Parker David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Parker David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10836] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Before saying what I was going to say I will respond to one of the many inaccuracies in the speech we have just heard. There was the suggestion that in primary health organisations Maori have different entitlements to non-Maori. That is wrong. I would have exactly the same rights in any primary health organisation I belonged to whether I was Maori or non-Maori. There are different entitlements in different primary health organisations but people in any one primary health organisation be they for Maori or for non-Maori are the same. 
I am pleased to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s motion. Her speech was full of fact policy and leadership. It showed that we are on the right path to a prosperous and happy future. I want to contrast that with Dr Brash’s web of half-truths which was as Winston Peters has already noted devoid of fact vision and policy. 
I want to reflect on why he ignores the economy and chooses to attack on race issues. Why does he—the self-appointed guru that he believes he is—not deal with the detail of our economy? Because the economy is performing well and he knows we are prospering. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to those members who are interjecting across the floor when they do not have the call that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected on has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call. 
DAVID PARKER 
: So why does Dr Brash not attack us on the economy? 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I assume that given you have reminded us of the Standing Orders and you have drawn the matter to the House’s attention your rule will apply consistently during the rest of the year. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is for interjections when people do not have the floor Mr Carter. I have made such a ruling. 
DAVID PARKER 
: They are obviously threatened by the quality of my speech. Why does Dr Brash not attack Labour on the economy? Because he knows that it is performing well under our wise stewardship. We do face the challenges of a rising exchange rate against the US dollar—not because of a general rate of appreciation of the New Zealand currency but because of the decline of the US currency as evidenced by the fact that our currency is not rising significantly against either the euro or sterling. This gives us our challenges. 
Dr Brash has not focused on the economy because New Zealand has one of the strongest economies in the OECD. We run a budget surplus. The Labour Government every year it has been here has prudently collected more in taxes than it has spent. That is after putting aside $1.8 billion to assist the future funding of Government superannuation. That Budget surplus has enabled the Government to reduce debt. Gross Government debt was 36.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) when Labour took over in 1999. It is down to 28 percent of GDP now and is still dropping. It is predicted to go to 20 percent in the forecast period. Did Dr Brash talk about this? No because it is factual and it is good news. Unemployment—did Dr Brash talk about this? 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You just told us that you would apply the rule on interjections consistently. The Minister of Health was interjecting on somebody who was not speaking and you did not rise from the Chair to apply your own ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There were interjections coming backwards and forwards from both sides of the House and I draw members’ attention to the fact that it is discourteous to interject one to another when they do not have the call. Interjections are generally associated with the person who has the call. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The ruling you made a few minutes ago although you did not name myself was made primarily because I was interjecting across the House on a number of members on that side. You made a ruling. I wonder why it applies to me and to this side of the House yet when someone from the other side of the House interjects the ruling is not applied in the way you said it would. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The ruling applies to everybody Mr Carter. It was not directed personally at you. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Did Dr Brash talk about unemployment? No. Unemployment has dropped to less than 5 percent of the workforce—the lowest in 16 years and one of the lowest rates in the OECD. It is lower than those of our trading partners—lower than the United States and lower than Australia. But did Dr Brash talk about this? No because it is factual and it is good news. 
Did Dr Brash talk about economic growth? He complained that it was not high enough. But what are the facts here? The latest annual growth in GDP was 3.9 percent across the nation—a bit higher in the good province of Otago—and far higher overall than the OECD average. New Zealand’s growth was one of the best of the Western countries. Did Dr Brash mention this? No. Instead he criticised the gap between New Zealand and Australia. 
I have commented before on Dr Brash’s selective memory about when that gap developed. I always look at the statistics because I notice that when Dr Brash talks about these things—as he did in the  
Dominion Post  
at the time of the last Budget—he talks about the 1970s and 1980s as being the period when the gap developed when in reality that is wrong. In 1980 New Zealand was No. 18 in the OECD rankings and Australia was No. 10. By the end of that decade—the decade of Labour stewardship—Australia had gone back six places to No. 16 and New Zealand had gone back only one place. 
