Dalziel Lianne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Dalziel Lianne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10846] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I have noticed that the Opposition—that is the National Party for those who have forgotten—is spending its time here tonight challenging United Future to vote “no confidence” in the Government. I remind United Future that the once-proud National Party conned Alamein Kopu into keeping a sinking Shipley afloat just so that she could get the pension for having served the minimum period as a former Prime Minister. That happened in this Parliament when National was in office. National members were the turkeys who would not vote for an early Christmas. I place on record the service that United Future has given to the stability of this nation by supporting this Government on confidence and supply. 
I recall Shipley in those days being backed by the brat pack because she had promoted them to their level of incompetence. I say to members of United Future that the National Party is only projecting its own sense of inadequacy because it has no influence no say and is staring in the face of irrelevancy. National is lucky to be the main Opposition party. Many New Zealanders think that that role has been taken by other members of other Opposition parties. 
I know that there are members of the National Party who are seriously uncomfortable with what Don Brash has been saying. It is not only the high-profile Maori members who have spoken out. Talk about rewriting history! I had the pleasure of spending Waitangi Day at Onuku Marae. There was no mud-slinging jostling protesting or fighting and consequently almost no media coverage but there was robust debate. Gerry Brownlee gave his inaugural speech as the Opposition spokesperson on Maori affairs and that would have to be the most extraordinary speech I have ever heard. He was asked by Ngai Tahu to explain to the people of New Zealand why his party was the party that told New Zealand that Maori wanted to stop access to the beach. They railed at Gerry Brown that this issue has never been about the beach and they demanded to know why the National Party had lied to the people of New Zealand. Mr Brownlee would not answer the question. The question had to be put again. He asked a question back. He said that as his bach in the Sounds had been handed down from his great-grandfather to his grandfather to his father to him why did he have no customary rights in the foreshore? The National Party nods its head and says “Exactly.” 
When the Opposition spokesperson on Maori Affairs does not understand what the treaty means in terms of the obligations it imposed on the Crown in terms of protecting the property rights of Maori and members opposite do not understand either I despair of them ever having a say in this matter again. Doug Graham would be appalled at members opposite if he could hear them tonight. 
I commend the Christchurch  
Press 
 for taking the debate forward. All views were able to be expressed in the Christchurch  
Press 
 as it developed a series of themes leading up to Waitangi Day itself which culminated in an excellent pull-out section on Waitangi Day called “The Treaty of Waitangi: The deed that created New Zealand”. It had an excellent piece by Philip Joseph a constitutional law expert from Canterbury University. I commend that pull-out section to all members of the House. In fact I shall circulate a copy of it to all members. 
I want to quote from one of the articles earlier in the week and I confess that my brother wrote it. However I have no say over what my brother writes. He is a professor of economics at Lincoln University and he writes: “The unpalatable fact is that after 1840 the Crown in New Zealand not only failed to fulfil its promise to protect Maori property rights it actively confiscated and stole Maori-owned land. Brash accepts this in his speech and expresses his regret but goes on to argue that the current generation of New Zealanders can do no more than make a gesture at recompense. Notice how Brash changes the language from ‘the Crown’ to ‘the current generation’. This slippage occurs throughout his speech. At another point Brash describes the treaty settlement process as ‘where people who weren’t alive in the 19th century pay compensation to the part-descendants of those who were’. This transforms the issue from a property rights dispute between Maori tribes and the Crown into a race conflict between Maori and other New Zealanders. Rather than one law for all Brash accepts a lower standard for the Crown’s dealings with Maori. It is the kind of dishonourable attitude that created the historical grievances in the first place.” I could not have put it better myself. 
What makes me upset about the real agenda of the National Party is that its utilising of that trite slogan takes the focus off its real agenda—namely its plans to increase the age for superannuation entitlement cut benefits slash employee rights and privatise health and education. It will hide that agenda behind the slogan of “freedom of choice”. I have heard it all before from the National Party. It will not take New Zealanders long to realise that the Orewa speech was a smokescreen for the failed policies of the past. New Zealanders have already rejected them and they will carry on rejecting them. 
As Minister of Immigration I shall speak about immigration. I welcome the new skilled migrant category in which over 1000 people have lodged expressions of interest. I heard members opposite say that no interest would be expressed in the new category. Over 1000 expressions of interest have been lodged already. The Immigration Service will soon be identifying the pass mark that will lead to an invitation to lodge an application for residence. Although the details are not ready for announcement I can give members a sneak preview. My advice is that an assessment of around a quarter of the expressions of interests identified that three-quarters of them were already either working in New Zealand in skilled jobs or they had job offers. Over half of those who had job offers or who were already working were from outside Auckland. I have great confidence that the new policy will be successful in providing a route to residence for those people whom New Zealand needs and an opportunity for those whom we know are likely to do well here. 
The new skilled migrant category has been welcomed by everyone except some members of the National Party and some members of the ACT party. The reason National members say little is that they are embarrassed at National’s decision to leave the immigration portfolio to second-rate members almost all of whom are now immigration consultants. Even the previous Prime Minister of New Zealand is an immigration consultant. It is a disgrace to see people using their former roles to gain entry into high-level places in other countries. It is degrading and embarrassing and she should be ashamed of herself. Those responsibilities the National Party will carry with it to its grave—and that is where it is going. National members are responsible for the “professionals driving taxis” scenario. They are the ones who put doctors behind the wheels of taxis. They are the ones who put scientists behind the wheels of taxis. They are the ones who did not care what happened to people after they arrived in New Zealand. This Government’s new skilled migrant category is turning it all round. In actual fact members opposite are coming up to me quietly and saying congratulations. This Government has taken the hard decisions in the immigration policy and as a result we have a great policy for the future and I am extremely proud of it. 
I believe that this country has a great future. I fully endorse the expression of the Prime Minister in her statement to this House. This is a country that will build on the strengths the foundations that have been established and I have every confidence that we will move forward into the future under a Labour-led Government for a very long time.