General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Last week, and again this week, this Parliament and this nation have watched a Minister of Māori Affairs who is simply not up to the job. Day after day we see the spectacle of a Minister who is unable to do the task that he is paid for. We see the spectacle of a Minister who is not in control of his department. We see the spectacle of a Minister who has not done the basic reading and work that is required, and that taxpayers expect of that Minister for the salary and the perks that they pay him. We see the spectacle in this House of a Minister who is constantly being babysat.

In my experience I have not ever seen what occurred yesterday in this Chamber where the Minister of Māori Affairs had sitting beside him not his usual bench mate but the Hon Ruth Dyson, who gave him the answers to every question but one. In stage whisper, Ruth Dyson said to the Minister: “Just say this. Just answer that Wira Gardiner will review it. Just answer the following way.” Despite that, that Minister still managed with one answer of his own to drop himself in it with another real clanger.

His colleagues hang their heads. We see them shuffle around in their seats. The other day a bit of pass the parcel went on. As Mr Mallard was thinking of the answer he whispered it to Dr Cullen, Dr Cullen relayed it back to Mr Benson-Pope, he told the Hon Ruth Dyson, and she whispered to the Minister—sorts of Chinese whispers to the Minister of Māori Affairs, and the Minister got it wrong, question after question, day after day. The Labour Party might think it is clever and funny, the Minister might think it is clever and funny, but New Zealanders do not think it is clever and funny. New Zealanders expect the Minister to be on top of his game. They expect the Minister to be able to answer questions. They do not expect the Minister to be hiding behind the skirts of his officials.

When something goes wrong he quickly falls back and blames the officials. I remind the Minister of the Cabinet Office Manual, paragraph 2.26. Has the Minister read that paragraph? I bet that he has not. It states: “Ministers are individually responsible to Parliament for their own activities and the activities of public servants in administering their ministerial portfolios.” The Cabinet Office Manual makes it clear that the Minister is responsible.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Useless!

I accept that the Minister might be useless, but he is also responsible. I say to this House and to this Government that it is time for the Prime Minister to stop trying to carry the Minister of Māori Affairs—it is not a pretty thought; but the Prime Minister has a whole series of Ministers who come down to this Chamber, for question time after question time, with the sole job of giving the Minister of Māori Affairs the answer to the question.

At the beginning of the week I thought the Minister would be gone by the end of it, but I do not think he will be now, because his Associate Minister, Mr Tamihere, has gone out and fallen on his blunt sword for the Minister. The Associate Minister of Māori Affairs manages to go out there today, insult Māori elders, and then get pulled off a radio programme midway through an interview. I have never seen that happen before. We have a hopeless Government in total disarray.

Do members need a good recipe? I have a recipe for them. It is recipe for a good old-fashioned coup. Let us take a pinch of opportunity: Bill English leaves the country. Everybody warns him of the dangers of leaving. Let us look at the history. Whenever a National Party leader leaves town, they gather around to form a good old-fashioned coup. So the opportunity is there. Bill English has left the country. People told him not to go. In fact the old coup-master himself, Murray McCully, said: “Billy, don’t go. Don’t go Billy, because if you do they will be scheming, they will be plotting, and they will be planning.” Matt Robson put it into perspective this week when he said: “Leadership coups traditionally occur when three events coincide: the leader is out of town, McCully is in town, and the party’s support is half that of Labour’s.” What a mix, what a recipe!

Add to that a cup of cold opinion polls—that is what the National Party has been facing, month in and month out, for the last 4 years. Let us look at those polls. Of course, National members decided that none of the polls were any good, because none of them show that National is improving. They said: “We don’t like the NBR poll; it’s useless. We don’t like TV3’s poll; that’s hopeless. The only poll we like is Television One’s poll; that poll we can trust.” What did the Television One poll show, this week? The Television One poll showed this week that Labour is on 54, and National on 28; Labour up, National going nowhere! I want to know whether National members still think that Television One’s opinion poll is a good poll—or are they going to write their own? In fact, I believe that they will have to write their own.

They said that TV3’s poll was no good. They were going to give TV3 a second chance, I think, but I wonder what will happen if they go down in the polls in TV3’s poll tonight. What will happen if they go down? What will happen to Bill English if he goes down in tonight’s TV3 poll? So we can add to this recipe a cup of cold opinion polls, and we can mix into this recipe desperation and a potential coalition partner dogged by scandal. That is the ACT party—a desperate potential coalition partner, dogged by scandal.

