Mahuta Nanaia: General Debate 
Mahuta Nanaia: General Debate 
[Volume:652;Page:1641] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 My Labour colleagues have made the point well that when we came into office in 1999 the unfunded liability we inherited was far greater than that inherited by the members opposite when they came into office just last year and that is a very important point. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the valuation of the outstanding liabilities claim of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) which shows that the figure when Labour came to Government was $6.3 billion not the $22 billion that it is today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There being no objection the document can be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speakers’ rulings make it clear that points of order should be used in the middle of somebody’s speech only if the point relates to order and to the speaker who is on his or her feet. There was nothing to stop Dr Nick Smith doing that at the end of the speech made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. To break up her speech like that invites Labour members to use the same mechanism with National members. We have not done that in this debate this afternoon. There is no need to table a document in the middle of a speech. I do not believe that it was an appropriate thing for the member to do—it was just needless. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member and the point is well made. I remind the Hon Dr Nick Smith that the order of this House requires courtesy on behalf of everybody. The member has made the point well that the document could have been tabled at the end of the speech. It was not a point of order—there was no order about it at all; it was simply a matter of process. I invite members to consider that and make points of order that are about process at the end of a speech not during it. I think it shows some discourtesy to the speaker at the time. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: As a matter of clarification my colleague Lianne Dalziel makes the point that the unfunded liability was proportionately far greater when National last left office than when it came into office this time. The real point of this is that when we look at the Maori constituencies we see that not enough Maori and Pacific Island people take up accident compensation and that is a concern. It was an ongoing concern when National was last in office and when we were in office and more must be done on that front. 
Regarding the Job Summit some people may have thought it was uninspiring unambitious and very vague on the detail but I think it was a good opportunity to bring people together. Some good people were represented but I am concerned about who was not there. When we think about the workers who will be affected when we think about women—and already they are quite concerned about the cutting of the pay equity report that would restore income levels between the genders—when we think about the young people who will be the future workforce for New Zealand that will look after the baby boomers and when we think of Pacific and Maori people we see that they were not represented in the ways we would have wanted them to be represented. To me that highlights a significant gap in some of the solutions that may be sought by the Government on a very important and serious issue. 
That point has to be made because when we look at the virtues of the 100 days of progress that the National Government has paraded throughout the country we see that the things it has introduced have hurt those same groups that were not represented at the Job Summit in very very dire ways. Will people who are affected by the 90-day fire-at-will bill be eligible for the ReStart package that was announced by the Minister for Social Development and Employment? Members should think about that. They should think about how it will look on the CV of employees who are employed on an 89-day employment cycle when no reason whatsoever is given on their CVs as to why they were released. After a while with the employee having had three or four jobs in fewer than 3 months an employer who looks at that track record will find the employee cannot give any reason why he or she was released from employment except that the previous employer did not want him or her. Members should think about what that will do to prospective workers’ employment opportunities in the months ahead. That is a very real consideration when one looks at how difficult the job market will be in the 2 to 3 years to come. 
Then there are the tax cuts. The tax cuts will do nothing for those who earn under $44000 a year many of whom are Maori or Pacific people or are young workers who may have left school with very few or no qualifications. Members should think about that and ask what that will do to those in the workforce who are most vulnerable. We have to come back to the communities who will feel the effects of the very real issue of there being no jobs or who will be pushed from pillar to post in a way that could be exploited under the 90-day bill. 
It is a very very difficult situation. I am not saying that the Government should have all the solutions right here right now but it certainly should have a plan for those in the workforce who are the most vulnerable—more particularly from my point of view Maori and Pacific people young people and women. If that cannot be articulated well then I look to the jobs that have been lost in Matamata I look to some of the jobs that have been lost— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.