General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The question that the country is currently addressing is when Bill English will make up his mind, not on whether to stay or to go, but just on something. The country wants to know when we will have a leader of the Opposition who believes in something. [Interruption] I know that Gerry Brownlee is yawning, because he knows that it will be for ever. He cannot hold his breath until that happens. He knows that at some point the National Party caucus will say: “Look, Mr English, you’re just embarrassing.”

I want to quote Max Bradford, someone who I think is one of the brighter former members of the National Party. The Tories dumped him because he was too bright for them. He had leadership ambitions and he was too bright so he was stuck down the list. What did he say? He said that the National Party had an appalling lack of backbone in the leadership. Who disagrees with that? Not one National Party member is prepared to disagree with Max Bradford. We even have Roger Sowry in the House, and he will not disagree with Max Bradford.

What happened in relation to the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan showed a National Party with an appalling lack of backbone in its leadership. Why can we not have a National Party that was like the great party of the past? I was in the House with Muldoon. I disagreed with him, as he was often wrong. However, no one accused Muldoon of not having backbone. I am just old enough to remember Keith Holyoake in the House. No one from within his own party accused Keith Holyoake of not having backbone and got away with it. It is the end of any party to have a leadership that is seen by the rank and file of that party as being about to go. That is what the polling shows. The polling shows that National supporters do not want to keep him, but they are not quite sure who they want to replace him. There is a bit of doubt around that.

💬 Darren Hughes: Isn’t it Winston Peters?

Actually, it is Mr Peters. They really want him, but I am told that at 3 o’clock in the morning Bill English went on his knees and said: “Winston, will you be my deputy?”. What did Winston say? I think he said something similar to what Bill said to Monica, but we cannot say that. He was absolutely rejected by Winston Peters at 3 o’clock in the morning, which was when he made his play. But we know that a growing number of people in the National Party are prepared to say that they would go into a coalition before the election—“And Winston, you can have the job!” He can have the job because they all know he is brighter and has more staying power and more class than the National Party leader. National members know that the only way they can ever be part of a Government again in the next 20 years is to get Winston Peters to lead them.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where was Trevor when they made mothers fathers?

Well, here we have Bronwyn’s mate, chipping away again. Here he goes. Nick Smith has nothing to say. He has racist things to say in the newspaper in Nelson. He calls policies that he put money into racist, but when it comes to Parliament and he has a chance to correct it, to ask questions and to defend himself, he has nothing to say. He is a lion in the electorate and a lamb in Parliament. I am told he is one of four people who still support Bill English.

I rise to ask a simple question of the Government and the Minister of Health. It is a question that is puzzling pharmacists around New Zealand—namely, what exactly is the Government’s strategy for the pharmacy sector in New Zealand? Does the Government have a hidden agenda to decimate and ultimately do away with community-based rural and suburban pharmacies in New Zealand? Will we find that a legacy of this Government is that the local community pharmacy has become a thing of the past, just as local post offices and banks have become under a previous Labour Government? That is certainly how it is looking.

I can assure the Minister that pharmacists around the country are angry and confused at what they perceive to be a sustained attack on their sector and, indeed, on their professionalism under this Government. First there was the attempt to deregulate pharmacies so that multinational chains and supermarkets could take over community pharmacies. The Green Party was instrumental in defeating that proposal, but we are still concerned at the loose wording in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill, and we are suspicious of the Minister’s intentions with regard to pharmacy ownership. Then there was the 18-month delay in signing the pharmacy contract, which caused huge distress and anxiety in the sector. But then, just as pharmacists were celebrating that they had finally negotiated a new contract, came the news that Pharmac is now proposing to switch to bulk dispensing—a proposal that was developed in secret without any consultation with the pharmacy sector, despite the fact that it will wipe an estimated $70 million off the sector, reduce pharmacy income by about a third, and inevitably result in closures of small community-based pharmacies all around New Zealand. The Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand estimates that more than 200 pharmacies will be closed, if the proposal is implemented, and that 1,500 pharmacy staff will be laid off. Small neighbourhood chemists who rely on dispensing for the bulk of their income will be the hardest hit. They could lose about two-thirds of their business under the proposal. I want to know what the Government will do if the guild is correct and hundreds of small rural and suburban pharmacies close around New Zealand. Thus far the Minister has refused to answer that question.

I will not spend much time on the merits of the proposal, except to say that in our view it is short-sighted and hugely flawed. It will result in great wastage of medicine, reduced compliance, significant increases in inappropriate and incorrect dispensing, overdoses, misuse of medicines, and, inevitably, increased hospitalisation. The proposal stipulates that cheap medicines under $17 will be dispensed 3-monthly, not for health and safety or clinical reasons, but simply for financial reasons—to save money. In our view, the way in which medicines should be dispensed is a decision to be made by doctors in conjunction with patients and pharmacists, based on clinical and safety, not financial, reasons. The Minister claims that consumers will benefit from this proposal. What she has not told the public is that many people will find that their drugs will cost a lot more under the proposal, because if general practitioners believe that a drug on the 3-monthly list should be prescribed 1-monthly to protect their patients’ safety, then both the patients and the pharmacists will lose their subsidy on those medicines and the price of those drugs will skyrocket. How, I wonder, will that increase consumer choice?

