802 Address in Reply; and Proposed Amendment 3 October legislation to take away the individual's right to choose whether to join a trade union. Commentators in many newspapers recently have noted the success of the voluntary unionism legislation. In today's Herald Mr Jarvie of the Employers Federation was reported to have said: "In most work-places voluntary unionism has been accepted to a degree never previously thought possible." Voluntary unionism is working and is wanted, except by those under the control of the Federation of Labour, which includes the Labour Party and the Labour Government. They will not give New Zealand workers the opportunity to choose. That makes a charade of the suggestion by the Acting Prime Minister that he will ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and make our courts subject to that alien jurisdiction while he takes away a freedom in New Zealand. He is trying to parade himself as a liberal with the Bill of Rights and on human rights, but he will not say in Cabinet or caucus that the Labour Government cannot take away from New Zealanders a right they now have. The Labour Government cannot take back a right New Zealanders have been given. There is no justification for that in the market-place, and no demonstrable difficulty with the operation of the law. The only difficulty lies with some trade unions that have not serviced their members well and are losing members or not recruiting them. It is not incumbent upon Parliament to be the fee collector for the trade union movement. Parliament will become the fee collector for the trade unions. It will take away from New Zealand workers a right to which they are entitled-a right that is more important than any right in the ratified United Nations convention. The right to choose is important to the average New Zealand worker. The Government is indifferent to thai right because it has sold out to the Labour unions. David Butcher: Give the facts. Hon. J. B. BOLGER: The member for Hastings knows the facts, because he is one of the former trade union officials who negotiated the deal. He knows that the Labour Party made a deal that it would bring back compulsory unionism when it was elected. The Labour Government will do that as soon as possible, and deliver New Zealand workers on a platter, like the head of John the Baptist. Hon. M. L. (Papakura): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Government members were grossly disorderly during the speech made by the member for King Country. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a specific point of order? Hon. M. L. WELLINGTON: Yes. The constant flow of interjection and conversation from, for example, the Minister of Overseas Trade and Marketing, the Postmaster-General, the member for Dunedin West, the member for Mount Albert, and others was disorderly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am the judge. When I called for order it was respected. I am even-handed in that regard. (Hamilton West): Mr Speaker, tena koe; te whare e tu nei, tena koe; nga mate, haere, haere, haere; merna Paremata, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your election. You bring to the Chair a range of experience that I know is broader and more exciting than most New Zealanders would dream of. You are already making your mark as a straightforward and fair chairman who is prepared to let robust debate take its course yet defend the rights of Opposition parties to be heard. I bring you the greetings ofthe people of the Waikato, where you spent many years and are fondly remembered. I record the loyalty of the people of Hamilton West to the Crown and to the Queen's representative in New Zealand. Sir David and Lady Beattie were in my electorate last week opening the McKenzie Centre for Children with Special Needs. When my 5-year-old daughter went back to school she wrote a short story about what she had done during the holidays. It was very short. "In the holidays I went to the opening of Parliament. It was boring." We made a bad mistake in recommending that my children watch the official reading of the Speech from the Throne instead of staying outside and watching the welcome, which was, I am told, both moving and exciting. I look forward to the day when more truly New Zealand customs are incorporated in the opening ceremony. The military could be represented by more positive aspects, such as the medical unit or the search and rescue teams. The ceremony could be developed to recognise that we live in the days of Prince William and Prince Harry rather than King Henry VIII. The Speech 3 October Address in Reply; and Proposed Amendment 803 from the Throne reflected a tremendous development from the one delivered earlier this year, and at that rate of progress I look forward to the speeches made during the next 3 years. I compliment all new members on their speeches. I disagree with some of the points made by Opposition members and even by some Government members, but there is no doubt that the speeches were caring and constructive. As the last of the new speakers I pay a special tribute to the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply. I am the third member of the triumvirate considering the question of transition from school to work and youth unemployment. While I do not want to prejudge the question, I am shocked at the ad hoc and ill co-ordinated policy decisions made by the previous Government. I am especially concerned about the different messages that the Government gives to young people through the allowances, benefits, and bursaries it pays. At the moment it is better for a person to leave school at the age of 16, because a benefit will be paid­ but it will be taken away if that person does a short course at a technical institute; and more will be paid to someone on the schoolleavers' training and employment preparation scheme than to the same person to undergo teacher training. Four of the five members for the central Waikato are new, and I hope we will be able to work together on the many Waikato issues that are not party based. During the election campaign