisborne and what a sorry state we have it in and then hermetically sealed themselves inside the Emerald Hotel which is a hotel and conference venue only recently opened—like so many other developments in Gisborne that were inconceivable until Labour came into Government. They came down and told us how bad we had it and what a sorry state we were in and they did not bother to go and talk to anyone about it. They got a lot of criticism for that so now they are going to have to come back and talk to some of the stakeholders in Gisborne. 
John Key is a man who obviously never went to Gisborne or the East Coast when his party was last in Government when unemployment hit 22 percent in Gisborne and when surveys showed that tourists were staying away because they were afraid to come to Gisborne because it was regarded as a place high in unemployment and crime. I could not put it any better than our mayor Meng Foon did in his letter to the Prime Minister at the beginning of this year. He stated: “I write to convey my appreciation of all your Government’s policies and the funding support you have given to our region over the past few years. Your Government’s support has certainly given us economic transformation.” I could not put it any better than that. 
Of course we still have problems but we do not need someone with no knowledge of our district swanning in from Auckland to point out what is obvious to those of us who live there every single day. Every community in this country has problems and I am sick of our community being constantly singled out and being defined by the negatives when I am sure that if Mr Key looked around his community in Parnell he would find that many many problems exist there also. I say to the National Party that it is easy to criticise and point out problems; it is far harder to get results as this Labour-led Government has done. 
I want to say three things to John Key who is becoming “Mr Everything to Everyone” and “Mr I’ll Tell You Exactly What I Think You Want To Hear” even though he contradicts himself constantly. He told Maori at Ratana that he wants more dialogue and then decided that National’s policy on the Maori seats is that it will not consult Maori at all. Even Dr Brash said he was going to consult Maori on the Maori seats policy. No John Key does not need to; he is not going to consult them at all. I say that I believed the Maori Party when it said it thought the National Party was going to vote for the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I believe the Maori Party now but of course then John Key went to his caucus and they focus-grouped it and now they have found that it might not be as palatable. So rather than saying he had told Maori that but now he disagrees he said he had never said it. Maybe he was just being polite—as he was to Dr Michael Cullen in their meeting. 
I want to say to John Key that if he is going to visit the worst streets of Gisborne—and I am interested in what streets he thinks are the worst—I want him to be honest and tell any Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants whether he is going to put up their rents. He should not go in there play volleyball with the kids and take one of them for a ride in his limousine then not tell them—and deliberately mislead them—about the fact that his party’s policy could see their rents rise 140 percent like they did last time his party was in Government. I want him to apologise for his party’s policies of the 1990s that saw the percentage of children in sole parent families living in poverty go from 15 percent to 63 percent after the “mother of all Budgets” and saw the percentage of children living in families where an income-tested benefit was the main source of income go from 25 percent to 75 percent overnight. I want him to apologise to those families if he now cares about them so much. 
I want to tell him—and I want to hear him say it—that he is never ever going to implement those policies again that the National Party has admitted that those policies were a failure and that they were destructive to New Zealand and that they are never going back there again. But do members know I do not think we are going to hear that because as Chris Trotter pointed out—and it is a very good point—why are all the big right-wing backers of Mr Key and the National Party not crying out about his sudden lurch to the left? Why are they not very concerned about where this National Party is going? The answer is because they know it is not true. They know that what he is saying is not what the National Party will do if it gets into Government. 
I am very cynical because I think the reason the National Party members are talking about an underclass is not because they care about it; it is because they want to make the rest of New Zealand afraid of it. They want to make people—as Jenny Shipley said when she talked about Pacific Islanders crawling in people’s windows—scared about a growing underclass. They want to drive another wedge. They used Maori in the last election; they will use the poor and disadvantaged of this country at the next election. I say to Mr Key that at the end of the day it does not matter how nicely he says it. It does not matter whether he changes his tone. It does not matter what politically correct shirt he wears. At the end of the day it is substance and policy that put food on the table and a roof over people’s heads. The people of New Zealand deserve to hear the truth from John Key. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you aware that New Zealand First will be splitting its speech time? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will give you a bell at 1 minute. 
PITA PARAONE 
: A engari e tika ana ko te mea tuatahi e mihi kau ana ki a tatou e hui tahi i te wiki nei ahakoa ko tenei te wiki tuarua. Engari e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a koutou mo te tau hou. 
[ 
It is apt that the first thing to do is to extend greetings to us as we meet together this week even though it is the second one. This aside greetings for the New Year to you. 