The Green Party objects not only to the proposal but to the devious—indeed, secretive and manipulative—way it has been developed, the phoney nature of the consultation process Pharmac has engaged in, and the fact that Pharmac is clearly determined to push ahead with the proposal, regardless of the outcome of consultation, even if it means significant closures of pharmacies all around New Zealand. The Green Party has obtained leaked confidential papers that reveal that Pharmac has already made up its mind and is determined to proceed, no matter what. It has developed a series of public relations and legal strategies to counter oppositions to its strategy, and an implementation plan for the switch to 3-monthly dispensing. The interesting thing is that those detailed strategies were drawn up before Pharmac had even announced the proposal, let alone begun to consult on it.

The Green Party wants to know why the Minister is not stepping into what has become a major dispute and why she is not looking at the wider implications for the entire sector. She has explicit powers to do so and can give any directive she wants to Pharmac, and she is ultimately responsible for its operations.

I am sure the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealandcould not put that better itself. I want to make a single point on the matter, and it is that I have had constituents who have raised with me for a number of years the fact that they have had to go back to the pharmacy three times instead of once to pick up a prescription for medication they have to take for the rest of their lives. So the argument is not all one way, and I wish people would listen to the other side of the story, as well. The patient would be a good person to listen to in this regard.

The Opposition really is in disarray. I cannot understand the response of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the Care of Children Bill. In his press statement he states that clause 17(2) effectively declares that the legal definition of a father is to be changed to include women. He states: “I find this kind of social engineering objectionable, and so will many people who believe our laws should reflect common sense.” That is just nonsense. I would have expected quite a bit more of the Leader of the Opposition. It just shows how desperate he is becoming to get a headline. The bill says no such thing. The amendments in respect of the policy issue are to be found in the legislation amending the Status of Children Act, which provides that in the case of a child born of an assisted human reproduction procedure undertaken with the partner’s consent, the same-sex partner of a women has the status of parent, as does the opposite sex partner under the current law. So all that it is doing—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s true.

It states that such a person is a parent under the amendment to the Status of Children Act. The member should read the bill. He has already been made an idiot of in his own newspaper tonight. In the Nelson Evening Mail tonight he is reported as attacking the bill while hailing what he jokingly called—because he knows he is making it up—a new miracle of biotechnology. That is not what clause 17(2) does.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Read the bill.

I will read it out, because that is what the member has asked me to do, to avoid doubt: “a reference in this section (or elsewhere in the Act) to ‘father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child if, by operation of Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969, that de facto partner is a parent of the child”. The policy matter is dealt with in the Status of Children Act. All this is is a drafting technique so that all the words that follow “father of a child” do not have to be repeated every single time the word “father” is used. That means that where there is a reference to the father of the child in the bill, we do not need to write out these words: “or the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child if, by operation of Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969, that de facto partner is a parent of the child (see section 14(2) of that Act).” That is 35-41 words if we include the words in brackets. It is to ensure that the policy decision contained within the amendment to the Status of Children Act is effective in terms of the Care of Children Bill. If the select committee does not like the way the technique is used, then by all means it can explore whether there is an easier way of writing it. It just means that we do not have write out 41 words every time—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: So a woman can be a father?

It is not appointing a father, and I wish the member would stop interjecting on an ongoing basis in respect of this matter. He is adding nothing to the debate. If Opposition members had anything of any substance to say about the bill, then they would raise the policy sections, not the section that is prefaced by the words “To avoid doubt,”. It is quite clear from the use of the words “To avoid doubt,” that it simply enables the intent of the policy to be clear throughout the bill. In respect of the policy, I think Ian Hassall put it very well on the front page of the Nelson Evening Mail: “If you are a child, you don’t care what sex your parents are.”—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that he is interjecting from a seat closer to the member. He should not be doing that. I have ignored it for most of the time because I did not want to interrupt the debate. The member will now keep quiet for the rest of the speech.

“You only care about whether they love you or not,” and “No amount of chest thumping is going to make any difference when what matters is that children are looked after properly.”

That goes to the core of the issues of our society, and that Minister has just said it does not matter whether one is a father or a mother. I will quote social research finding after social research finding that states that children need fathers—and not female fathers. Children need male fathers. I challenge any Government member on that point.

I want to debate the issues that I have been putting in the public arena about the rights of parents, because the Family Court and this Government have absolutely no respect for the rights and responsibilities of natural parents. I am being threatened with regard to my own career and my opportunity to speak freely about issues, because I have said a family in my district has not been able to see its children for over 3½ years. The parents have not been able to see their kids. There has been no report from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services regarding the looking after of that family’s other children. I say that that is wrong, and I will go on saying that it is wrong even if they want to throw me in jail and throw me out of this House, because a right of responsible parents is to be able to look after their children. I believe that passionately, and I will go on saying so.

I want to know why responsible parents have to fight before the Family Court to have custody of their own children. That is wrong. I want to know why a natural mother and father have together been denied the custody of their own children for over 3½ years. I want to know why this Government is giving legal aid to people so they can fight against parents being able to see and have access to their own children.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Oh!

Mr David Benson-Pope may not think that matters. People on the Opposition side of the House say that those issues do matter. I want to know why it is possible under the law and in practice for the Family Court in secret, without any notification to the natural parents, to grant custody of their children to somebody else.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Have you written to me?

The family wrote to five Ministers—five Ministers—in January last year. Five Ministers were written to, and they have ignored that family.

I want to know this: why has it taken 3½ years for a family to get a hearing over the custody of its own children?

💬 David Benson-Pope: It went to the wrong MP, for a start.

