Fitzsimons Jeanette: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10795] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Aotearoa New Zealand begins the year 2004 with the tragic feeling that the barricades are going up between Maori and other New Zealanders. Trust is at its lowest ebb for many years. The silent sadness I witnessed at Waitangi is far more tragic than the open anger and it will take longer to heal than the effects of a mud pie. Shortly we will be presented with legislation to override the legal process that Maori have won access to and to declare a new title for the Crown dressed up as public domain over the foreshore and seabed. It offends the sense of fair play of most New Zealanders to legislate away a legal right that has been won in the courts after 8 years of due process—and let us remember this is only a legal right to have a day in court. The massive overreaction was unnecessary and unfair. It would have been simple to legislate to remove the power of the court to issue a fee simple saleable title to foreshore and seabed but to confirm the power of the court to determine whether it could be shown to be ancestral land which confers kaitiakitanga. 
It is interesting is it not that when one discusses customary title on a marae Maori talk of their responsibility to care for the land generation after generation and to extend hospitality to visitors. When one discusses title with Europeans they so often talk of the right to exploit and to exclude. It would still be possible to resolve the issue in a way that recognises both the mana whenua of ancestral title and the customary right of others to go to the beach. It is still possible to rebuild the trust to heal the damaged relationship and to create reconciliation with justice—but only by taking time sitting down together and listening as well as talking and being prepared to design a solution by cooperation rather than by imposition. The outcome may even have a lot in common with what is proposed now. The important thing is the process that develops it. Without that relationship and without that trust there can be no just resolution. Sadly I sense that that option is not on the table. 
Against that the speech at the Orewa Rotary Club by the man in the white hat was just a diversion and a distraction. The errors of fact are hardly worth a mention. Does the National Party no longer have any researchers who can get the figures and do the simple calculation that Maori are only half as likely to be in the top income quartile as other New Zealanders? Much more worrying was the underlying ignorance of our history our treaty and our cultural diversity. Dr Brash undermined the treaty with a monocultural argument based on equality—an easy hit with many New Zealanders who are feeling economically marginalised or who are unaware of the treaty agreements. That argument assumes that all people are the same and that that sameness means having the attributes of a white middle-class male. 
The argument that people should be supported on the basis of need and not race denies the reality in New Zealand that need—in terms of education health and economic resources—is particularly real for Maori. Let us take health spending. Less than 3 percent of the health budget goes to Maori providers of services or services provided by mainstream providers targeted at Maori. Yet their results are particularly good because they deliver the service in a way that respects cultural differences. Is it not equality to have services delivered in a way that is culturally appropriate to people? The rest of us do have that. Overall roughly 14.7 percent of the health budget is spent on Maori—about the same as the proportion of Maori in the population. Given the relatively poor health statistics of Maori they ought to get a higher proportion than that on the basis of need. Despite a higher death rate than Pakeha from cardiovascular disease there is evidence that Maori receive fewer cardiac interventions than would be expected and those differences remain even after controlling for gender age and deprivation. 
Only 4 percent of the population older than 65 is Maori who tend to live 10 years less on average than Pakeha. So Maori also get far less than their share of superannuation to which they contribute. I guess Dr Brash would argue that in a needs-based system Maori do not need superannuation when they are dead. But we will not have equality until Pakeha and Maori lead equally long and fulfilling lives and addressing that means addressing complex questions of targeted health education and welfare spending. All Maori over 60 were born into families that received a lower rate of family benefit pension and invalids and widows benefits than Pakeha families just because they were Maori. That changed only in 1945. We have had race-based laws throughout our history always to the detriment of Maori and now some would still deny them the chance to catch up. Then Dr Brash argued that Maori can still practise their language and culture just like the Chinese—positioning them as immigrants in their own land. It seems to be the role of each generation to rebel against its parents. I had the great privilege of knowing the Rev. Alan Brash well when I lived and worked in Geneva some 30 years ago. He was a fine compassionate visionary man dedicated to social justice. Perhaps Don Brash’s present stance is just youthful rebellion. 