] 
As was outlined in my leader’s speech last Tuesday New Zealand First believes in climate change—namely economic and social. That is what we are asking this Parliament in 2007 to begin and to deliver. The Prime Minister in her statement leading off this debate outlined to the House that the Government has a challenge to sustain family and community living standards. We in New Zealand First believe that the challenge facing this Parliament is not to merely sustain family and community living standards but to dramatically improve those standards. One of the areas by which New Zealand’s community living standards can be measured is the standard of housing available to its people especially the availability of housing for the people who can least afford it. Although the State housing stock is slowly being restored after being slashed by the Government during the 1990s the percentage of the stock being made available to New Zealanders is declining and although some refugee and migrant families are worthy recipients of State housing the fact that the scales continue to slip away from New Zealanders is of great concern to New Zealand First. 
Beyond the State housing stock we need to move to increase the stock of affordable housing. As our leader alluded to in his speech the appalling rate of savings in this country is the key driver of sky rocketing interest rates and house prices. If our savings rates were higher interest rates would be lower and many more people would be able to afford to buy houses. New Zealand First has made no secret of its desire for a compulsory savings scheme. Many will recall that our support for the New Zealand superannuation legislation—now commonly known as the Cullen fund—was dependent on the inclusion of a clause to enable accounts to be individualised as a step towards enabling it to be made compulsory in the future. We will continue to campaign for compulsory savings and to hope that some cross-party consensus is reached sooner rather than later for the betterment of this country. 
New Zealand First secured an independent inquiry on rates last year that will look at the factors driving the steep rates increases that have been of such concern to superannuitants and others on fixed and modest incomes. 
I want to include in my short contribution to this debate the area of Maori affairs. I mentioned earlier the need to improve family and community living standards. I acknowledge that in the area of Maori affairs improvements have occurred in employment and education. But there is still a terrible need to improve in these areas as Maori still feature at the bottom of the social indices of our country. The recent reports on Maori male school-leaver underachievement do not paint a pretty picture for the future of Maoridom. 
I want to take this opportunity to support recent comments made by the principal of that fine Maori boys’ boarding school in Feilding Hato Paora College Mr Tihirau Shepherd who stated that parents—and indeed families—needed to take more responsibility for their children’s education rather than opposing the present system. And while I am talking about Maori boarding schools given their immense contribution to Maori educational achievement one can only wonder why no support is given to the boarding facilities of these schools. 
During the sitting period the first reading of my member’s bill entitled the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill will be debated. I hope that during the debate members of this House will hear the pros and cons of it and support it going to a select committee. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I welcome all members back to Parliament—I know we are into the second week of the House’s sittings but this is my first opportunity to speak. I trust that everyone is rested. I would like to pass on my thanks and the thanks of my partner to the people of the far north. We had the opportunity to holiday up in Whananaki at Winston’s home and in Matauri Bay with Dover and his whanaunga. We had the opportunity to spend time up at Whangaroa—and what a beautiful place that is. I thank very much Doug and Robyn Gower for their hospitality. 
I also spent a bit of time camping down in the South Island in Canterbury. The downside of that holiday experience was that once again I found myself the victim of crime. Although I could cry in my teacup about what that feels like when I inspected my property and found that once again it had been burgled and that once again we had lost property—that makes it about the 12th or 15th time that rural property of mine has been burgled—I was reminded of the reason why people do not report crime. It is that quite often there is no point because quite often when people report a crime to the police very little happens. They simply get a number to quote to their insurance company and they get on and make the claim. If people in a particular area do not have insurance or if it is not worth insuring something because the premiums are so high then there is no reason to report the crime. This time however we did report the crime. This was done out of recognition of the fact that if people do not report such crimes the statistics look bad. I have long said in this House on behalf of New Zealand First that the reason some of the statistics that have been quoted in this House look as good as they do and have been painted positively is that two-thirds of crime in this country still goes unreported—my source is the victimisation reports that get tabled in this House too infrequently for my satisfaction. 
New Zealand First will again be focusing on law and order and we hope to do so in as constructive a manner as is possible with the Government in line with the confidence and supply agreement we have with it. In that respect it behoves me having listened to much of the rhetoric after the festive season about corruption in prisons again to remind the Minister that he is not being briefed of all the facts. The question I asked in the House today was based on information passed to me by a prison officer and supported by other people that corruption is again rife not just in Rimutaka Prison and Waikeria Prison but also in Canterbury. I remind the House and the Minister—who is after all the sixth or seventh Minister of Corrections; I have lost count of the number we have had—that although we have a chief executive officer in the Department of Corrections who is new in the job underpinning him essentially are all the same people who were responsible for the activities of the infamous “goon squad” defined by Ailsa Duffy QC as being not only corrupt but illegal and I remind the Minister that no one was fired. If the Minister has any doubt about or any reason to wonder why the information he gets on occasion is embarrassingly wrong he need look no further than the people who are advising him. We in New Zealand First have long said that a clean broom needs to go through the Department of Corrections. I am going to take it upon myself on behalf of New Zealand First to take some things to the Minister and encourage him to get out the broom and start cleaning out the department. 