Actually, the family went to the Māori member for southern Māori 18 months ago, and he did nothing. That Māori family came to me out of desperation. I will fight for it and I will fight for it hard, because those parents have a right to the custody of their own children, regardless of whatever political correctness we may get from the Family Court and from Government members.

I want to know why we are paying a sole parents benefit to someone to care for a child, when the mother and father are fit and able to do so. That is wrong, and I challenge any member of the Government to get to their feet and defend that sort of thing. I want to restate my call for an inquiry. I think that any New Zealander would say that that is wrong and needs to be inquired into.

We now have this Care of Children Bill from the Minister, and it only further erodes the rights that parents have. This bill is about putting the State into every damn family in New Zealand. It is about socialism going to the extreme of having the State and the Family Court, which cannot even deal with basic issues like letting parents look after their own children, now deal with all manner of things. I want to respond very specifically to that. How can clause 17(2) mean anything other than that a woman can be a father when it states this: “To avoid doubt, … in this Act) … ‘the father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child … ”? That states that a woman can be a father, yet that is a nonsense. It puts it in law that a woman can be a father. I ask the Minister this: why is there not a reverse provision that a man can be a mother? We on the Opposition side of the House say that that would be a nonsense, but at least it would be logically consistent with the provision in clause 17(2) of the bill.

I say that this Government’s attack on the basic family unit and its failure to defend the rights of families is a tragedy.

I have just one thing to say to that member—and he should listen to the interjection of Lianne Dalziel, the Minister. If Nick Smith is such a great constituency member of Parliament, why did he not get off his chuff and write to the Minister about the issues of which he speaks? Why has he not lodged a letter with the Minister about those issues? It is because Nick Smith is not up to it. He can come into this House, scream from the top of his voice, bang his chest and his desk, and make a great, dramatic statement, but I say to him that as a constituency member in this House I know that the first thing a member does if a constituent has a problem is to get off his or her rear end and write to the responsible Minister. Nick Smith has not even done that. That is all I have to say to him.

This is the grandstander, Nick Smith, who will be remembered for a career—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting his speech, but he has raised a very specific point, and he will be going on to other issues. So I seek leave of the House to table five letters: to the Attorney-General, to the Minister who is responsible for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, to the Minister of Māori Affairs, to the Prime Minister, and to the Principal Family Court Judge, specifically on that case.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Point of order—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can I clarify that those letters will be tabled with all identifying names removed?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need to know very carefully whether those letters are from the member or from the family. I need to know that in order to consider the tabling request.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The letters are from my constituent’s family.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The letters are from the family. Leave is sought to table them. Is there any objection? There is.

I do not quite know what the point of that was. I asked that member why he did not write on behalf of the family. He has mana in the community. He is a leader in the community, as the local member of Parliament. Why did he not put pen to paper? That member talked about his career. His career in this House is in jeopardy because he has broken one of the highest tenets of our constitution—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, he has not!

It has been alleged that he has, I should have said. I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We will not sit here quietly and allow that member to make that sort of allegation against one of our fellow members on the Opposition side of the House. Nick Smith has not broken any law, and will not have done so until a court may decide he has.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All right—the member has withdrawn and apologised.

That is fair; I concede that to Mr Brownlee. “Alleged” is what I should have said, and I accept that. But I will say this: Nick Smith’s career will be remembered for things like the Department of Conservation “magic carpet”—the scandal that never was—and similar huge issues of moment. When it comes to issues that really matter to his constituents, he does not have the tenacity to get off his chuff and write a letter.

I turn to the National Party and its leadership. In the last couple of months we have seen U-turns and flip-flops. Last night a member of the National Party said to me that its leadership was sewn up, and Bill English would be there until the next election. I think that member is right. I will not name him but he is right, because we know what happened. We know that Dr Brash was on the way; we know that there was a thread of cotton between him and the leadership. It was going to be Brash and Power. The problem is that the boys got to Dr Brash, and it became Brash and Brownlee—members know; a sort of B B King of Brash and Brownlee. Then the caucus realised that that was not a winner, and now its members are talking to Winston Peters. We know that. I think that Mr Peters is a bit smarter than that. He has been there and done that, and he knows that the National Party is on the back foot.

I have an interesting quote here from Mr English, from a speech he gave at the Māori sports awards in Ngaruawahia on 3 November, when he said National was the Opposition and it could say anything. Is that not a true statement? Is that not true? National has no policy and no leadership, and it says anything. Let us take the Budget debate. Mr English accused—I said at the time that I never thought I would hear a Tory leader accuse a Labour Government of being too tight fiscally—Dr Cullen of being too tight, while Dr Brash said he thought Dr Cullen had basically done the right thing and we should not be spending any more money. What a contradiction that was! National can say anything.

Then in relation to Tranz Rail, 70 percent of the population believe we have done the right thing. National sold it, we have bought back the track, and, when challenged by the Minister of Transport as to whether National would will sell it off again if it gets into Government, Mr Sowry—the Al Bundy of Otaki; a decisive member of Parliament—said National would wait and see. He was really saying that he knows that if he and the National Party came out with National’s true asset-sales policy now, which is to sell them all off—to sell Air New Zealand, sell Tranz Rail, knock off the Accident Compensation Corporation, and knock off the hospitals—National’s 21 percent in the polls would then become 2.1 percent. That is what National is saying; that is what those members know. However, they do not have the intestinal fortitude to spell out National’s policy.

