Street Maryan: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Street Maryan: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4584] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in this appropriation bill debate. In case people are wondering just what the subject of the House’s attention is this evening it is in fact the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill debate. I am pleased to speak on the bill for a number of reasons. First of all this 2006-07 set of estimates—and the Budget that attaches to it of course—is the continuation of the economic transformation that has been at the heart of this Labour-led Government’s policy agenda. It lays down the groundwork for 2006-07 and beyond for increasing economic prosperity and increasing care for those who are unable to look after themselves for whatever reason for whatever period of time. So we look forward to the enactment and rolling out of the policies behind the Budget. 
It is the point about policy that I wish to speak to in particular because we are at a loss to discern the policy that is coming out of the National Party. National recently had an annual conference. There were so many speeches particularly from the front bench and so few ideas. There was so little in the way of policy and so little in the way of anything that might grasp this country’s imagination and make it look like the people had a choice. At that National Party conference there was the usual litany of trivia that National continues to serve up as policy. We have this vacuum where policy ought to be if we are to live in a robust democracy. 
So I was waiting with bated breath for the next speech from the leader Dr Don Brash and we got a speech about immigration. I thought that would be interesting and that perhaps it would be the start of a policy platform from the National Opposition. But no I was disappointed again. In fact what we got would have been funny if it were not so serious. We got gems like the following. When the leader of the National Party was asked to expand on his speech he said in an interview: “What I was saying was look by all means let’s enrich our culture by having people who have different traditions of music and cuisine and dance and so on. And that’s good and I welcome that.” As I said this would be laughable if it were not so desperately serious. What we have here is some idea of tolerance of migrant groups for the purposes of entertaining us amusing us and perhaps even extending our culinary repertoire. But if we want them to engage in our society to the extent of writing letters of protest about something in that society then no they are not allowed they are not permitted to be full participating members of our democracy. We will welcome them as long as we can wear them as badges and can trot them out on formal occasions to show how rich and ethnically diverse we are. 
But we require immigrants to have what are now called “bedrock values”. The term used to be “mainstream”; now it is “bedrock”. I look forward to the next iteration whatever it might be. I look forward to the next epithet that the speech-writers come up with for Dr Brash. Once he had been probed on this issue it was perfectly clear that there was no immigration policy. There was nothing except what was left to one’s imagination. Are we meant then to have a screening programme—a screening programme on application a screening programme on entry to the country a screening programme on application for citizenship that asks: “Do you sign up to all those bedrock values that Dr Brash outlined: religious freedom the rule of law and the equality of sexes before the law?” I think that was about the extent of the list actually; that was the best he could do in identifying citizenship. 
This is a tragedy. It would be good if we were able to debate policy in this House but we are left with the National Opposition raising day after day points of trivia that the public have no interest in such as the number of people Michael Cullen goes to dinner with and such issues. If Dr Brash truly wants to lead this country— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He does. 
MARYAN STREET 
:—and I am assured by members opposite that he does—then I suggest that this country is in desperate trouble. If that is the calibre of the Opposition leader then it is no wonder that those members are looking for another. 
It seems to me that the question of immigration policy goes to the heart of economic transformation and economic development in this country. More than that if the Leader of the Opposition had done any reading at all that might have informed a reasonable policy debate—instead of putting up meaningless epithets such as “bedrock values”—and done any kind of analysis he would have seen that classical pluralism makes it very clear that stable societies come out of the existence of diversity. The existence of diversity—not simply flag waving and badge wearing—comes about because people of different interests each achieve something they need out of their participation. That is classical pluralism. It has been around since 1952. It is not hard to look it up. It has been there for a long time. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted any kind of academic framework or any kind of analysis on which to base a policy he could have asked me for a bibliography to start with. Stable societies are born out of the participation and recognition of difference. This is not about having migrants come to this country who look like us and who are like us. 
While I am on that note I finish by saying that I have never understood what the National Party means by “one law for all”. I have understood that one rule of law applies in this country and applies to everybody. It applies to migrants and citizens. It applies to anybody and anybody who infringes it is treated in the same way by the appropriate authorities. So that nonsense—that cliché about one law for all—is as meaningless as “bedrock values”. I feel desperately sorry for the Opposition. I would love to engage in a proper debate about things such as immigration but there is nothing to debate because nothing is coming out of that Opposition.