At the same time as I do that we will be pushing the Government to ensure that our target of 1000 extra police is achieved by 2008. I will also be pressuring this House from a New Zealand First perspective to pass our Youth Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill so that we might give ourselves a chance in this country to come to grips with violent youth crime. I congratulate Judge Boshier on his brave and courageous statements in the paper over the weekend. I encourage him to step forward and inform his Government and the Ministry of Justice that all is not well in the Youth Court. All is not well in youth justice and we need to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 in order to save—and I say “save”—some young people. To allow them to enter a life of crime and rack up 40 50 or 80 appearances in front of the police only to then wonder why we are imprisoning them at the age of 21 for murder is a crime in itself. We are ducking our responsibilities if we do not do this. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow Mr Ron Mark from New Zealand First in this debate because in the next day or two that member will have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is. I understand that in the Justice and Electoral Committee National members of Parliament are calling for a select committee inquiry that can finally resolve the inadequacies of the Department of Corrections. Whether that select committee inquiry proceeds will be based entirely on the vote of Ron Mark. So he can come into this House day in and day out protesting and questioning the Minister but he will now finally have a chance to do something about it. I will be watching his vote as will many New Zealand First voters throughout the country. 
I start by welcoming to our caucus Katrina Shanks. She was dealt a fairly harsh blow at the last election: she was an MP for just over 1 week. When the final results came in she held her head high and I think it is great that we now see her as a member of our caucus. I also record my thanks to Don Brash who departed as a member of Parliament over the Christmas break and say he did a remarkable job for the National Party. He took us from 20 percent in the polls to nearly being in Government and I assure the Government side of the House that this party intends to build on that success and make sure that at the 2008 election there is no doubt at all that National will be the Government. 
A week is a long time in politics when we consider that it is now just over a week ago that the Prime Minister stood here and gave a very boring 35-minute speech. The buzzword on that occasion was a new one—I give her that—sustainability. I watched with interest the body language of the Labour members of Parliament as they listened to that rather turgid boring speech. They knew that the Prime Minister who has delivered to date seven such speeches has at best only one more of these shocking speeches to deliver before the next election. 
Darren Hughes 
: Three elections down; two to go! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to Darren Hughes that I took the opportunity to go back over some of the earlier speeches made by Helen Clark. They are full of buzzwords and rhetoric and there is no substance to them at all. When she first started delivering speeches in this Parliament she used to use the word “integrity”. It is a shame that she certainly cannot use that word now amongst New Zealanders without a huge smile coming across all their faces because they know that her party totally lacks integrity. 
The next buzzword we see is the term “economic transformation”. We had a couple of years during which the Prime Minister used to try to tell us that the film industry would replace New Zealand agriculture as the basis of the economy. We all know that that did not happen and never was going to happen. This year she came to the House with her eighth Prime Minister’s statement and began the parliamentary year by talking about sustainability. 
Darren Hughes 
: Good idea! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Darren Hughes says it is a good idea! She was livid by the time she watched the 6 o’clock news that night because she realised that by raising the issue of sustainability the question on everybody’s lips was how sustainable the Labour caucus is. Taito Phillip Field whom the Prime Minister had said was simply a little over enthusiastic in the way he represented his constituents had the audacity to question the Labour Party and its loyalty to him. The response was that he was sacked immediately and all of a sudden the voting majority of this Government looked questionable. 
So I want to talk about the sustainability of Labour. Today we found out that Helen Clark is now on record as saying that Taito Phillip Field is immoral and unethical yet the Labour members of this House are prepared to grab the vote of a member who is unethical and immoral according to their own Prime Minister’s statement. So that says it all about Labour as it desperately tries to hang on to power and limps to the next election midway through 2008. 
Let us look at some of the other less sustainable aspects of the Labour caucus between now and 2008. A number of its members are on the chopping-block. Jim Sutton was told to go late last year and was replaced by “Champagne Charlie” Chauvel whom I welcome back to the House. I see he is here this week; I did not see him around last week. Georgina Beyer was told to go to be replaced— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows— 
Darren Hughes 
: I want to raise two points of order Madam Assistant Speaker. The first point of order is that every member must be referred to by his or her full name not in any other way. Secondly one cannot refer to the absence of members. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right. The member will call members by their correct names and he will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. I welcome Charles Chauvel back as part of the rejuvenation process of the Labour caucus. The next one is Lesley Soper. Labour did not think much of her after she had been here in the last term; it dumped her way down the list. She is here today only because Georgina has left this place. Then we have a few others still to go. When will Dover Samuels go? The Prime Minister sacked him only because he was accused of wrongful action—it was never proven by the police. We have Russell Fairbrother who was identified by the Prime Minister as being dog tucker in the Labour caucus. There is Jill Pettis still to go; there is Dianne Yates—the list never ends. The interesting thing to do is to look at who possibly might replace them and I think to do so will provide the only hope that some of the deadwood on that side of the House has. There is very little talent still to come in. 