Meanwhile, the ship of State under this Labour Government rolls on and continues on a very steady course. We have 4.4 percent growth.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: That’s right; nowhere to go.

There goes the blunderbuss from the National Party. That member should stick to woodwork; he knows that he will not make it. If I were Mr Brownlee, I would get out the plane and the router. I would sharpen the blades and get out the overalls and dust them off, because that is where he is going.

I want to speak about the very serious matter of the letter that Dr Nick Smith has received from the Solicitor-General threatening him with a prosecution—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: A good letter, too. At least the Solicitor-General writes.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take it that that is not coming off my time. I said at the start that I wanted to make a serious contribution. The member who then interrupted for some time is interrupting from a seat that is not his normal seat. The Standing Orders are very clear. I should not be punished or penalised, by way of the time I have available to me, for that.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take the member’s point.

So the clock will be reset?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, carry on.

Dr Smith received a letter from the Solicitor-General, couched in very threatening terms, suggesting that he had committed a contempt of court, and that he had also breached the Guardianship Act. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to be heard in silence. A member has the right to be heard in silence. I am calling on that right now.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It ill behoves any member to walk into this Chamber, indicate that they have a matter of some seriousness that they want to lay before the House, then require it to be heard in silence. That is my first submission. My second submission is that this is general-debate day. The general debate is quite a vociferous debate. That member has interjected on no less than six occasions in this particular general debate on a number of other speakers. To have the temerity to ask the Speaker to grant a right of silence to a speech, which is normally arcane and insane at the best of times, is just beyond the pale.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that it is not unusual for a member to ask for silence. Indeed, one of the worst speakers in this House, as everyone knows, is the Prime Minister, who regularly has to ask for the Chair to protect her in those circumstances. This is members’ day, it is a member’s time, and I have an absolute right under the Standing Orders to ask to be heard in silence.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member does have a right to ask for that. There have been a lot of interjections from both sides. However, I now ask that the member continue with his speech. He has asked to be heard in silence. He can exercise that right. I ask Mr Brownlee to continue—and he will be heard in silence.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—for the third time.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. I was ruling on a point of order. The member was quite incorrect to stand while I was ruling on the point of order. Now I will hear the member’s point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, my point of order was raised before you gave a ruling, and it is simply this. You entertained a submission from Mr Tamihere on this matter, when it is not a requirement whatsoever. Mr Brownlee sought leave from you to have his speech heard in silence. That is a matter for you, and you alone, to decide, and to take into account a very junior member’s views on the matter—views that are of no great comment or relevance whatsoever—is seriously wrong. That is my point of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the course of the previous debate the Hon Lianne Dalziel criticised and said that the matter was not drawn to her attention, as did Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel, dated 24 March 2003, to my constituent, stating that she was not prepared to do anything as a Government Minister.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How long do I have left?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has 4½ minutes left. [Interruption] I have indicated to Mr Brownlee that he will be heard in silence. I now call for order.

As I had begun to say, Dr Smith received a very threatening letter from the Solicitor-General, indicating that the Solicitor-General was considering prosecuting him for contempt of court and for a breach of the Guardianship Act. Dr Smith’s colleagues in the National Party strongly refute and deny both those allegations. Dr Smith was faced with an interesting situation whereby constituents in his electorate went to his office and asked for his assistance. Those constituents had been to their own member of Parliament—the southern Māori member—and had had no satisfaction from that person. Over a period of time those constituents had written some five letters to Government and State officials asking for assistance and had had no satisfaction. Those constituents had been in touch with the Associate Minister of Justice, and were simply told that nothing could be done for them. Those constituents had had their child taken away from them by the court for no apparent good reason.

So Dr Smith decided to take up the cause of that family. He began a crusade, in the proper way, to get attention given to their circumstances and to try to get some sort of inquiry into how those honest, hardworking parents, who are doing a good job of bringing up their other three children, can have one of their children taken off them by the Family Court without their knowledge. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable step for a professional politician to take in his advocacy for his constituents. Any suggestion that Dr Smith breached the provisions of the Guardianship Act are a nonsense. Dr Smith did not release the names of the people involved. Dr Smith did not release details of proceedings. Dr Smith did not make any allegations about any party involved in this circumstance. Indeed, after Dr Smith had spoken in an interview about some constituents of his, and after he had put out a press release outlining the appalling facts in this case in a very general way, the Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Mahoney, phoned Dr Smith’s office and asked for the name of the family in order that he might investigate the circumstances of that case.

I suggest to the House and to the Solicitor-General that if Dr Smith had breached the requirements of the Guardianship Act, or in fact had acted in some contempt of the court, then Judge Mahoney would have been under no doubt as to who he was talking about and what the case was about. In fact, he had to make that phone call to find out about that very circumstance. Then he went one step further and got involved in a radio interview, where anybody can see he most certainly was talking about the proceedings before the court and the specific family that had been named in the television programme. At the heart of all this is the threat that that letter poses to all MPs who decide to go out and take on a difficult case for their constituents. The right of free speech in this country is precious, and the right of privilege to speak freely in this House is precious, and it concerns me that, in the 7 years I have been here, the courts appear to be slowly encroaching upon both those rights, with some stealth. This whole circumstance is very unfortunate. We certainly do not want to see a situation developing where Parliament, through its Privileges Committee, is at direct loggerheads with the judiciary, but with the way we are going, that looks like the way it will spin out.