Another matter that takes me back 30 years is the crossroads we have reached in energy policy. Not since the so-called oil crises of the 1970s have we been faced with such stark choices. The issues have not changed since then but failure to act then has left us with fewer options now. There has been surprisingly little discussion of the fact that Maui gas which used to provide a quarter of our primary energy has run out as it was always planned to do around now. That has coincided with three other events that limit our options for electricity: firstly the onset of a period of lower than usual rainfall in the catchments of the main hydro lakes which is predicted to become the norm for the next 20 years; secondly rapid growth in demand for electricity which has caught up with the surplus of generating capacity that we used to have; and thirdly our signing—and not before time—of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change which rules out turning to coal because we must limit our greenhouse gas emissions. 
The response from our State-owned electricity generating system has been the same as ever: if we want more power we can just wreck a bit more of our environment in order to provide it. I had thought that the days of “think big” were over. Governments now talk of sustainable development but only the language has changed. As though we had learned nothing from the Clyde Dam the Synfuel plant and the Aramoana smelter the response to rising power consumption is to wreck another river—to divert 73 percent of our largest braided river into a canal drying up the habitat of threatened birds and native fish ruining trout and salmon fishing and dominating the landscape of the Waitaki valley with a structure as high as the Beehive and as wide as Parliament Buildings. Even Project Aqua will not save us of course. By the time it is built if present trends continue demand will have risen by the same amount of electricity as the scheme will produce and we will be looking for more. One point two billion dollars is a lot of money to spend just in order to stand still. Worse still in a very dry winter Project Aqua will provide nothing as there will be no spare water for the canal. The temptingly low cost of Project Aqua is a mirage. When we add on the cost of the new thermal stations that will have to be built to provide for the dry winters it will not be cheap power. 
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy is too timid and is aimed too low. It is seriously underfunded. Less than 1 percent of the capital cost of Project Aqua goes into energy efficiency each year yet we know it is capable of producing far more in power savings eventually than Project Aqua will generate. Last year this House heard many futile debates about whether we should build more hydro or more coal generating capacity. The real point is that unless we get energy efficiency investments happening fast it will not be a matter of hydro or coal generation or this river or that. It will be a case of having all our rivers ruined coal stations on every corner some token wind farms imported liquefied natural gas at huge cost and eventually nuclear power—and still we will be having power cuts. 
This is the year to face our energy future seriously and to take a stand by saying that we will not expect our environment to keep paying for our waste our carelessness and our greed. We can think smarter. But the issue is not just about electricity. The war in Iraq and recent fluctuations in oil prices are signs of the inescapable reality that we are close to the time when oil flows from known wells will not be enough to supply world demand. What does it matter whether that will be 5 years or 10 years away or whether we have already passed the peak of oil production? The world is already using four barrels of oil for every one that is discovered. The oil companies know that; the Government like all previous Governments is in denial. Its advisers are still publishing predictions that the price of oil will stay constant for the next 20 years. 
There is a lot we could do to prepare for the future by making ourselves less reliant on oil. The New Zealand Transport Strategy and the new transport legislation on which the Greens have worked very closely with the Government are a start with their emphasis on energy-efficient modes like rail and public transport. We must make sure that the opportunities they open up are grasped this year. This Government could be the one that wakes from the sleep of denial and leads the nation into a future where with good planning we can have prosperity and quality of life despite the constraints of both oil supply and carbon emissions. We are waiting. 
Meanwhile despite distancing ourselves somewhat from the US invasion of Iraq we are still being led into that country’s agenda. To justify the US’s invasion of Iraq and whatever countries come next the US is scaring the world into sacrificing democracy and civil liberties in the name of a war on terror that is in fact a war of terror. We continue to see the growing power of the security services combined with a dramatic deficit of accountability. Ahmed Zaoui personifies that—a man in prison without being charged for crimes unknown based on evidence the Security Service has refused to reveal. How does locking up a democratically elected politician on the run from a military Government that is determined to execute him make New Zealand a safer place? If this Government is serious about dealing to the causes of terrorism it would do well to separate New Zealand from US foreign policy in the Middle East and to increase the overseas aid budget to 0.7 percent of gross national income as requested by the Council for International Development on the steps of Parliament today. Nothing better illustrates the foolishness of buying into the US agenda than this Government’s determination to follow it into the dead-end of genetic engineering especially when its agricultural exports are the very low-value commodities decried by the Prime Minister in her speech. Ours need to be high-value products—products where the buyers are discerning buyers who have repeatedly demonstrated their rejection of GE food. 