I looked at the Labour Party lists and when Dover Samuels Jill Pettis or Russell Fairbrother gets the final nod the next one in is Louisa Wall. Louisa Wall is the only one on the first half-dozen places of Labour’s list who does not appear to have active union affiliation. She happens to be a policy analyst with the Human Rights Commission—almost as bad. The next person on the list is Su’a William Sio who by his own blog is a personal friend of Taito Phillip Field. The first thing he will be told to do this afternoon is to get that statement off his blog. He has good Labour Party affiliations—good union affiliations. Let me quote from Su’a William Sio’s personal statement on the Labour Party website: “I believe my services in the Labour Party the trade union movement in both New Zealand and the South Pacific region have prepared me to advocate strongly for the above points and add value to Labour’s Parliamentary team …”. The only thing stopping Helen Clark from proceeding to get rid of the deadwood on the Government side of the House is that the people on the list who would replace them are certainly no better and provide no rejuvenation whatsoever to a tired tired Labour Government. 
I have not mentioned one or two others who need to be mentioned and of course I cannot go without mentioning the Hon Damien O’Connor the Minister of Corrections. He was totally missing over the Christmas break when we had the dreadful Burton affair. An innocent person was killed and Damien O’Connor could not be found anywhere to even comment on the issue of Burton being let out on parole even when the police were asking that he be recalled. 
Of course the other Minister who must be on borrowed time is the Hon Dr Michael Cullen the man who raised the idea of a mortgage tax only to be shot down in flames by his own leader. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: No he didn’t. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to that member that I was listening to  
Morning Report 
 and yes the Minister did raise the issue of a mortgage tax. He suggested that it was an idea worthy of investigation. He was completely annihilated immediately by Helen Clark who knew that such an idea was political suicide. So how long can that Minister stay on as deputy leader when he openly disagrees with the leader of the Labour Party? I will tell members again what saves Dr Cullen: there is nobody with any talent at all to take the job from him. The pretender Trevor Mallard does not have a show. He is the guy who blotted his copybook by talking about a stadium on the waterfront. That will be what saves Labour members—the machinations of trying to carry out the rejuvenation process. They are bereft of talent in caucus they are bereft of talent outside caucus and they will see that there is an ability to rejuvenate after the 2008 election when National is on the Government side of the House and the remaining Labour members are over here. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was a classic National Party speech in this debate—10 minutes long and not a single policy not a single positive statement. Let me say one thing to the member. If he had listened to  
Morning Report  
that day he would have heard Bill English say at 8 a.m. that it was an idea worth considering and say by 9 a.m. that it could not possibly be done at all. That was even for Bill English a quick flip-flop and it showed the clear choice that this country faces—on the one hand an experienced and effective Government with strong positions and policies for the future and on the other hand an unprincipled and weak National Party with a co-leadership of “Mr Empty” and “Mr Angry”. 
Let us deal with the Government first. We have a stronger fairer more confident nation than we had 7 years ago. One can visit any provincial centre and feel and see the difference. Tomorrow and Thursday Mr Key will be in Gisborne trying to make up for the fact that when the National caucus went there it spent all its time having a good time and not visiting anybody so he has to go back. I do not know what designer T-shirt he will wear in Gisborne; it will be interesting to see. 
We have had uninterrupted economic growth—the second-longest period since the Second World War. In employment we have created 330000-odd more jobs. We have the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. National said we could never get the unemployment rate down below 4 percent. In terms of skills we have Modern Apprenticeships and industry training and we have had a major revamp of the tertiary education system. The Working for Families programme is reducing by 70 percent the number of children living below the poverty line. New Zealand superannuation was increased in the first step we took as a Government and has been maintained at that higher level ever since. Through the primary health care system there are cheaper visits to the doctor and cheaper prescriptions. The total crime rate has actually reduced under this Government. 
Now we need to move to the next stage—the stage of putting in place in a range of areas key sustainability policies that will see New Zealand into the long term. We have done so in relation to New Zealand superannuation with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and now we need to move on the issues of the environment and climate change because our long-term goal must be to be carbon neutral. The Opposition has poured scorn on the long-term goal and asks when it will be: “Will it be 15 August 2010; if so how are we going to get there by that time?”. Well we have to be carbon neutral at some point. The Opposition does not seem to understand that particular very simple environmental point. We have to deal with the damage that has been caused over the last 50 years in particular and 200 years in general to our environment. That is a goal that all members ought to share; all National can do is try to make up its mind as to what it thinks about the issue in the first place. 