the member for Hamilton East and I worked well together. My background is in education, and his is in law. It is natural that we should specialise and treat the city as a whole. There are bridges across the river in Hamilton and there have been since 1878; unlike our predecessors, we will cross those bridges. Hamilton West, formed in 1969, has a relatively short history as an electorate. The area had previously been in the Raglan, Waikato, Waipa, and Hamilton electorates. All members of Parliament for Hamilton West have been Government members. To put it another way, no party has won an election without winning Hamilton West. It is a point I make often to my ministerial colleagues when the allocation of resources is discussed. All members of Parliament for Hamilton West have had a high profile. The first was the late Sir Leslie Munro, who had a distinguished career as a lawyer, journalist, and diplomat before becoming a parliamentarian. He retired in 1972, and the seat was won by Dorothy Jelicich, who was a good member; she was a vigorous campaigner for equal pay and opportunity for women, and is still highly regarded by my electorate. She was of course, one of four women members, and was known as the woman member for the North Island. Not much progress has been made since then in terms of numbers, and the comments made by some members of the House during the swearing-in ceremony demonstrated to me that we still have a long way to go. The male members of the House need to examine their values carefully. It is unacceptable to score women on a scale of 10, call them "dumb blondes", and make comments about attractiveness or lack of it, because such behaviour reinforces the attitude that women are to be treated as sex objects and not equals. By doing that men dehumanise women and devalue the contribution they make. That attitude is a major reason for rape in New Zealand. I support moves being made now for rape law reform. Both police and court procedures could be substantially improved so that all rapes are reported and rapists convicted without the woman concerned going through a second, third, and fourth experience about as frightening as the first. Those moves would be unnecessary if men's attitudes changed. I challenge the male members of the House to examine ways in which they can lead men towards the breaking-down of the stereotyping that still treats women as second-class citizens and fair game for physical and sexual abuse. My immediate predecessor was Michael Minogue, who has given much of his life to Hamilton as a councillor, mayor, and member of Parliament. He was definitely one of the characters of the House, and had a nationwide reputation as a rebel. Mr Minogue ran a very clean and open campaign. There were no dirty tricks, and I pay tribute to him for that. Hamilton West was an unusual seat to campaign in. All four candidates agreed on one point: the member for Tamaki had to go. I agree with many of Mr Minogue's views on Executive power and its abuse, and I am proud to be a member of a party that will ensure that the abuses of the past 8112 years cannot be repeated. In the past fortnight we have seen the spectacle of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister effectively to reveal details of the SIS files on individuals. I agree with the member for lnvercargill and the Prime Minister, who say that it is unacceptable 804 Address in Reply; and Proposed Amendment 3 October to divulge those details. I also believe that it is not appropriate for any Prime Minister to have the right to approve interception warrants against people he or she perceives as enemies. If the SIS and warrants are necessary, which I doubt, they should be controlled by the police, and warrants should be issued by judges. The separation of the roles of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is vital if checks on the system are to be retained. The point needs to be made that many substantial decisions are not made by the Minister of Finance alone, but are confirmed by the Cabinet. What happened to the other members of the former Cabinet during the past 8112 years? Why did they not challenge what was obviously an abuse of both the economy and their own party principles? The only Minister brave enough to do so is now the former member for Rangiora. Hamilton West is a totally urban electorate, bounded by the Waikato River in the east, the city boundary in the south and west, and Forest Lake Road in the north. The electorate contains the main commercial centre of the city, the Frankton light industrial and commercial areas, and the primarily residential areas of Beerescourt, Forest Lake, Maeroa, Dinsdale, Whitiora, Melville, Deanwell, and Glenview. It is an electorate of contrasts, with houses valued at more than $250,000 only a stone's throw from some working-class housing between Hamilton Lake and the Frankton Railway station. The biggest employer is the Waikato Hospital Board, whose major institution, the Waikato Hospital, was founded in 1887. The Railways Corporation and the Hamilton City Council are also major employers. There are numerous successful small sized and medium sized private sector employers in .the manufacturing and processing categories. Both Gallagher Engineering Ltd and Woolrest have recently won major export awards because of their ability to market overseas products based on research done in New Zealand and further processing. Hamilton West is a seat with an extensive educational history and commitment. The first primary school in Hamilton was Hamilton West, which opened in 1870. It was followed by a district high school, which lasted from 1883 to 1888, when it closed through lack of support. The Waikato Technical Institute, which is in my electorate, does much good work, and will do much more when given the right to set its own direction under a technical institute grants committee, rather than being controlled by course approvals from bureaucrats in Wellington and funding based on the number of backsides occupying seats rather than the effectiveness of the work done. Although the university is