Unlike the front-row prop for the National Party, I will not be asking to be heard in silence. [Interruption] The member is probably the whole front row, but even a normal prop, in any front row, would be able to handle interjections. It was quite intriguing when Mr Brownlee talked about the right of freedom of speech in this House. He said that this House was the harbinger of that right, yet not 35 minutes ago, the Opposition absolutely denied the Minister of Māori Affairs the right, under the Standing Orders, to make a speech in this House in regard to a number of matters. Very, very selective amnesia is practised on the other side.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is important that the parliamentary record is correct. The National Party did not deny leave for the Minister to speak.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct.

One of the major differences that I want to talk about today in the debate is the real difference between us and them. We are proud to embrace the wonderful diversity of New Zealand and the New Zealand cultures, and we actually reflect those on this side of the House, unlike the bankrupt bunch over there. At a time when Opposition parties are pushing a silly line of rhetoric on one standard of citizenship—which is really about trying to return to some dreamt-up 1950s utopia out of somewhere like Dipton or Tauranga—we are busy working to build a vibrant and exciting New Zealand that embraces growing ethnic diversity. No doubt there are some challenges with growing ethnic diversity, but with those challenges come new opportunities. New Zealand is coming of age as a vibrant, multi-ethnic society, and we are excited about that on this side of the House. It is a shame that scaremongering and innuendo are left to the Opposition. [Interruption] The old rocker from Tauranga interjects.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Go and tell the tangata whenua that.

The member always interjects when we talk about ethnic diversity and the like. One cannot say he is like Mick Jagger; he is probably a bit more like Tom Jones—he can at least half-fill a theatre. When the nannies throw their moth-eaten bloomers on to the stage to him, he still revels in it—he loves it. He continues to think that it is great. There are a number of things that serve as a clear litmus test between us and them. We understand nationhood. We understand what the Opposition fails to understand, which is that unilateral intervention in Iraq is a no. We refuse to make foreign policy on the basis of chasing greenbacks. We will not sell our sovereignty, and we are led by leadership that clearly demonstrates that, day in and day out. We will not sell Kiwi sovereignty—it is beyond any price. We are well respected in the foreign policy debates in that regard. We will not become the 51st state, and that is the end of the story.

In terms of managing the economy, there used to be another litmus test. The question was asked, can Labour manage the economy better than any other Government? The answer is in, and the answer is yes, we can. Spending and revenue have declined by one percentage point of gross domestic product. Government debt has collapsed. We have increased levels of national superannuation, affordable rents, and the availability of State housing to low-income tenants, and we have improved access to tertiary education and health. We have restored capacity in the provision of a range of social services, and on and on. We have raised more money, and we have spent more money.

Here is another litmus test, which is about first-nation economies and infrastructural support. After 10 years of them, what happened? Under those Tories—ably supported by the member for Tauranga—energy, roads, rail, and the planes went down the gurgler, as did any ability to run a first-nation economy. They all want to prattle on about America and the free standard of the free market. George Bush has voted US$1.5 billion to support Amtrak. What have we done? We have had to intervene in Tranz Rail, because of Ruth Richardson, Jim Bolger, and Wayne Mapp—the failed doctor from Auckland University. He prattles on about it—Wayne Mapp, the witch doctor.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: He won it in a raffle.

Yes, he won it in a raffle. He sits in this House and has no idea, and we have to intervene in a number of areas. So the captains of industry who drove Tranz Rail into the ground, and who underwrote the ACT party and the National Party, could not run an economy—they know how to rape and pillage it, but they do not know how to run it.

Yesterday the Government tabled its Care of Children Bill. It was a long awaited response to concerns that New Zealand has faced over family law. In particular, this House has heard of the need to introduce shared parenting into our legislation, and to open up the Family Court—both of those issues were addressed in members’ bills that I brought into Parliament, and both were voted against by the Labour Government—and this bill fails to do either. It is an absolute disgrace. The changes it has made to the Family Court are simply Clayton’s changes.

New Zealanders deserve open justice and a free press. They are fundamental to the democratic process, yet the New Zealand Family Court operates like a Star Chamber. It puts gagging orders on all the people involved. Victims are not allowed to talk about their experience. The media cannot report on the cases—they all fear criminal convictions or being thrown in jail. We even have a member of this House right now who was threatened by those same things, simply because he wanted to talk about a family who was a victim of the Family Court. I say that that is an absolute disgrace. There is a long established principle that justice is not done unless it is seen to be done. New Zealand needs an open Family Court. We need proper media and public scrutiny of what goes on in that court, while protecting the identity of individuals, just like in Australia. In Australia, there would not be the debacle of a case that is in and out of the courts. I refer to a matrimonial property dispute that started 7 years ago in the Family Court. It has been to the High Court and the Court of Appeal a number of times, then back to the Family Court. There have been 53 hearings altogether over that case, which has been going on for 7 years. The personal cost to the family involved is over $1 million, and the cost to the taxpayer will be several million dollars. If that case had been open to proper scrutiny, I believe that it certainly would have been sorted out many, many years ago.

There is also the case of the custodial parent who lost his children to the mother who wanted to go and live in a caravan in Ireland, taking the three young children away from their dad, away from the grandparents, away from everyone they knew, to go to the other side of the world. That was an absolutely amazing judgment. Again, this is a family that is torn apart. They cannot speak about it openly, and I say it is a disgrace. Another case is of the father who had an ex parte protection order slapped on him for his new baby. He did not get to see that child until the child was almost a year old, and when he finally had his day in court he found that the allegation was false. It was thrown out, and meanwhile, that dad had lost all those important years with his child.