In the area of savings and investment KiwiSaver comes in on 1 July this year. We will need to think about further moves to ensure that we promote savings and investment in New Zealand. We have changed the tax laws already in order to reduce the overtaxation on low-income earners—those earning below $38000 a year—who manage to save and we have put in place a fairer offshore investment regime. We need to think about the next steps to build a stronger savings culture in this country. There is no point in whingeing about foreign ownership if we are not saving enough to generate our own investment in our own country. We need to build our national identity more which is not to build a midi-America but to build a better New Zealand. That is what this party in Government stands for. 
Against that is the empty rhetoric of the new co-leadership. Mr English of course claims to be the brains of the team but we can see that that is not a high claim to make when we look at the other half of the team. Mr English says that he does the policy and writes the speeches. He boasted that he wrote the Burnside speech because Mr Key did not know anything about social policy. Well going on what was inside the Burnside speech Mr English did not know much about social policy either. Mr Key is there to provide the veneer but beneath that veneer there is nothing. We used to ask in politics: “Where’s the beef?”; with Mr Key we ask: “Where’s the wood—what is actually below that veneer?”. He has an extraordinary ability to take no firm stand on anything at all. He is all veneer no wood; all surface no substance; all gloss no paint. That is Mr Key. 
In the Burnside speech he had two ideas. The first was to have a bit of coordination with the voluntary sector and to show how important that was he put in charge of it—who? Was it one of the front-benchers? Was it one of the key figures? No it was Paula Bennett a person unknown in the community at large—never heard of. Most people who come from where I come from probably think she is Gordon Bennett’s daughter. Secondly he had a food-in-schools programme—and then he did not have a food-in-schools programme because he discovered we already have a Fruit in Schools programme that he did not know about— 
Hon Member 
: Gone by lunchtime. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Gone by lunchtime indeed was the food-in-schools programme. The “Muesli Bar Kid” John Key vanished completely into the air never to be seen again in that particular respect. There will be a new T-shirt on a new visit a new issue a new photo opportunity. 
And what of the underclass? Mr Key ventured forth from his three sections in Parnell and discovered there was an underclass. There was no connection between one and the other no doubt in his own view of these matters. Well I could have told him that; there has always been an underclass in our kind of society. But what is his policy? From this Government on 1 April there will be a $10-per-week per child increase in family support to all families that qualify for the family support tax credit. Mr Key’s policy was to repeal that increase and to replace it with a tax cut for himself for me and for all members of this House. What does he want? Does he want 3½ sections in Parnell? Is that his actual approach to social policy for the future of New Zealand? There is no real substance. 
What did he say of Iraq? He said that it was too far away to judge the best course of action. This is from a man who used to bet millions if not billions of dollars of other people’s money in terms of Iraq’s international effects on the financial markets yet suddenly when he is the leader of the National Party Iraq is too far away to know what the course of action should be for a New Zealand Government. That gives people confidence about what kind of Prime Minister he might be! 
What of the 
 Hollow Men 
 conspiracies? John Key has claimed to know nothing. He knew so little that he has claimed he did not open the key email addressed to him that told him everything. It actually was headed with what it was about but he has said he deliberately did not open it. That was interesting and nobody followed that up. 
What does John Key think of climate change? He claims he did not say that it was a complete and utter hoax. What he did say was that he was somewhat suspicious of it—that he was not even sure there was a problem. Then he said only a year later that the risks were serious and that climate change had to be dealt with. 
What about the Springbok Tour? He cannot remember what position he had on that tour as a 19-year-old in New Zealand in 1981—give me a break on that one! What about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? He led Tariana Turia and the Maori Party to believe he would vote for it then he said he would vote against it. What about all those new monetary policy instruments whereby he was first on one side and then on the other? 
His index finger is wearing away from the number of times he is licking it so as to stick it up in the wind to see what his opinion ought to be on every kind of issue. What connects all this is the fact that he does not want to be firm on anything in case he loses a single vote on any position he might take. One gets away with that for only a brief period of time. 
So we have gone from Mr English who became incredible for saying things he did not believe which were mad right-wing slogans to Dr Brash who became incredible for saying things he did not believe because they were centrist and he was a mad right-winger to Mr Key who is becoming incredible for saying nothing except for empty slogans that nobody is supposed to disbelieve. The ultimate thing he is trying to aim for is a slogan that no one will disbelieve but that adds up to a picture of nothingness—a sort of photograph of a white ghost in a snowstorm. That is his position on every issue. 
We are told by a senior member of the press gallery that Mr Key is still on his honeymoon and should not yet be asked any hard questions. Well that is a dodgy basis for a long-term relationship with the electorate. The truth is that there are no answers. Mr English is the puppet master but what Mr English has not quite realised yet is that there is actually no puppet. When he finally realises that he will utter again those famous words: “Why not me?”. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise this afternoon and wish my colleagues a happy New Year and I extend good wishes to our newest member of the National caucus Katrina Shanks who will be giving her maiden speech anytime shortly. I welcome Katrina. She did a fantastic job in Ohariu-Belmont and was not far away from taking that seat. I believe that in the 2008 election Katrina Shanks will take it. I welcome Katrina and her colleagues into the House this afternoon. 
