752 Address in Reply 24 Mar 1994 a ruling tonight, Mr Speaker, that in deference to a court order, you will not allow certain papers to be released or to be published. As the Minister of Agriculture has already pointed out, that places some members of the House in an invidious position­ interestingly, including the member for Tauranga. I was always under the impression­ and perhaps you could clarify the matter-that Parliament has precedence and authority over the courts of this country and, if we so choose, you can order the publication of those documents, notwithstanding a court order on those particular documents. Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is under some misapprehension; the decision is not one for me to make. The decision is one for the House to make. If the House resolves J that the papers be published, they will be published. But in the absence of a resolution of .. the House, I have no power to release them. We have probably dwelt long enough on this 1 matter. The member for Tauranga sought leave for the papers to be published. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? Government Members: Yes. RUTH DYSON (Lyttelton): Ko te mea tuatahi, kei te mihi atu ahau ki a koe, te rangatira, mo te whiwhinga i te tunga tino motuhake e pupuri nei e koe i tenei wa. Kei te mihi ahau ki a koe te mana me te kaha ki te whakahaere i tenei tunga. He honore nui tenei mo te tangata whenua o tenei whenua hoki. Tena koe.

[Subsequent authorised translation: Firstly, my formal congratulations to you upon your important post. I wish you prestige and courage to carry out this office. It is indeed a great honour for the indigenous people of the land and the people of this land. Greetings to you.]

I wish to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to this position. It is a tribute to this Parliament, to you, and to Maori people throughout our country. Your tolerance is admirable. 1 Ou te fia ta'ua i le agaga fiafia, le auai i le Palemene o la'u uo lelei, le sui faipule o Otara. 0 lona filifilia, ole ulua'i tagata Pasefika de ~lemene, o se la'asaga aupito taua lea, i le atiina'e o Niu Sila, o se tasi o atunu'u ole Vasa Pasefika. I also pay tribute to the member for Otara on his election as the first Polynesian representative in our Parliament. His election marks a very positive step in our development as a Pacific nation. I bring greetings from the constituents of Lyttelton to the Governor-General. Dame Catherine Tizard performs her role in a strong and dignified manner, and is yet another example of the appropriateness of appointing women to leading positions in our country. "Mr Speaker, the great majority of the electors in my district have expressed the greatest dissatisfaction with the administration of the Government, as it affects various matters that touch the country as a whole. Take for instance the question of unemployment. So far as that question is concerned, the Government of this country seems to have withdrawn into a kind of mental euthanasia. It sits there sublimely satisfied that all is well. The electors of the Lyttelton constituency have sent me here to say all is not well, so far as the unemployment question is concerned." That expression of our attitude, while completely shared by me, is not original. That was a quotation from the maiden speech of Elizabeth McCombs, member of Parliament for Lyttelton, which was delivered to the House 60 years ago. I pay tribute to Elizabeth McCombs, the first woman representative in our Parliament, and pledge to continue her work on behalf of unemployed people throughout our country-particularly in our electorate. Elizabeth McCombs won her seat in a by-election following the death of her husband, James, but, sadly, died herself after a very short time in office. Their son Terry was the next member of Parliament for our electorate-the only electorate to be represented by three members of one family consecutively. I pay tribute to them, and also to the other members who have represented Lyttelton in the past-, who is regarded throughout our country as a leader of exceptional ability; Tom McGuigan, whose talents, abilities, and commitment to the 24 Mar 1994 Address in Reply 753 health and well-being of New Zealanders are still obvious in the community; , a superb role model for women in , who has continued to contribute much to the community and, indeed, to the country since leaving Parliament; and Peter Simpson, who represented our electorate during a very difficult time for the Labour Party and whose consistent representation of the views and aspirations of our electorate I acknowledge. On the National side, Lyttelton has had three members of Parliament: Harry Lake, Colleen Dewe, and Gail Mcintosh. Both Harry Lake and Colleen Dewe are highly regarded by our constituents, and Colleen's recent death was a shock and a loss, particularly to the Sumner community. I would also like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Gail Mcintosh, and to wish her all the best for her future in Tauranga. Our electorate has given the country four Cabinet Ministers, one Prime Minister, the first woman member of Parliament, and the first woman Minister of Police, and is the only electorate to have elected five women to Parliament. It is, with the greatest respect to other members of Parliament who think otherwise, the best electorate in our country. Lyttelton is alive with