If countries have an open court, they find that the number of false allegations falls through the floor. The number of cases of litigation peels away, because people look and see what is ahead of them, and they sort it out by mediation. There are no drawbacks to having a proper open court in New Zealand, no drawbacks at all, as long as the identities of individuals are protected, and that is what should happen in this country. It would be a fairer system to all involved. Judges, lawyers, and caseworkers would all be subjected to proper scrutiny and held to account. There would be less litigation, less cost to the taxpayer, and better outcomes for children. It is an absolute disgrace that with this bill, the Care of Children Bill—which could actually have done those things—the Labour Government has failed. All the bill says to me is that Labour does not care about children, Labour does not care about families, and Labour does not care about proper justice in New Zealand. This Government is a disgrace.

Open justice and free speech are the right of every New Zealander. We need proper scrutiny of our courts. The only court in New Zealand that is not subjected to proper scrutiny is the court that deals with families and children. It is the Family Court that operates like a Star Chamber—no other. The victims of that court do not have an opportunity to have their say. I say it is a disgrace, and the Labour members sitting there had the opportunity to change it. They had the opportunity to do something worthwhile for justice in New Zealand. This Government has absolutely failed. So I add my voice to the voices of the Opposition who say that change must be made in the future.

If it walks like a flip-flop, if it talks like a flip-flop, if it sounds like a flip-flop, then it is a flip-flop. That flip-flopping sound is not the sound of Gerry Brownlee hitting the ground, begging for mercy and to be heard in silence; it is the sound of Bill English inventing yet another policy change. Let us go over some of the recent ones. Social policy: Bill English wants to get rid of National’s hard, uncaring image, built up over 9 long years in Government. Then what does he do? He puts Don Brash in as a social policy spokesperson. He wants to make domestic purposes benefit time limits compulsory, and he wants to send people back to work under threat of losing the dole. That is why nobody believes National. It does not know whether it has a heart or whether it needs a heart transplant.

Flip-flop number two is Nick Smith on education signage. Nick Smith says that separate signage is racist, but he does not realise that the word “children” means the same in English as the word “tamariki” in Māori. He did not remember that the regulations under which they were promulgated were regulations he brought in when he was Minister of Education. Nick Smith has had to be covered up for today by Gerry Brownlee, in what must surely be one of the most embarrassing interventions in a general debate in this term of Parliament. Gerry “Petal” Brownlee, the front row prop, was begging to be heard in silence because he could not get a word in edgewise. He was begging for mercy for Nick Smith. The member is obviously having a bad day. Clearly, the stress of imminent litigation is weighing heavy on his extra broad shoulders. Why did an experienced former Minister, when faced with a routine constituency case, not write earlier to the responsible Minister directly? Why did he come to the House today and lose his cool? What is going on? And why did he allegedly go too far anyway in divulging information about the case? Why is the National Party seeking to litigate the matter against the Solicitor-General, under cover of parliamentary privilege in the general debate, and at the same time claiming the right of silence? That is appalling and an abuse of the Standing Orders. National cannot have it both ways. If it is potentially sub judice, it should be kept in the legal area.

Speaking of flip-flops, National’s economic policy takes the cake. This Government has proved its farsightedness once again. Two weeks ago we said we were keeping some money in the pūtea kitty to cover contingencies. Last week we said that Tranz Rail needed to have a capital injection and we have done it, and I have not heard a single word from a single constituent saying that that was the wrong call. New Zealanders want the trains to run on time, and they have no respect for an Opposition that failed to put in place the proper safeguards for a botched privatisation, yet has the gall to criticise us for fixing it. In the general debate, Dr Cullen again showed himself to be a fine finance minister, but it is not just about being respectful in the way he deals with business. It is also having the strength to call a line when it needs to be called, and I refer to the outrageous Fairfax-INL potential masthead deal, where that takeover was going to generate $700 million in profit, according to press reports, of which some $400 million was going to be through tax advantages on the masthead transaction. And the Minister of Finance, quite rightly, said “Not on my watch.” That is $400 million or so—if the press reports are to be believed—that we could spend on shortening waiting lists, on putting police on the streets, and on making sure our kids have a decent education, not on feathering the nest of a parent corporation that may not know the difference between a proper business proposition and a tax avoidance matter. Our Minister of Finance is both fair and strong. He does a Budget that makes clear that this is a business-friendly Government, but he also draws the line when it needs to be drawn against unfair and inappropriate business practice. We should contrast that with the National approach to economic policy.

It certainly has to be that this country is a land of opportunity when Mr Tamihere and Mr Cunliffe can be Ministers. They told me he was good! Did members hear that speech? He was all over the place. He does not know whether he is Arthur or Martha, and he forgets that when New Zealand Rail was sold on 20 July 1993, his party supported it, because in those days they were right-wingers.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: That gentleman doesn’t work here any more.

The member has had his speech. I know it was a waste of time, but he had his 5 minutes. We have just had official confirmation from the Department of Statistics that we in New Zealand will become the latest colony of Asia. For some bizarre reason that no sensible person understands, this Government has started people-importing on a scale not seen since the Irish fled the potato famine in Ireland.