The next decade the 1990s was the decade of extremists. The National Party under Ruth Richardson Max Bradford and their ilk strangled our economy. The Employment Contracts Act drove our economy towards low-value products labour productivity stagnated and Australia boomed. In the 1990s while New Zealand went backwards from position No. 19 to position No. 20 Australia went forward from position No. 16 to position No. 12 on the per capita OECD rankings. That was when the gap arose between the fortunes of New Zealand and Australia under the policies of the then National Government when Dr Brash had his hand on the tiller at the Reserve Bank strangling the regions. 
So once again when we look into the facts Dr Brash is found out to be wrong. No wonder he does not talk about facts and policy. No instead he makes wildly general accusations about the Labour-led Government’s so-called racial policies. But his assertions on this front do not withstand scrutiny either. Let us unpick the details. He talks in dangerous generalities. His answer to all these questions is the pious platitude “one standard of citizenship”. So let us break it down into the major parts. It seems to me that there are six main areas: the settlement of historic grievances; talk of additional property rights for Maori; foreshore and seabed; claims by a minority of Maori for separate Maori sovereignty; delivery of social services to Maori; and delivery of social services by Maori. In the time I have here I will unpick each one of them. 
The settlement of historic grievances is easy. It is a big issue but even National says it is the right thing to do. So we need not talk about that any further. It is not the cause of National’s discontent. Talk of additional property rights for Maori: what are they? The Waitangi Tribunal said that Maori should have additional rights to telecommunications frequency. Labour did not agree to that. The Waitangi Tribunal said Maori should have those rights but we stopped it. The next one was oil and gas. There was a recommendation that Maori be given rights there. Did the Labour Government agree with that? It did not. Did it bring that into being? No it did not. We said we would not. Foreshore and seabed: this is an interesting one foisted on us by the Court of Appeal which found a common law property right in favour of Maori. Who does everyone call? They call on the Government to cut across that property right by truncating it. And is it? Yes it is. It is guaranteeing the rights of people to access the foreshore. What does Dr Brash say about it? He confuses everyone by talking about beaches. The foreshore does not extend to the beaches. The foreshore is wet when it is full tide. Foreshore and seabed as we propose is not a big issue. 
Then we have claims by a minority of Maori for separate Maori sovereignty. That is certainly not Labour Party policy. We oppose that. It is ridiculous to suggest that Parliament should give up its sovereignty to Maori. We are not doing it. What is the problem? It is certainly not Labour’s Maori policy. Then we have delivery of social services to Maori. We have heard today from other speakers how delivery of social services to Maori is no more than proportionate to their population. Health and educational services are no more than proportionate to their population. So what is the problem? It is said to be the failure of delivery of services by Maori and there have been instances when Maori organisations delivering services have failed. Some of those have been atrocious and the Government has criticised them for that. Who is cleaning up the Crown Forestry Rental Trust? An inquiry was led by Labour members on the Maori Affairs Committee. Labour does not approve of poor delivery. 
When we unpick Dr Brash’s assertions they really do not stand scrutiny. What do more moderate people of his caucus like Georgina te Heuheu say? She wanted to find out what National meant by “one standard of citizenship for all” and what happened? They closed her down. She is hardly a radical. She has been tossed out of the role of Opposition spokesperson on Maori affairs because she dared to question the simplicity of the rhetoric that Dr Brash employs. Building one fair and inclusive nation? That is what he says. Is that what this is all about? The kind and inclusive faces of Dr Brash and Mr Hide? Who are they trying to kid? What do they mean by “one standard of citizenship”? Let us put a few more realistic suffixes on it. “One standard of citizenship—tax cuts for the rich”. “One standard of citizenship—privatisation of publicly owned assets”. Dr Brash would flog off New Zealand Post sell off Television New Zealand finish off what Max Bradford started in the electricity industry abolish or freeze the minimum wage and abolish the pre-funding of superannuation making it less likely that future Governments could maintain superannuation payments to the elderly. That is what Dr Brash’s agenda is so it is no wonder he does not talk about facts or policies because his policies would bring misery to millions. He would take New Zealand backwards not forwards. Perhaps the best summary of his intent of “one standard of citizenship” is “one standard of citizenship—tax cuts for the rich”.