activity and diversity. We have a major port, commercial and industrial activity, farms, fishing, the Port Hills, and, within our boundaries, suburban-based communities that are different and complementary. Our special area is the Chatham Islands, which is 700 kilometres from our shores but has a strong emotional link to the rest of the electorate. The Chathams were settled by the Morioris some time between AD 950 and AD 1150, and had a population of around 2,000 when Europeans landed in 1791. Whaling and sealing became the centre of activity. In 1835 a group from Ngati Awa tribe landed and settled on the Chathams, and the current population of 800 reflects the three stages of development. Farming and fishing are the main sources of income for the Chatham Islands, with tourism increasing, particularly by those interested in the variety of unique bird life, the history, and the spectacular environment of the Chathams. I would like to congratulate the Chatham and Pitt Islanders, the mayor, council, and staff, and the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust on the work they have done to ensure that the independence and security of the islanders are strengthened, and I look forward to continuing this work with them inJuture-particularly with regard to a more appropriate allocation of the fisheries resource. Lyttelton survived the local government restructuring and retained three mayors, and I acknowledge the work of Vicki Buck, Noeline Allen, and Pat Smith, and pledge to continue to work with them, their councillors, and their staff for the improvement of services and facilities for our constituents. Our electorate demonstrated a genuine interest in policy and politics during the election campaign, with excellent attendance at many joint candidates' meetings-in fact, at Sumner we had to move from the church hall into the church itself because of the large crowd. I would like to pay a tribute to the other candidates in our campaign, which was based on debating the issues of concern-the needs and aspirations of our constituents­ and kept away from personality politics. We set an excellent example for campaigning. The issues that are of concern to the Lyttelton electorate come into focus particularly in this, the Year of the Family. They are issues that affect every family in our electorate, diverse though the make-up of those families now is. The idea that the only type of family consists of a mother, a father, and children is incorrect. That type of family is obviously very important to our society, but we have many variations on this make-up and they deserve not only acknowledgement but also support. The primary needs of a family, however it is constituted, are security and dignity. Individuals and the family must have security in the home, the community, and internationally. I was delighted to hear the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control this week advocating a post-ANZUS role for New Zealand. It is interesting to note how the centre of gravity of opinion changes over the years. When the Prime Minister of the day said exactly the same thing five years ago, the then National Opposition maintained that it would cause the downfall of civilisation as we know it. When proposed by a conservative Minister, the proposal clearly has merit. The role of New Zealand internationally needs to be addressed, and I would venture to suggest to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control that yet another positive 754 Address in Reply 24 Mar 1994 initiative from his Government would be to support the World Court Project. This project seeks a world court ruling on the legality of nuclear weapons. New Zealand has played a key leadership role with regard to nuclear weapons in the past, and support from the Government for the amendment moved by the member for Central regarding the World Court Project would be welcomed. The World Court Project actually started in Christchurch in 1986, when peace activists considered taking our antinuclear policy to the world court to clarify our ANZUS relationship, following our nuclear-free declaration. This idea then developed into the current World Court Project, and I would like to commend Harold Evans, a retired magistrate from Christchurch, and Kate Boanas-Dewes, whose energy and commitment have raised recognition of, understanding of, and support for, this project. Within our communities, the young and the elderly need to feel valued and safe. They must be able to participate to the best of their ability, and they must be able to go out without fear of what may happen to them or to their homes. I want to say to this Government that it is very difficult for people to contribute when they are overwhelmed with the problems of getting through their daily lives-when their rent, power bills, and essential costs go up to the extent that no amount of budget advice will help; when they do not have enough money to feed, clothe, and house their families. The struggle to make ends meet becomes all-consuming, and the benefits that we could all gain from their contribution is lost. My electorate has a fine history of community involvement in peace issues. In fact, the wider Canterbury region shares this concern. In the early 1980s there were 40 active neighbourhood peace groups campaigning for a nuclear-free New Zealand. Lyttelton Borough Council was one of the first in the country to declare