Today I want to talk about one of the many less desirable imports encouraged by this Government—and there are thousands of them. I want to talk about a man called Edmund Poh, or should I say, one of Lianne Dalziel’s overstayers who goes by this name. There are about 20,000 overstayers and she claims to be on top of this job. This man should have been deported years ago, but under this Minister’s open-door amnesty policy, this so-called entrepreneur was allowed to set up companies in New Zealand and go into the business of farming dogs for food, first in Waiuku, then in Albany. That is just what New Zealand needs—dog farms for food! He even advertised in the New Zealand Herald of 17 August last year, asking for farm workers who could speak Mandarin and Cantonese, and the company director, of course, is a sole director, called Edmund Poh—if that is his real name.

He comes from a country where dogs are very popular—as a delicacy on the dinner table, after they have been killed in the most cruel, vile, inhumane, and bestial circumstances.

💬 Government Members: Ha, ha!

Oh, those people can laugh. John Tamihere said that he did not believe in selling out our sovereignty. But all Māori in this country know that shortly they will be overrun by people who are imported, because Māori come second where Māori members are concerned—and where John Tamihere is concerned. He is a real lion back on the marae, but down here it is: “Yes, Helen, yes, Helen. Three bags full!” That is him.

People in the area I have referred to have spoken about the screams and cries of pain of dogs in the night. Others have told of a large number of dogs that have suddenly disappeared, and of the stench of death that hung over that property. It is doubtful that the authorities, without action being taken, will ever really know what happened there, but we have been told that the dogs were tortured prior to being killed, because that enhances the taste of the meat.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: What’s this about?

What is it about? It is a foreign practice, alien to this country, which Cunliffe and people like that in their obsequious, politically correct way will never confront and never face up to. [Interruption] It does not, I tell Mr Cunliffe, belong in New Zealand. We have laws here. That man has a variety of devices and firearms, and he has been apprehended by the authorities on a charge of cruelty to animals. [Interruption] Over there, like an ill-bred dog barking at everything that comes to the front gate, is Mr Cunliffe. Mind you, he could not be a pedigree. He does not look like a pedigree to me. He looks like a thorough crossbreed—a little bit of the wrong thing everywhere, and no hair salon and dye can fix it up.

A number of Asians have invested in that project. Their money has gone straight down the drain at Waiuku. I say that this man should have been given his marching orders, but he was given a temporary visa. Thanks to the naive Minister of Immigration, Dalziel, he was not put on the next plane. He is there, in Auckland, contaminating the lifestyle of New Zealanders. We say that he should be sent back to where he came from, taking his dog farming for food and other despicable practices, like torture, elsewhere. That is a form of social contamination and pollution, and we have repeatedly warned this Government that we cannot throw open the doors to thousands of people from alien cultures without creating social and cultural dislocation and serious problems. We think that people like Poh know that New Zealand is a soft touch. He knows that he can get on in this country and do what he likes. In other countries he would have had his marching orders. When Mr Tamihere talks about sovereignty, I ask him to think about that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the start of the next member’s speech, but I do so in his interests. Prior to your taking the Chair a member who was sitting in the Chamber, Dr Smith, was chastised by the Speaker for interjecting from a seat that was not his, and he was silenced. Through the entire course of the Rt Hon Winston Peter’s speech, that rather inane member, Mr Cunliffe, ran a non-stop, inane barrage of chatter that did not even make sense. But, more important, it was interjecting. In the interests of the remaining speakers who have yet to have their time, could I ask that that sort of nonsense be curtailed?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to give that member an assurance that we will not be interjecting on United Future members, because they are quality MPs, with good things to say.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No. That is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ron Mark is quite right, but I did not let the interjecting worry me, for this reason: nobody in the whole country takes any notice of what Mr Cunliffe says.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need to hear any more on the matter. I realise there were many interjections. I thought I had quietened them down, but in fact I rather thought that the person speaking was being driven on by them.

I rise to debate the very serious issue of the ability of parliamentary members to act on behalf of constituents. The Hon Nick Smith has been the focus of attention during the last few days because of his comments over a Family Court matter. He has been threatened with prosecution because he spoke up on behalf of processes prejudicial to constituents. My argument is certainly not directed against the Family Court; nor is it directed against this Government. Rather, my point in this debate is to question the ability of members of Parliament to be able to advocate adequately on behalf of constituents. If members of Parliament cannot fight for the rights of constituents, who can?

I have a case in mind. On 22 March 2003 Matthew Exeter showed up at the door of his neighbour’s house, and, after threatening to kill himself, was let in by those concerned neighbours. During the course of the next hour, he threw a kitchen knife at a 5-year-old—narrowly missing him—threatened the homeowner with a knife, was violent and abusive, and admitted he had snuck into their home on previous occasions. That was the first crime. The police showed up the next day after the emergency operator criticised the residents for not staying by the phone while they were trying to protect their young child. That was the second crime. But it is the final insult that I wish to speak to tonight. The victims were told to present themselves at a family conference, and were given only 1 working day’s notice. They were not given a choice. They were told that if they did not show up, the offender, Matthew Exeter, could be let out that very day. They were entitled to go to the conference without having to be in the same room as the offender and the support people. They were told, against the advice I had obtained for them, that they had to be in the same room. They were told that support people could not speak for them. Again, that was false.

