Wilkinson Kate: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Wilkinson Kate: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7382] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 The start of any new year is the time to set out priorities for the year ahead and to set the standards. Although we may be disappointed in the rhetoric and slogan-filled Prime Minister’s statement it is also disappointing to hear the solemn and sincere undertakings of Government speakers to “put aside personal attacks and sleaze” because those undertakings were either totally ignored or were made after the personal attacks had already occurred. 
It is such a waste of precious speaking time to debate personalities when there are so many issues that really do require debate. Even the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues wasted his time with a personal tirade against a former National member because he could do so within the Standing Orders. For goodness’ sake climate change is his baby. It is his area of responsibility and I thought he would have had the good judgment to use his speaking time wisely. 
We have heard repeatedly the word “sustainable”. We have heard it on countless occasions. When we look at the dictionary definition of “sustain”—to keep from falling sinking or failing—then we can understand why it is uppermost on the minds of Government members. Having said that if we try to look at any semblance of substance in the Prime Minister’s statement we can only be disappointed. How can anyone expect us to believe that crime rates are lower when violent crime has trended upwards since this Government came to power. Since 1999 violent crime has risen by 26 percent up from about 40000 offences to over 50000 offences. Grievous assaults are up 54 percent— 
Darren Hughes 
: Stand up straight! 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I will. Serious assaults are up 30 percent. In fact it looks a bit like the UK Labour spin where it states that except in areas where crime is increasing it is actually decreasing. In the past year alone we have had violent crime up 10.2 percent. We have had grievous assaults up 19 percent—and this is only in 12 months—homicides up 31 percent kidnapping and abduction up 46 percent intimidation and threats up 14 percent robberies up 20 percent and serious assaults up 13 percent. Yet this Government has the gall to try to tell us the evidence is that the crime rates are lower. 
We then have some specious promises made about parole greater truth in sentencing and greater consistency in sentencing. This is hard on the heels of the Burton tragedy. The Minister needs to tidy up his Department of Corrections. He needs to accept some responsibility and he needs to accept some accountability and not just say there is always room for improvement. Talk about empty slogans! Firstly there was the Liam Ashley tragedy which was avoidable with proper procedures. Secondly there was the Graeme Burton tragedy which was avoidable with proper procedures. For the trifecta not far away was the Whakaruru case. Do members remember James Whakaruru the 5-year-old who was tragically and violently murdered in 1999 under the watch of this Government? The murderer was sentenced to 12 years non-parole and he is now up for parole in February—7 years later. Notwithstanding the sentence was 12 years non-parole he is now up for parole. The family is still grieving. 
Where is the greater consistency in sentencing? Where is the justice in that? Where is the truth in sentencing so lauded by this Government? I request this Minister for goodness’ sake to put in place proper procedures so that we do not have a third avoidable tragedy in the space of as many months. 
The Prime Minister says: “it can be argued that the police should have the power to make an application for recall”. I say to the Prime Minister that this is a wishy-washy statement saying absolutely nothing. It does not say that she will ensure the police will have the power to recall. It does not deal with the parole application itself. This is the stable door after the horse has bolted and then it is only arguable that the horse has bolted and it is only arguable that the horse should—even if it could—be returned to its stable. I have to say that this is not a comforting thought for the safety of our community and for the safety of our poor victims. 
This Government has the gall to state that it wants substance and not slogans. Talking about slogans what exactly is “economic transformation”? Transformation of course can be transforming something bad into something good. Then again it can be transforming something good into something bad. I suspect it is more of the latter than the former. When a Government inherits the best of economic times it runs the risk of transforming it into the worst of economic times. 
Employing more people—some 30000 to 40000 in the public sector—may look good in terms of the employment figures—[ 
Interruption 
]—it is disgraceful but what does it do to enhance our productivity? The briefing to the Minister of Labour cautioned at the time: “much of New Zealand’s economic growth of the past decade has been fuelled by more people entering work”. Unfortunately many of those have been employed in the public sector doing nothing in terms of our productivity. 
Much has been said about our employment figures but not one mention has been made of the caution in that briefing that “our labour productivity is low by OECD standards and that lifting labour productivity is the central challenge for generating long-term sustainable economic growth”. That does not mean increasing the Government’s already bloated bureaucracy. Just as one isolated example the Legal Services Agency is about to increase its staff by 40 percent. What exactly does that agency do for our economy? 
I have to ask what is this Government’s vision and plan to lift our productivity because we have not seen it. There is not one single policy one single idea that this Government has to lift productivity in our workplace. Instead this Government fabricates what it thinks will be the employment policy of the National Party. I ask the Government to think again because it may very well be very wrong. 
It is worrying and saddening that the range of this Government’s vision is focused solely on retaining and regaining power at any cost. Look at its response to National’s “food in schools” initiative. Some children do go to school hungry yet this Government first said no there was no growing underclass. Then it said that if some kids go hungry the figure is only 15000. Then it escalated to over 82000. Then the Government said that if there was a problem it was caused by National policies—I might add over a decade ago—and if there was still a problem the Government has policies that have addressed that problem. But it could not name them. I say the Government should get over any so-called policies of the 1990s. It is time to take responsibility. 
How can we expect parents and others to take responsibility when this Government does not? What was the slogan kindly donated by Labour? It called our initiative “Tory charity”. What was the substance kindly provided by National? It was business partnerships actually providing sustenance—the food—for kids. We can all say yes the parents should show some responsibility. We can hide our heads in the sand but at the end of the day it is our children who are going hungry and our children who are being deprived of a better education because of that hunger. 
Labour states with some pomp that New Zealand is doing so well thanks to Labour and all the negatives are blamed on Ruth Richardson. How many decades ago was that? I ask the Government to take responsibility. Certainly it can enjoy the accolades if they are deserved. All the negatives in New Zealand are not the fault of the National Party. I say: “Get over it.” All the positives in New Zealand are not the result of Labour either. Seven years is long enough to have done something in Government. I ask them for goodness’ sake to recognise fiction as fiction.  
Seeds of Distrust 
 was dusted aside as pure fiction. I ask them to recognise fiction writers as fiction writers rather than to make selective cynical judgments for political opportunity and political point-scoring. How about doing what is good for New Zealand and New Zealanders and not what is good for Helen Clark and her autobiographer? 
 We can look back on the Government’s so-called vision over the years and see the buzzwords. In 2001 it was the road back to modernisation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Well we detoured off that track. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: In 2002 it was growth and innovation. In 2004 it was innovation again. In 2005 it was investment. Now it is economic transformation and sustainability. We need more— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Since the House resumed at 7.30 I have noticed that all National Party speakers have spoken considerably over their time including after they have noticed that you have said their time has expired. It is incumbent on the whips to make sure that members finish when the presiding officer says unless it is a deliberate strategy to undermine the presiding officer. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member that she certainly went on for far too long after I had called time. Usually there is a bit of latitude but I tell the member to be careful please. I next call Doug Woolerton. This is a 5-minute speech.