its borough nuclear-free. In the Lyttelton electorate, peace groups are still active, promoting local and international issues of concern. Security in the home is an issue that has received deserved attention and prominence this week. Nearly 20 years ago I was in a violent relationship, so I speak with understanding of, and personal commitment to, this issue. I know the confusion of emotions that are linked with women involved in domestic violence. I also know that it is an area that is often misunderstood by others. Family violence occurs in homes regardless of the income level of the family. It is wrongly associated with low-income families, as it is wrongly associated with the unemployed. Physical and verbal abuse can and does happen to any woman at any time. Women in New Zealand have known this and have been doing something about it for many years, mostly in a voluntary capacity. I would like to pay a tribute to those women who have done that work, frequently without payment or recognition, and ask that the current campaign builds on the skills and expertise of those women. I would also like to pay a tribute to the men who are working in various groups around the country to address this issue, as well. I would like to acknowledge the many women, men, and children throughout the country who, as we gather in this House tonight, are suffering as a result of domestic violence. They deserve and need our support to end that violence. It is good to see this Government and its agencies putting family violence high on the agenda. But we must remember who raised the issue, who has been dealing with domestic violence for many years, and who has most at stake. Just prior to Christmas last year, the United Nations adopted a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Article 4 of this declaration is the most relevant. New Zealand is further ahead in some areas than others, but I need to remind the Government that there is still a lot of work to be done. We need a co-ordinated plan of action. We need comprehensive preventive measures. We need educational measures designed to change the conduct of men and women and to eliminate prejudice and stereotypes, and we need adequate funding for services. It is to this Government's shame that there has been no funding increase for women's refuges for three years. This year the Community Funding Agency decided to fund more refuges without an increase in the total level of funding, so the level of funding per refuge has actually decreased. Those practical steps of a plan of action, preventive measures, educational measures, and funding, can and must be taken by the Government. 24 Mar 1994 Address in Reply 755

The other issue I noted earlier is that of dignity. Dignity is the state of being worthy of respect. It is clear that within my electorate this dignity is being taken from people. I stress "taken from" because the decline of dignity of individuals is not a result of any action they have taken. They are not criminals. They have not behaved in any unacceptable fashion in our society. But their dignity is being challenged by the Government. The fundamentals of dignity are education, housing, and a job. The fundamentals of dignity were the reason that the first Labour Government established New Zealand's welfare State. But this Government has rejected the idea of the welfare State in New Zealand, and has rejected the idea that all of us are entitled to live decently and in dignity. The Government has replaced that notion with what is described as a "free-market approach", which is the belief that the Government does not have a role to address inequities, that the level playing-field exists or should be created, and that this is fair. The shallowness and illogicality of the ideology of the level playing-field is equalled only by its extension, which is a belief in a flat earth. The Government's current retreat from its role is bleak and barren. The role of the Government is not to act as an innocent bystander, watching life and opportunities pass by. The role of the Government is to lead and to learn, and to learn from the people whose lives are affected by the policies that the Government introduces. Its role is to ensure that opportunities for individuals are enhanced, and to ensure that the vitality of New Zealand is captured, challenged, and channelled into activity that is of benefit to us all. Without dignity, that vitality has little chance to survive. People in my electorate want to have their dignity and their security back. We accept that some people will have more money than others, and will have bigger houses and newer cars. That is not the issue. What is not acceptable is the removal of opportunity, of rights, and of choices that this Government sees as part of its role in freeing up our society. My electorate has a great diversity of income levels, and the rejection of this Government's policies comes from across all income levels. The deregulation of the domestic coastal cargo routes is a direct threat to jobs in my electorate. It is an unresearched policy, stimulated by a failed ideology. It has no analysis and no merit. There are many teachers and students in my electorate, and they are increasingly angry at the lack of Government recognition of the sliding conditions in our schools. Overcrowding and lack of resources mean that our children are not getting the education that they need and