It is time we were brave enough to make our own decisions and control our own economy. The long darkness of free trade trampling unchecked over communities and ecosystems may be passing. In the last few days the European Union’s Trade Commissioner has suggested that countries ought to be allowed to ban imports from countries that do not share their national values and standards. Pascal Lamy says the World Trade Organization rules give too much weight to science—he could have said pseudo-science—and too little to local social and political sensitivities. It is time for us to side with the European Union and the public on this issue and in doing so to stand up for sustainability over corporate greed. When we abandon control of our own economy the first places that suffer are small communities especially rural communities and they are hurting now. Cutting tariffs will put people out of work in places like Levin Lower Hutt and Te Kuiti. Other communities that are still reeling from the closure of their post offices and banks are now facing no-go zones a total lack of effective rural public transport and the closure of their schools—schools that are often the only community centre meeting place or focus for the people who live there. 
Regional development policy is not helping those people. Big industrial wood-processing plants do not support local communities; they make them more reliant on overseas owners cheap energy and a favourable exchange rate. We need to have strong local economies that set global standards for social and environmental responsibility. We need to be much more self-reliant and we need to produce much more that lasts. Quality durability and flexibility need to become the new bywords of industry. The Greens support local initiatives that keep finance and production localised: “green dollar” schemes community banks credit unions cooperatives and regional business support schemes. Opportunities abound for local eco-development and ecologically innovative business in areas as diverse as waste reduction energy efficiency retrofits ecological restoration and organic production. 
The Greens have lobbied the Government since it took office to release some of the surplus that Dr Cullen is squirreling away in order to improve the lives of ordinary New Zealanders. We hope that the Government will deliver generously on its promises in the Budget Policy Statement. The Greens want to see an end to the discrimination against parents on a benefit and eligibility for the child tax credit extended to all children of low-income families. We applaud the Government’s continuing investment in early childhood education but it is not enough if children are going hungry and parents are unable to cope financially at home. One step towards addressing that is the introduction of a universal child benefit and we are asking the Government and New Zealanders to support Sue Bradford’s member’s bill. 
National’s new leader has done us a service by reminding us that there are political choices in New Zealand most obviously between reconciliation and blinkered denial. But the choices are more than that. The agenda for the right represents an unparalleled denial of the ecological crisis facing our planet—it is a call for more cars more coal and more consumption. One could almost think that the right has given up and simply wants to party while the ship sinks. The Greens also get extremely frustrated with Labour as I am sure it does with us. Labour in our view has a lot to learn about ecological wisdom peace and justice. But we can and do work together. There is a common interest in a better future and a common belief that we are more than rational economic maximisers. We look forward to principled cooperation with Labour in the future on the issues we share. We will continue to work with it this year to progress the issues where we agree. 
In particular we want to see the new transport legislation start to work freight moved off our congested roads on to rail and communities have the option of excellent public transport systems and the ability to walk and cycle in safety. We are pleased to see that the Government will allow more students to qualify for allowances from next year. Of course we would like to see the allowances made universally available and to see a real programme to phase out fees altogether. That would be an investment in our future and not a cost. We are also pleased that the Government is looking at improvements to the paid parental leave scheme. That scheme must be made available to more parents including those with less than 1 year’s tenure and self-employed women and the leave should meet the international minimum standard of 14 weeks. We will continue to cooperate with Labour on bills such as the Care of Children Bill the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and the promised Civil Union Bill—most of which rely on our support. 
However we cannot vote confidence in this Government. Two-thirds of New Zealanders asked for the protection of the GE moratorium to be extended for a few years while more is learned about this unpredictable technology. They wrote letters emailed marched wrote submissions reasoned brought the best scientific evidence pleaded and argued the overwhelming economic case but were ignored and often insulted. Only the Environmental Risk Management Authority and a resolute public now stand between us and the release of those crops. My money is on the public. We said we could not support a Government that allowed the release of GE organisms but we do not share National’s reasons for voting no confidence. So as I have done since the last election I move  
That all the words after “This House has no confidence” be omitted and substituted with the following words: “in the Labour-led minority Government because despite there being some positive elements in its programme its decision to allow the release of genetically engineered organisms exposes our health our environment and our economy to significant and quite unnecessary risks.”