in the Waikato electorate, I emphasise that it is our region's university and that it contributes positively, socially, academically, economically, and, in 1984, politically, to Hamilton's well-being. It is appropriate to pay tribute to Dr Don Llewellyn, the foundation vice-chancellor, who retires next year after 20 years' service, and to the group of people who worked so hard in the 1950s and the 1960s to set up the university. That group was led by Dr Anthony Rogers and then Dr Dennis Rogers. The most pressing education issue in Hamilton at present is zoning. A group of children in my electorate who were formerly zoned to go to one co­ educational high school are now zoned to go to the single-sex schools. Some of their parents are justifiably upset. The responsibility for consulting the Hamilton community belongs to the boards of governors of the six high schools. They did not approach the parents involved, the school committees, or even the parent/teacher associations of the affected contributing schools. The Hamilton High Schools Board must take a major share of the blame, because it requested a review of the enrolment scheme. The Education Act should be amended to ensure that consultation takes place. I compliment the Minister of Education on his prompt action to ensure that departmental officers are made available to community groups to provide necessary information. That is in contrast to the actions of the former Minister, who encouraged secrecy and then ducked the hard decisions. It is important to note that the chairperson of the Hamilton High Schools board of governors has admitted that the principal of Hamilton Boys High School broke the law by illegally admitting boys who lived outside its zone, directly leading to the overstaffing of another school and to procedures being invoked at that school that could result in the termination of teachers' employment. The Minister decided to act to minimise the effect on staffing. Children should not be forced against their will to go single-sex schools. I shall therefore circulate a proposal to all boards of governors, parent/teacher associations, and school committees to suggest dividing the Hamilton area into four zones- one for each of the 3 October Address in Reply; and Proposed Amendment 805 co-educational schools-and to give parents a right to opt for single-sex education if they so wish. The restrictions that should be built in would protect the rolls of the co-educational schools and at the same time give the single-sex schools the right to recruit across the city, as the board has asked. The member for Hamilton East has not received one complaint from his constituents who have been transferred from the single-sex zone into the co­ educational zone. My plan will give the single-sex schools the chance to prove that they ai:e wanted by enough Hamilton parents to make them viable. My background is in community education. New Zealanders do not yet understand that most learning occurs outside formal education. I am committed to reversing the trend that the former Minister encouraged of a more formal and institutionalised education system. I pay tribute to the thousands of teachers who worked so hard for a Labour Party victory. The member for Papakura was one of the best weapons the Labour Party had, and I have noted an increase in Labour Party interest at the Waikato Hospital since he became the Opposition spokesperson on health. I thank the hundreds of people who worked in the 8 months I was a candidate in Hamilton West, and especially the workers who came out regularly to canvass, those who sold raffie tickets, and those who made the tea. I also thank my parents, who looked after my children during the short campaign, and especially my wife, Stephanie, who has accepted the tremendous disruption to family life that has inevitably resulted from the campaign and my election. Some people believe that poor economic performance can be attributed to an overprotected, inefficient, and overregulated economy. That view has gained much credibility on a very slim factual base. The Labour Government has promised to defend job levels, tackle the housing crisis, protect the railways, conserve the environment, and legislate for consumer protection. If it let the market dominate in New Zealand, unemployment would rise, real incomes would drop, and its social programmes would be shelved. Opening up the New Zealand market does not alter the reality of a protectionist world. The whole world could take advantage offreer access to the New Zealand consumer, and New Zealand exports would still face quotas, tariffs, and other trade barriers. Mergers, takeovers, and cross-shareholdings domestically have meant that we do not have a vigorous, energetic, or competitive commercial sector, but rather a cautious, cumbersome, and incestuous set of conglomerates that are poised to cream a rigged market. We must ensure that our capacity to generate new ideas, methods, and projects is renewed. At present our research capacity is drying up. To invest properly, targets must be set to increase employment, both on a regional and an industry basis. Just saying that we want growth is not enough. Some industries and regions are capable of growing more quickly than others, while some industries are in a state of decline. One of the virtues of establishing industrial and regional job targets is that when employment is declining it is possible to be specific about the acceptable rate of decline and to build reconstruction around the aspects that the industry is good at. Railways Corporation operations in Hamilton are an example. There is uncertainty about job levels in the industry, but the Government is quite clear that there are to be no forced redundancies. I have no doubt that in some areas there is excess capacity in the workshops and we should, therefore, carefully study what could be done other than traditional railway work. Hamilton has a desperate need for housing; it also has empty sections owned by the Railways Corporation, and a work force capable of building to an excellent standard. All we need