deserve, despite the best efforts of teachers and parents. Asset testing for long-stay care of the elderly is harsh and insulting. For senior citizens to be openly talking about divorce or suicide because of the threat that they see in the testing regime is bizarre at any time, but it has a sickening twist in the International Year of the Family. Further great efficiencies have come with the introduction of market rentals for State houses. What efficiencies does our country benefit from when families are forced to share houses or to move into substandard houses because they cannot afford to house themselves decently? The indignities that are suffered because of poor housing are clearly beyond the understanding of the Minister responsible, but for many people in my electorate they are, sadly, a reality. Perhaps the award for the greatest insult to us as a nation-although there is strong competition for this award-must go to the Employment Contracts Act. The Act has been hailed by the National Government as the basis for economic recovery, but that could not be further from the truth. In terms of employment, wages and conditions, skills training, and co-operation, the Employment Contracts Act is destructive. Part-time jobs are increasing at three times the rate of full-time jobs. Thirty percent of New Zealand Employment Service placements in 1993 were temporary or short-duration jobs. Many of those jobs are appearing in highly casualised areas of the economy. At the end of last year, the Canterbury Manufacturers Association stated that there was a desperate shortage of workers skilled in appropriate areas, and, as a result of the lack of commitment of this Government to training, manufacturers are looking overseas for 756 Address in Reply 24 Mar 1994

people to fill these vacancies. Manufacturers are telling us that the lack of skilled labour could slow down job growth. We need to continue to work for more jobs. We need to start looking at the quality of work. Our overall economic situation will improve only if the average level of skills in the workforce begins to rise so that we can produce quality goods and return high wages to people. We also need to look at the impact of the casualisation of work on our society. How do families manage to save for health care, superannuation, a house, and education when they have no way of predicting their income? The Employment Contracts Act, according to Hey len surveys carried out on behalf of the Government in 1992 and again last year, gives us a picture of a workforce that sees little advantage from the Employment Contracts Act but deteriorating conditions of work, i low levels of trust between workers and managers, static wage levels, and an increasingly part-time, casual, temporary workforce. That is quite a different picture from that painted by the Government. Another picture that has emerged under the current regime is that of the new rich­ those people who earn between $25,000 and $50,000-who are considered by the Government to be doing very well. I can tell the Government that in my electorate this is not the message I have been receiving. These people feel squashed between our new categories of rich and poor, and they do not like it. Their life plans have been shot to pieces. Despite their studying hard and working hard, paying their way, contributing-in fact, doing all the right things-the Government does not want to know them. They have invested, and are investing, in our country. But now that they have a family, a home, a job, and plans for the future, the rules have been changed. They are now means tested for their children's tertiary education; they have extra, and often significant, health-care costs; they are hit by a number of superannuation-related issues; their parents are being asset-tested for being elderly and ill; and, to complete the attack, they receive three or four copies of the same letter from the Inland Revenue Department advising them of their child support assessment. Of course these people are "better off" than some others. But the Government is certainly trying to address that imbalance by taking as much as possible away from our new rich. Those people resent it, and I resent it. We as a country have always rejected class divisions. We have prided ourselves that family income is more or less irrelevant, and certainly not the determining factor in access to education, health, and housing. But these rules have changed, as well. Under this Government, the divisions are being created quite formally through such things as the introduction of community cards and asset testing. Another issue that affects many people in my electorate is child support. I want to make it quite clear that I believe that parents have a responsibility to contribute properly to the care and maintenance of their child or children. But the current formula approach is unfair. It has revived many tensions of ex-relationships; it has caused bitterness and rivalry between children of first and second relationships; and it has caused some tragic distress to people who deserve to be treated better. I welcome the news that the child support review is now under way, but I must note that publicity of this review could be improved. A consultative document has been released, and submissions are open until 30 April. I predict, given the nature of my constituents, that the quality of the submissions received on this