Let us look at the scandals. There is the matter of Donna Awatere Huata. They would have washed their hands of her—if they could. But not a single New Zealander believes that she is not an active member of the ACT party, and they were right behind her until she embarrassed them. Then she was no longer part of them, in the meantime. The second scandal is that Rodney Hide stands up in this House, day after day, attacking the Minister of Māori Affairs, but he has not had the fortitude to leave this Chamber and go outside and say some of the things he said yesterday. Let us see where the real tough, strong ACT party is, dogged with scandal. The third thing—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is longstanding tradition in this House that one cannot challenge the courage of another member, which is what the member who is speaking just did. It has long been agreed that the word “fortitude” is totally unacceptable.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is right. The member will withdraw that comment.

I withdraw that comment, but I do want to tell the House about the third scandal of the ACT party. I wonder whether many people have read ACT’s latest newsletter, written by Richard Prebble. Richard Prebble said this: “Dunedin heart patients are being sent home to die because they are white.” What did his own health spokesperson say? She said: “He’s gone too far. I don’t believe what he has said. He has gone too far.” She declined to back Mr Prebble. There we have it, mixed in this recipe: desperation, and a potential coalition partner dogged by scandal.

All we need to do now is to stir all that with a long-handled ladle, and that is exactly what is happening. In this mix we have Gerry Brownlee in his corner of Bellamy’s, plotting with his little tiny group of supporters, and we have Roger Sowry and the ones they used to call the Young Turks, or the young whatever they were. They are in their corner of Bellamy’s having their little plot. What is going on? They are looking for the big coup. When will it happen? Who will it be? “Nobody knows who it will be,” those members are saying, “but let’s have a coup anyway.” Put it in an oven, let if fester, and serve it up cold.

Three years ago, the ACT party started a campaign to open up the Family Court. It was driven by the recognition that family breakdown was leading to increased fatherlessness in New Zealand, and that the fall-out was increasing levels of child abuse, teenage pregnancy, youth crime, and substance abuse amongst young people. The ACT party realises that children who are not brought up with both their mother and their father in their lives end up suffering more poor consequences in life than anyone else. But because of the Family Court, most New Zealanders do not understand how bad the problem is. The Family Court operates like a secret society. It denies people the right to have their say about what has happened to them. It denies the media the right to report on what is actually going on. We urgently need to model New Zealand’s Family Court on that of Australia. I will read from the Australian Family Court website: “The privacy of people who come before the Family Court is protected by the law. That means that while court hearings are generally open to the public, the media cannot use the names of people involved when reporting a case. The judge has the right to lift that restriction on a case-by-case basis.”

I say that in New Zealand we have a justice system that colludes with feminist lawmakers. It prevents good New Zealanders from understanding what is going on. We have a secret system that is denying New Zealanders their proper rights to open justice.

Just this week, a spokeswoman for the Australian Prime Minister stated that he was mindful of the need for male role models for children, and the desire for both parents to have continuing responsibility for their upbringing. The Australian Prime Minister will push for shared parenting in Australian law. The reason he is doing that is that Australians know what is happening with family breakdown in their country because they have an open Family Court. It is about time that New Zealand’s Family Court was modelled on that of Australia’s. If it were, we would not have situations like the Family Court judge who denied a 10-year-old girl her annual beach holiday with her family because he wanted to punish the father by denying him the opportunity to be with his daughter at the beach. The judge said it was in the best interests of the child, and stated that it was a mere 5 days in that child’s life. To stop a child sharing her summer holiday with her father is punishing that child. That judge would not be allowed to get away with that if the Family Court were open.

New Zealanders are getting sick and tired of a Family Court that is hiding behind closed doors. We are sick and tired of headlines like “Father in court over Christmas card” and “Dad convicted for sending present to his daughter”. Those things should never be allowed to happen. This country needs a proper independent review of the Family Court—not the politically correct Law Commission type of review, but a proper independent inquiry that looks at where New Zealand’s Family Court is now, where the open Family Court of Australia is sitting, and puts down a step-by-step process to take us from one to the other.

The Family Court is denying children in this country their right to be with their fathers and their grandparents. It is long past time that we grew up and realised that dads are important in children’s lives, and an open Family Court would be a step in that direction. As I said, I hope members of the Opposition will join in the call for an independent inquiry into the Family Court. I would be happy to work with all of them.

What a time it is to be out of the country. Two weeks ago, Mr English was in Australia taking advice from John Howard on how to throw people off the boat. With the caucus that he has, we know why he would find that sort of advice useful. Where is he now? He is in the United States.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that a member cannot refer to a member who is not in the Chamber. He is overseas on business.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes. The member can now carry on with his speech.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give the House some guidance? Is it appropriate for the chief Government whip to be making such statements about the Prime Minister of another country throwing people off a boat? Is that appropriate in this House?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber if he is going to raise that sort of point of order. It is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order, Mr Mark, and it had better be one.