It is a special occasion for me that I can follow on from the Minister of Finance—“Mr Mortgage Tax” or “Mr Chewing Gum Tax Cut”. He is someone who is on the way out like this Government which is extremely tired and has a lack of ideas and a lack of vision. Prime Minister Helen Clark in her address last week mentioned the word “sustainability” 33 times. That is obviously the key word and that is how this Government thinks it will get back into power for a fourth term. The Greens are holding up in their poll rating and Labour members have worked out with their little bit of polling that if they scare people into thinking that icebergs are going to float up their street their creek or their canal that climate change will hurt everyone. So we heard the Prime Minister mention sustainability 33 times. Her address last week was full of slogans without any detail. 
Last week I was walking across the street when a person yelled out to me. He said: “Hey Nathan!”. I turned round and saw an old university colleague of mine crossing the street. I stopped and shook his hand. But it was not his normal hand because he was wearing a brace out from his shoulder down to his elbow and had things screwed into his arm. I said to him: “What’s happened to you?”. He said: “I’ve been shot.” I said: “Shot?”. He said: “Yeah have you heard of Graeme Burton?”. This is a true story. I said: “Yes.” He said: “Well I was out on my mountain bike with a mate of mine happily on a Sunday afternoon.”—I think it was. He was riding through the tracks on his mountain bike going flat out and came around a corner and came across a person who had been shot dead by Graeme Burton and stabbed. He could not stop quickly enough to help this person. He braked locked up his bike and there was Graeme Burton. He cycled away as quickly as he could. Graeme Burton had a shotgun full of buckshot and blew the bone in this person’s arm into seven pieces; he blew it apart. 
This Government’s stance on parole is hopeless. What did we see from Damien O’Connor when Graeme Burton was running large in the hills above Wellington? Nothing. A colleague of mine whom I went to university with was out having a joyride on his mountain bike and had the bone in his upper arm blown to bits in seven places and this Government is silent. We thought that even the Prime Minister would get tough on the Parole Board. We thought there would be something in her state of the nation address. But there was nothing. There were more words more slogans but they did not address the core issues for this country. Yet she comes out and talks about selling the VIP car fleet because that will save $500000 in 3 years’ time. That will reduce our carbon emissions. What will happen? This fleet of cars will be sold on the open market in New Zealand and another New Zealander will buy them. So we are going to move into vehicles powered by bio-diesel. I cannot wait to see Parekura Horomia trying to fit himself into one of those vehicles powered by biofuels. 
When we are talking about climate change what about the people involved in forestry? What about those people who are scared of this Government bringing in a tax for changing land use? Whereas farmers or landowners might have been going to harvest their trees at 28 or 30 years’ maturity they are now out there firing up their chainsaws as we speak because this Government is going to impose a $13000 a hectare tax on changing land use from trees. Under this Government we have a terrible wishy-washy policy on climate change. It is all over the place. The Government has scared foresters and landowners who want to steal the carbon credits. It has forced them to fire up their chainsaws and more pine trees are being felled in this country now than are being replaced. The Government needs to look very hard at itself because it is the one that has inflicted this terrible deforestation that our country is incurring. 
I thought that the Prime Minister’s statement would be great. I thought that surely she would mention something about the backbone of our economy—surely she would mention something about the farming sector which I am pretty passionate about. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Hughes who represents the most marginal seat of Otaki that the Prime Minister had one sentence about farming on page 4 of her address. She said when talking about emissions: “In agriculture part of the answer lies in changing farming practice now …”. There were no ideas; no solutions. 
Darren Hughes 
: What are yours? Give us one. 
NATHAN GUY 
: No why should we divulge now all the things we are proposing when Labour members have had 8 long years. They are hopeless. That is why they will all be gone. They will be packing their bags. They will be down in numbers in 2008. 
It is interesting to see that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is out there looking for more employees to go and sell the Labour Party’s climate change policy. The ministry employs 1500 staff and it is now looking for an extra three to get out there and sell this climate change policy. The ministry spends $1.2 million a year on public relations consultants yet it wants to go out and employ more people. I cannot work that out. 
Today we asked the Minister of Finance about carbon neutrality. We asked to hear from him about the six departments that are going to reduce their carbon footprints by 2012. There was nothing. He is absolutely hopeless. What we see from this Government is that it is now going to hang on to power by the one proxy vote that Taito Phillip Field—who the Prime Minister says is unstable unethical and immoral—will give it. The Government is going to hang on to the thin thread of power by one proxy vote from someone who more than likely will end up in court. The courts have a long list of cases because the Government cannot solve the problems and I believe it will take 12 to 15 months before Taito Phillip Field appears in court. This Government is going to hang on by a little thread—one proxy vote from Taito Phillip Field. 