issue from Lyttelton will be high. I urge the Minister to take note of them. Child support is almost literally at the heart of many families. The shambles of the current Act needs to be resolved carefully, properly, and as a priority. Parliament in 1994 is a very interesting place to be. I feel a great responsibility, as I know others do, to contribute to restoring the faith that New Zealanders should have in the political process and in politicians, and which is necessary before we can claim to have a true democracy. Our workload and accessibility as members of Parliament are considerably improved by our electorate secretaries. I would like to thank my two secretaries for their tremendous work in helping, and promoting the views of, people in our electorate. I would also like to acknowledge the magnificent work of my parliamentary secretary. 24 Mar 1994 Address in Reply 757

When my electorate office was opened, we were privileged to have the Reverend Maurice Gray officiating for part of the ceremony. During the blessing of the office, incantations made reference to the ancestor Kuri, whose lineage covers the area of the Lyttelton electorate. Kati Kuri is a branch of the Kai Tahu tribe, and I pay my respects to the kaumatua of Kai Tahu and thank them for their support of my work in the electorate. We have many activities in our electorate that are worthy of support and promotion: Project Port Lyttelton, which is involved in preservation of the history of the port to attract tourists; the management of our rivers, estuaries, and beaches to ensure safety for fish, birdlife, and people; the planting of the river banks and the Port Hills; and protection from development of this stunning area. These and many more issues have the involvement and energy of local people, including their member of Parliament. I would like to pay a special tribute to the rest of the 1993 Labour intake, who have demonstrated in many ways-but recently through their maiden speeches, as I am sure the member for Wanganui will when she delivers hers-their commitment to a better chance and a better life for us all. The friendships that develop in Parliament are unlike many others that are developed in workplaces in peacetime. We share the frustration; anger, and despair of our constituents and of each other. We share our disbelief at the lack of connection that Government policies have with the world that we live in. But we also share hope, energy, and determination for our future. It is a privilege for me to speak to this House, and I want to acknowledge the people who made it possible. My parents raised me with a sense of social justice and fairness, which became the basis of my Labour membership. To those in the Labour Party and wider labour movement who supported and encouraged me, challenged me, and argued with me, I give my commitment to the principles of the movement that we are proud to be part of. To the campaign workers in Lyttelton, who did all the things that were required and more during our campaign, I give my friendship and loyalty-please note that we are not canvassing this Saturday! To all the constituents in the Lyttelton electorate, regardl.ess of their political allegiance, I give my awareness of the responsibilities of representation and my ability to work hard, to lead, and to learn from the people whom I represent. JILL PETIIS (Wanganui): Tena koutou katoa. Mr SPEAKER: Kia ora. JILL PETIIS: Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to your high office. I know that you will guide us with dignity and fairness. We sit in the House of Representatives. It is appropriate that at last a respected member of the tangata whenua sits at the prow of this waka. Kia kaha rangatira. One of the most pleasurable aspects of making a maiden speech is the opportunity to pay tribute to people whom I respect and admire. I am delighted to pay tribute to Dame Catherine Tizard. We have waited a long time for a woman Governor-General, but the wait was worth it. Dame Catherine has brought dignity and sincerity to the highest office in the land. We are proud of her achievements and the warmth of spirit that she has brought with her. I have waited a long time to pay tribute to the honourable Russell Marshall, the former Labour member of Parliament who served Wanganui for 18 years, from 1972 until 1990. I pay tribute also to his wife, Barbara, who is here this evening. The partners of MPs rarely receive the recognition they deserve. Russell Marshall would not want me to list his many achievements. He is not a person who seeks acclamation. Few people can be described as possessing humility, but it is one of the most appropriate words to describe Russell. Russell Marshall made a huge and often unrecognised contribution to Wanganui and to the nation. His genuine concern and compassion for the oppressed peoples of the world is demonstrated in his current service in South Africa, overseeing the first democratic, multiracial election. On behalf of many New Zealanders I say "Thank you Russell." I also wish to acknowledge the contribution of the immediate past MP for Wanganui, Cam Campion, and his wife Margaret. I wish them well. My tributes would not be complete without thanking most sincerely the Labour Party election campaign team that worked so selflessly during the 1990 and 1993 election Dyson, Ruth: Address in Reply [Sitting date: 24 March 1994. NZPD Volume: 539; Page: 752]