During the course of the conference the victims felt unsafe—and with good reason. The legal guardians of Matthew Exeter, the grandparents, were in absolute denial about their grandson’s offences—originally 13 of them, but whittled down to eight, including two for attempted murder and six for assault with a weapon. The grandfather, Kevin Exeter, principal of Parkview School in Parklands, lunged at one of the victims and had to be physically restrained by the police, twice. The grandmother, Lesley Exeter, who not only founded Tough Love but was awarded the Queen’s Service Medal in the New Year’s Honours List 1999, was abusive, belligerent, and intimidating. At the conclusion of this conference—a conference where the victims were intimidated, physically threatened, and abused—the following suggestions were given: reparation was to be paid for damages, but not for the damages to the car because, apparently, they were consequential; 60 hours—a miserable number—of community service were to be served; a curfew—unenforceable—between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., was to be reviewed after a month; Matthew Exeter was to reside with the obviously dysfunctional grandparents; and a recommendation was given by the social worker that as Matthew Exeter had already spent 2 months at Kingslea he would get no more time there.

This begs the larger question: why did Matthew Exeter get dealt with as a youth when, if he had actually killed somebody, he would have been treated as an adult? Does that mean we reward incompetence? Are we saying that if 16-year-olds bungle attempts to murder, we deal with them as children, but if they succeed, then they are adults? This is a person faced with charges of threatening to kill, assault with a weapon, and wilful damage, who will, in all likelihood, be returned to his dysfunctional grandparents—Lesley Exeter, who even went on Holmes show as the result of her service to the community with the Tough Love organisation and who was a recipient of a Queen’s honour, and Kevin Exeter, a school principal, who abused, and had to be restrained by, the police twice—but that is OK because he was young and incompetent in the commission of his intended stated crime of killing the victims and then himself. The victims were so scared that they could not come to the courthouse yesterday morning to face the proceedings, and they will be selling up and going off to live in another city.

I ask members to tell me who the victim is in this case. If I could not invoke it under parliamentary privilege, no one in Parliament would be any the wiser. MPs must be free to represent their constituents’ interests without resorting to parliamentary privilege, and it is for this reason that I will not be commenting further on this particular case outside the House. The issue of victims’ rights must take precedence over the issues of secrecy and privacy, which clearly protect the guilty. Victims must come first, and that is the point.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member, but he seemed to be speaking about a Family Court conference. I would like you to consider whether hearings at a Family Court conference are privileged and confidential. Normally, it would be a breach of privilege to comment on something that has taken place in that way in front of a court, especially with names being mentioned. Perhaps you could look at the Hansard and give some consideration to whether we are now entitled to make speeches about what happens at a Family Court conference—

💬 Marc Alexander: It wasn’t the Family Court.

It was a victims-type conference, or whatever the member’s exact wording was. I am just a little concerned about that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is a valid concern. I will have it checked out, but it seemed all right to me. It was not a Family Court conference.

Yes, that is right, I am a geriatrician. I am a doctor, and I want to talk about coronary artery bypass grafting. I want to talk about that because patients who need coronary artery bypass grafting are probably our most fragile patients—the patients most at risk of death when things go wrong. That is why it ends up in the media. If we mess up the system for patients needing coronary artery bypass grafting, then we have deaths on our hands. Patients die from heart disease every day of the week.

But I want to talk about the Capital and Coast District Health Board. Today the Minister said Labour had no ideological objection to public-private partnerships. I would like Annette King to tell us of just one new public-private partnership that has begun with her district health boards since this Government took office. Just tell me one! There is no answer from across the House. Can anybody here can think of one? No, there is dead silence. All that has happened is that contracts have been cancelled—just as Wakefield Hospital’s contract with Wellington Hospital was cancelled.

A system was set up last year in which $1.7 million of cardiac funding was kept by Capital and Coast—not spent on cardiac surgery, spent on other things, and patients died. That was just dismissed. Capital and Coast said in its annual plan that it was an achievement to have bought all surgery in-house. The Minister quotes figures that say that the number of surgical procedures has increased. Of course, they have increased, because she does not take into account the ones that were transferred from Wakefield Hospital. She does not ever count the ones that were done at Wakefield Hospital. The numbers for coronary artery bypass grafting have stayed very similar. What has happened next is that Capital and Coast has not been able to keep up with its cardiac waiting list so as to deliver within 6 months. It changed the intensive care bed policy, and booked all electives into intensive care. If a hospital does that, acute patients will always bump elective patients. The hospital should know that, and have a contingency plan for it.

John Russell was not cancelled once, but twice. I heard Lianne Dalziel say that we should listen to the patients. Well, we cannot listen to that patient, because he has died, but his fiancée has had plenty to say on the matter. She is appalled at the status and level of care. It shows a decline in our public hospital system. It shows the non-responsiveness of a public hospital system. Do members know that John Russell was told to go home by the patient next to him? He woke up, and could not find a nurse. The patient next to him said: “You have got to go home now.” Nobody came to check him out. He went home the second time, rather than being transferred to a private hospital for his surgery.

The reason I go on about private hospitals is that acute surgery does not impact on elective surgery at private hospitals, because they do not do a lot of acute surgery. A patient can book surgery and be certain that the surgery will go ahead. The Minister has said that Labour does not have a problem with public-private partnerships, but she appoints the board chairman and members of the board, and that board has problems with private care. Because of that, it cancelled Wakefield Hospital’s contract, and therefore someone like John Russell was twice cancelled for coronary artery bypass grafting—a man of 42 and father of two—rather than being moved to a private hospital where he could have had his surgery and been alive today.

The other thing that has happened is that the points system has gone up. At Christchurch, Dunedin, and also at Capital and Coast, the points one needs for surgery have increased. That is not acceptable. The Minister of Health does nothing about that. She will not have an inquiry. She is the invisible Minister of Health.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.