do is cut through some of the traditions and prejudices and we could have an almost instant solution. If there were long-sighted co-operation between corporations we could boost the number of apprentices employed, as: well as arrest the decline in the number of Railways Corporation employees. Our social and employment objectives could be combined in housing. The number of building permits issued in Hamilton has decreased from 1862 in the year to March 1974 to 435 in the year to March 1983. The number of people who are unemployed or on job creation programmes has increased in the same period from 873 to 9635. Housing looks expensive in terms of its raw dollar cost, but one has to look beyond the accountants' figures to get the true economic cost and to allow for the social savings. If people are employed to build houses, the Government saves on the payment of the unemployment benefit. It also obtains tax revenue from the people employed in the construction industry and in other companies supplying the industry. The real net cost of an integrated State house building programme can be quite low, and it will be 806 Address in Reply; and Proposed Amendment 3 October possible to repay that net cost by setting appropriate rental and/or repayment rates. The Minister of Housing nods his head. All those figures ignore the fact that one of the most obvious causes of social problems is inadequate ho)lsing. The Government's policy provides an excellent vehicle for a good investment strategy. It recognises the need for an active role by the Government in ensuring that investment flows into the areas of economic activity that are of most benefit to all. The Government will set up an industrial development board-an advisory body comprising people from the private and public sectors, and including a person experienced in trade union affairs. The board will be able to plan on an industry and regional basis, as I outlined earlier. The funds will come from an industry investment assistance fund that will be financed from a number of sources, including tax revenue. I believe that New Zealanders in the higher income bracket are in the right 'mood to tighten their belts in the short term and are prepared to forgo some consumption now if it means that money raised is used for investment purposes and is not spent, as it was by the former Government, on further grocery items. If the Government does not invest properly now it will not increase the size of the cake. It is also important to examine carefully the way that cake is shared as it increases. The country is faced with some real choices. It has to choose whether it wants an effective public health system, or health care for those who can afford it; whether the free education system will develop and lead the world again, instead of parents being forced to pay for essential remedial work as was the National Government's policy; and whether it will develop a State housing system that caters for people in need, or just leave it to chance and rely on housing being the most profitable option for speculators. On 14 July the people chose the Labour Government, which has a quite clear historical, philosophical, and manifesto commitment to the redistribution of wealth and income from those who do not need it to those who do. This will be done both directly through the tax and transfer payment system and indirectly through what is known as the social wage. On 14 July the people of New Zealand made a clear choice on the nuclear issue. No amount of scaremongering from the Opposition or accusations of "reds under the bed" will change the Government's commitment to pass into law a Bill establishing a nuclear free zone. Many Waikato farmers and dairy workers were upset by the actions in the United States of the President of the National Party, Sue Wood, when she deliberately tried to link New Zealand's trading relationship with the nuclear question, as did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in a speech he made recently in Auckland. That faction of the National Party is deliberately trying to poison our trading relationship, and that is deplorable. Tena koutou katoa. Mr K.IDD (Marlborough): Members can understand why that was the last maiden speech from the Government side. It was the most outrageous abuse of conventions of the House that have been established for the protection and benefit of new members. It is only out of consideration for his successor, who will represent the National Party in the House in 3 years, that I do not take his speech apart right now. He firmly declared himself a member of the B team under his captain from Sydenham, and he will make big trouble for the Minister of Finance with the theories he has articulated tonight. At least the Minister has the good grace to smile, but he acknowledges the truth. I speak to the amendments to the motion~-deal first with the second amendment, about the outrageous abuse of power involved i disbanding the subcommittee investigating the devaluation implemented on the change o, Government. Because time moves quickly in the Chamber it is worth recalling that the member for Sydenham said on 26 July that he was not satisfie.d with the Reserve Bank opinion that there had been no illegal currency speculation. He said he had been told by a bank manager and a lawyer that if all the speculators could be found there would not be enough prisons to accommodate them or lawyers to represent them. He is right, and that is one reason the Opposition concurred and pressed for the inquiry. It is an important matter that the Government does not want to have investigated, and the House and the country should ask why. The speculation is worth reflecting upon because the word "speculation" has two meanings. The first meaning is to conjecture about, and therefore speculate upon. That is what precipitated the crisis-the speculation and conjecture about what the member who is now the Minister of Finance would to the currency. He is guilty. His doctrinaire position Mallard, Trevor: Address in Reply [Sitting date: 3 October 1984. NZPD Volume: 457; Page: 802]