It is also interesting to see in the Prime Minister’s statement that 2007 is the year of the exporter. Well well well! Are not exporters struggling? There is a high dollar. What is this Government doing about that? What is the Government doing about farmers who are the backbone of this country? Sheep farmers are now finding that this is a 7-year low for them as $25 has gone off the lamb schedule yet this Government says that this is the year of the exporter. The rural economy is going to close its cheque book lock it in the top drawer and provincial towns around New Zealand will feel that. 
I was really interested to hear Paul Hargreaves the former boss of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research say on Radio New Zealand National this morning that the institute could forecast floods 12 to 36 hours quicker than MetService yet MetService has the contract to do the weather forecasting for heavy flood warnings in New Zealand. We have two Government departments run by different Ministers that cannot get together and forecast our flood areas. If that had been the case in 2004 if the institute had had the opportunity to forecast flooding I think we would not have been in the same situation then whereby one farmer in the Manawatu lost 3500 lambs in that flood. I think that is shocking. It is bureaucracy gone mad. We have the technology to forecast flooding in this country and the Labour Government cannot sort it out between Steve Maharey and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises whose name I have forgotten. 
Just to sum up this Government is on its last legs. I look forward to seeing the end of it. Its members are tired. They do not have any ideas at all. I think the most important thing for National is that we have rejuvenated and I welcome Katrina Shanks into our caucus. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 For the uninitiated who are listening to this on radio I say that the last speaker was one Nathan Guy who harks from a province near here. I was very interested in his speech. I know he is a new member but he asked what his role is. He was challenged by members on this side of the House to provide one policy in his speech. He was not equal to that challenge; he had not one policy not half a policy—he said it was not National’s role. What is the role of an Opposition? Well apart from Opposition members sitting on their backsides and claiming 120 grand a year the role of Opposition members is yes to oppose. That is the natural role of an Opposition. One would have thought that after 7½—nigh on 8—years in Opposition Nathan Guy who is part of the new world order with a few of the other “newies” who have come in on that side of the House would be told to get up and put out an agenda and a policy. 
Michael Cullen used a very interesting phrase. I will give Nathan Guy a little history lesson. In American politics every candidate for leadership goes through a particular phase. Michael Cullen used the term for it; it is called the “where is the beef?” moment or “where is the substance?” or “where is the policy?”. National members can go with the “slick willy” routine. They can paint John Key with as many coats of varnish as they want but at some time he will come to that American political moment when he has to come up with the beef. He will run out of stunts like the one at Waitangi where he used a young Maori girl. I have never in my life seen such a blatant use of a young person in politics. As Shane Jones said in his address the kaumatua nailed him and told him not to bring a pet up there. He got nailed at Waitangi on that. Then there was the so-called food in schools stunt. He got unzipped slit open and stitched back up again because he tried to pull a fast one not only on that principal and that school but on our communities. 
John Key of course is a person who thinks in transactions. He was a foreign-exchange dealer: a man who made his pile as a junk bond dealer trading down the Kiwi dollar. He thinks in transactions. As Michael Cullen said when John Key was asked what his position as a 19-year-old was on the 1981 Springbok Tour he thought about it as a transaction. He thought that if he said he was for it he would maybe brass off a historic group in the community; if he said he was agin it he would probably alienate a few others; but if he told the truth and said what he believed—if he knew what he believed—then he might show some leadership. He copped out and took both plan A and plan B. He could not even answer when asked the simple question—and I am not moralising here as a not-very-good Catholic myself—of whether he believed in God; he thought in transactions. He could not quite—after four attempts—give a straight answer. 
Mr English says he is hand in glove with Mr Key and I believe him. Mr Key is the glove puppet and we all know where Mr English’s hand resides. It resides right in that glove puppet. We know who writes the speeches. I say that the Prime Minister—unlike the Opposition—set out an agenda. She reminded this Opposition that we have the second-lowest unemployment in the OECD and that we have created 330000 jobs as a nation. I ask people to ask what National did when they were in power for nigh on a decade. We re-created recrystallised and backed our young people with apprenticeships after National had destroyed apprenticeships. Lockwood Smith gets up in Parliament and says he is proud of the fact that he did over and destroyed the Apprenticeship Act. 
We backed our young people. We backed our elderly folk with a sustainable policy. The Opposition hates that word “sustainable” because it cuts to the quick of the shallowness and the hollowness of every member on that side who cannot in every speech in this debate come up with one policy idea. They lambaste us for talking about sustainability. They lambaste us for saying what we believe and that we are going to promote policies and ideas that will protect our environment. In doing that we do a simple thing: we protect our communities we protect our social fabric and we protect our natural and public environment. 
