GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): What a pleasure and privilege it is to contribute to this Address in Reply debate in response to the Speech from the Throne. I will begin, as most colleagues have, by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment; the Hon Margaret Wilson, of course, on her appointment as Madam Speaker, and also Ross Robertson and Ann Hartley too on their elected positions of presiding officers of this House. It is never an easy task, but all execute it extremely well, and we should all be grateful for that. I would like to pay my respects to the Governor-General. Her delivery of the Speech from the Throne was appropriate, and maintained the integrity and dignity of the position that she holds, which is that of our head of State, in the absence of Her Majesty the Queen.

I would like also to thank those people who assisted me during the election in my efforts on behalf of the Labour Party. I particularly pay my respects to the rainbow Labour sector of the New Zealand Labour Party. I would also like to acknowledge the Wairarapa Labour electorate committee. And while on the matter of the Wairarapa electorate, may I also express my sincere gratitude and thanks to the constituents of my former electorate, which I vacated at this last election, and which has now been occupied with the election of John Hayes. I congratulate him upon that effort and achievement of arriving in Parliament. Notwithstanding matters that may cloud the beginning of his tenure as the member for Wairarapa, I am encouraged to concede that we will work together on matters that are of general and major interest to the Wairarapa. That was the practice under my time as the local member when Mr Edwin Perry, of New Zealand First, was formerly a member of this House in the last term of Parliament. There are matters that transcend politics between parties sometimes, when the good of the electorate that both members share an interest is to the fore.

I have noted with some interest some of the aspirations that Mr Hayes has for the future of the Wairarapa. They are long-held aspirations, and I dare say he will have become very knowledgable of the history over the last decade or so, not only under my time as the local member in Wairarapa, but also under that of Wyatt Creech. I did note also that in his maiden speech—which was a very good maiden speech in many respects although I did not agree with everything he had to say—he raised one issue about roading and putting a tunnel through the Rimutakas. I noted this morning on Morning Report that there was reference, and the obvious potential danger should there be an earthquake in the Wellington area, of Wellington being absolutely cut off should State Highway 1 not be sorted out via either Transmission Gully or the proposed coastal route.

That is interesting, because, of course, one of the dynamics that has to be balanced when one is part of a region is the varying and diverse interests, in this particular instance, around transport funding. I believe that under my time as the local member for Wairarapa, and under my predecessor, the Hon Wyatt Creech, we maintained the common vision of what we wanted to achieve as far as State Highway 2 connecting the Wellington region and the Wairarapa being improved over time. That has come to pass but there is more to be done. I look forward to the debate with our fellow colleagues in the region over how much of the funding we will be able to achieve in order that Mr Hayes’ aspirations, for example, might see the light of day. I remind him that these matters were traversed some time ago. No doubt Mr Creech will be able to inform him of that time, as I also will be able to do.

Of course, the maiden speeches from new members are very interesting to listen to. They are enlightening, they are informative, and they give us a taste of the character of the person who has come in to the House. One speech I heard, in the past days of maiden speeches, tickled my fancy. I liked the cut of the speaker’s jib, and the straight-up nature of his approach. That speaker would have to be Mr Clarkson. One little pearl, one little gem, I heard in that speech—which has been overlooked, largely, by the media, compared with some of his other comments in his maiden speech—made reference to the affirmation of his masculinity: that he was all male. I am so pleased for Mr Clarkson that he is able to assert that. I was concerned only when it came to the point of thinking to myself: was there ever reason to question it in the first place? If there was, may I offer my help—as we are all here to help—to that member, any time he may have confusion over such matters. I am very pleased that he felt courageous enough to affirm his masculinity.

It is something that should be done in this House. It has been tried by members previously in this Parliament and, as I have said to them before, I am here to help. I am most knowledgable about those things. I have to say, of course, that I got rid of both of them, and that might have taken a bit more courage than Mr Clarkson just offering one—in a sort of lottery sense, if you like. But, no, I appreciate that man’s sense of humour. It is a great sense of humour. I can see that he is laughing. He is trying to hold it back, I know, but we are allowed to laugh in this House when remarks of good humour are made. He can take a joke; I know that much—just as I can and as most of us can, we hope, from time to time.

But the biggest joke would have to be that that party is sitting over there on the Opposition benches, and that is not because of what Dr Lockwood Smith may have been purporting before but because New Zealanders understood that we did not want to go back to the tired old regime of a National-led Government. It was disastrous in the 1990s, and the proposal for this particular term would have been equally disastrous, because National was trying to buy the affection of the country with its tax cuts. Well, the country thought about that a great deal, I think, when it came to this particular election, and it thought that, no, it did not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Under a Labour-led Government over the last 6 years we have been able to achieve a great deal of repair to the damage that was wrought through the 1990s by the policies of that very party that now occupies a greater number of seats, most certainly, but not enough, I tell Dr Smith, to be able to make it over to this side of the House.

Although that member may have stood in this House and regaled us with his grizzling and griping about why he purports that Mr Peters has been the kingmaker—or queenmaker, in this particular instance, on this side of the House—I say no. That particular gentleman, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, also gave great consideration to what was best for this country and for stable Government, which, as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, has to be a foundation stone of what will make this Parliament successful in the business it conducts over the next 3 years under a Labour-led Government.

Also in the Speech from the Throne were words of inclusion, of tolerance, of bringing all New Zealanders together, and of moving forward together as one—not words of the divisive nature of some of the rhetoric we heard from opposition members during the course of the election, because they would pit Māori against Māori, and Māori against non-Māori in this country.

What on earth was in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, when he handed what is now known as the role of the PC eradicator of the National Party to Dr Wayne Mapp? Dr Mapp has already said, in his new position as spokesperson, that he wishes to dismantle, review, or look at tearing apart the institutional instrument that is there for the protection of human rights in this country: the Human Rights Commission. Well, I know that on the Government benches there is one person—me—who will be looking at particular aspects of human rights in this country that I believe are still not completely, sufficiently—might I say—adequate and clearly set out in the law. I refer, of course, to my own bill—the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. It is still alive; it still lies on the Order Paper.

If there is one thing that this election brought up, and it certainly curried favour there for the National Party, it would have to be that mean-spirited nature. It was also evidenced by the conservative nature of some religious elements in this country. There were the Exclusive Brethren, who do not vote and do not participate in politics, apparently, unless it is to help out—although it stands back from it—the National Party, in this particular case. If there is one thing I can say about Brian Ta-maki, the Destiny Church, and the Destiny New Zealand party, it is that they are absolutely transparent in what they want and in what they see as their vision for this country. I do not entirely agree with it, but I will give those people credit for being transparent—unlike the sinister and deceitful nature of the Exclusive Brethren and their actions in the last election.