They lambaste us for putting a policy agenda on the table in our third term in office. But when challenged would the hollow men the hollowed-out crew over there give us one answer one idea or one thought? Even if they cannot give us a policy can they give just a thought to say they had an idea they wanted to kick around with the communities? Not one of them will front up. They are great superstars with their wonderful careers in the private sector. They are great intellects who wandered into Parliament. They are the disappointed men who were lawyers and trade ambassadors on the outside and now of course they sit languishing over there not quite realising their dreams and their ambitions. 
There is intellect over there somewhere. They hide it well but it may be there. I challenge them. They have had a Prime Minister’s statement setting an agenda and setting a number of policies: what we are going to do in the transport area how we are going to take apprenticeships to the next level and how we are going to sort out things close to my heart—energy efficiency and health and safety within housing. They have all our ideas and unlike Nathan Guy we are not afraid to put them out there. We believe we actually get paid to propose and to challenge our communities with policies and ideas. 
I say to Nathan Guy that if he wants to know how to earn his pay he should go back to wherever he came from go out and do a clinic occasionally speak to more than his little inner circle of the silk suit - wearing brigade and ask the communities what they think. Maybe he should go out and apologise for what he did in the last election when he made jokes about climate change and laughed about sustainability. Maybe he can go back to where he comes from and answer the challenge of why for 9 years National members have denied there is a problem in the environment. For 9 years they said it was a joke—it was smoke and mirrors. The man who walks in now was the proponent of that and now they have had a road to Damascus experience. Suddenly they believe it—but only because it is politically palatable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. The question is that Heather Roy’s amendment be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that all the words after the word “That” be omitted and the following substituted: “this House has no confidence in the Government which is in denial about the real issues confronting New Zealanders keeping families dependent on government and stands between our people and prosperity.” 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I notice that the Labour Party has just exercised a proxy vote for Taito Phillip Field. You will recall that this afternoon in Parliament there was quite an extended debate about the definition of “public business” so I assume that under Standing Order 156(4)(d) the Labour Party will be claiming that the vote is being exercised on the basis that Mr Field is on public business. I wonder whether that would be an opportunity for you to reflect whether Mr Field is in fact on public business. We know that yesterday he was interviewed by the police. This is a wonderful opportunity for you Madam Speaker to give us an indication as to whether you think that is the case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I did rule on this as the member indicated earlier. The whips’ word has to be accepted concerning the casting of a proxy vote and it is. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am very happy to accept the Labour Party whip’s word. I just want to know what the word is. Is the Labour Party whip saying that Taito Phillip Field is on public business or is he saying that Taito Phillip Field has told him he is on public business? What word is it that we are actually accepting here? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member Mr Field has indicated he wishes his vote to be exercised in this way by the Government whip. It has been exercised. Mr Field knows what the rules are. His word is taken as is the Government whip’s word. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that matter. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry; I know that. I would hate to upset you at this stage. I know that we are accepting the member’s word for how the vote is to be cast. I know that we are accepting his word that he is happy for the Labour Party to cast it but what I do not understand is that as the requirement is for Taito Phillip Field to be on public business are we accepting the word of the Labour Party whip that Taito Phillip Field is on public business? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Field knows what the rules are. He knows he has to be on public business to enable the Government to cast his proxy vote. I have accepted his word and obviously the Government whip has accepted his word. I have accepted it because that has been accepted. So that as far as I am concerned is the end of the matter. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under subparagraph (i) of Standing Order 156(d) anybody can be away from Parliament “for illness or other family cause of a personal nature” but that has not been raised. The issue being raised now is whether he is away on public business and it has been very clear that he has given his vote to the Labour Party whip. He has said that publicly and if he is away on business that is of a personal nature that is allowed. It was certainly allowed to me when I was on my own. So I cannot see what the argument is about actually. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said it is for the member to decide whether he wishes to have his vote cast through proxy with the Government whip in this instance. The member knows the rules. I have accepted the word of the member. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; but you were asked to leave the Chamber till the end of the day. I am not sure what you are doing here but I am sure someone else will raise your point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: You change the rules to suit yourself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not. I gave an instruction to that effect and I am sorry if it did not get through to you. 
A party vote was called for on the question That all the words after the word “That” be omitted and the following substituted: “this House has no confidence in the Government which is in denial about the real issues confronting New Zealanders keeping families dependent on government and stands between our people and prosperity.” 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark because it lacks any vision or purpose apart from getting re-elected it refuses to be accountable or responsible for the public services it oversees it is tired and bereft of ideas and all it can offer New Zealand is a collection of empty slogans. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion not agreed to.