💬 Ron Mark: It damn well is!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please make it.

💬 Ron Mark: My point of order is that I am getting tired of being treated by you as some sort of whipping boy when I ask a straight question and get an answer like that. I would expect a little respect from you, as you would from me.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber.

Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member can raise a point of order, but it has to be a point of order.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order. I took deep offence at the statement made by the Government chief whip that the Leader of the Opposition is overseas learning “how to throw people off the boat”. We all know the connotation of the John Howard debate about the Timor strait, and the allegation of people being thrown off the boat. I am sure that is what the chief whip was implying. I know that the whip of New Zealand First also took the same offence. I believe that it was a valid point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not. It is a point of debate.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am pressing the point to you that I took offence at the comments of the chief Government whip. I ask that he withdraw and apologise for those offensive statements.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The comment was not addressed to Mr Shirley. Mr Tisch raised a point of order, and he is quite entitled to. I said that was to be the end of that reference to a member being overseas. Comments about other heads of State, and what have you, are for the judgment of members. It is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to be the one to disagree with you, but I think there is a very real question here when a Leader of the Opposition announces that he is on an official trip overseas on taxpayers’ funds, and reference is not allowed to be made to that. There is a difference between saying that someone is absent from the House, and a reference to someone who is funded by the taxpayer quite directly and has made media statements to indicate that that is the case. I think reference to that is appropriate. It is not referring to the absence of a member from the House; it is referring to the presence of the member overseas on what is meant to be official Opposition business.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My concern is not so much about that comment, and those outside of the Standing Orders in referring to the absence of a member—particularly in a debate like this one. However, if a member were to say that the leader of any party was overseas learning how to commit, for example, corrupt acts, that would be regarded as grave and disorderly. Throwing people off a boat is equally a criminal offence in the way that the senior Government whip has portrayed it. That illegality is not just a matter of debate; it is slightly more serious than that, and that is what two colleagues in this House took grave offence to.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the member on that comment. If objection has been taken to that particular comment, I want the member to withdraw and apologise for it.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the exact point I made to you, and you said it was not a point of order. You have just now accepted the exact point from Mr Winston Peters.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I have had time to reflect on it, and I might occasionally be wrong. This is one of those occasions.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I trust that no time will be deducted from Mr Tisch’s speech?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Tisch is not speaking. Mr Benson-Pope is.

Who does the Leader of the Opposition choose to take with him on that official visit to the United States but Simon Power, Lockwood Smith, and Wayne Mapp? It would be hard to understand why he would take two of those people, but one could easily understand why Simon Power has to be with them. At least that is one knife that he can keep an eye on, but the other two? We do not know much about weapons of mass destruction, but with Messrs Smith and Mapp giving him advice, we know where the unguided missiles are. What an embarrassment!

However, when we look at the National Party front bench—and the back-benches, come to that—I guess we see that is as good as it gets. Increasingly, the National Party is looking more and more like a rhinoceros. Why a rhinoceros, I hear members ask? One might think that the rhinoceros comparison applied more to the ACT party. That is certainly the view of the Truth newspaper, which refers to Mr Hide by that name. However, Mr Hide—that soft underbelly of bigotry—is not really the rhinoceros that the National Party is. As will be well known to most zoo watchers, the greatest characteristic of a rhinoceros is its tiny brain. That is why it is such an appropriate image for the National Party. I would like to paint a small verbal picture of the activities of that amazing beast, the rhinoceros. I have to give credit to the Swiss author, Peter Bichsel—also a well-known social-democratic voter—who created this image. The rhinoceros, as everyone knows, stands very still for a very long, ponderous time. Anyone who has been to the zoo, has seen the rhinoceros behave like that. In its enclosure, it suddenly just bursts forth and runs in circles, then runs and runs, and suddenly stops. It started running because it thought of something, but being a rhinoceros—like the National Party—it just starts running an ever-so-little bit too soon. After running, it forgets what it thought of and has to stop, think of it again, and stand still—dead in the water, still in the enclosure—for a very long time. That is exactly how the National Party has been behaving politically in this country, and in this House.

I cannot think of a better example than its behaviour over Tranz Rail. I say: “Poor Mr Sowry, the National Party’s spokesman on Tranz Rail. What a hospital pass that one is!” There he is, sitting in the middle of those Government-owned tracks, seeing it bearing down on him, not knowing where to go and what to do. Like everyone else in this country, Mr Sowry remembers only too well the detail of that great Tranz Rail privatisation. What did those previous National Government members do? They retired $1.2 billion worth of debt and injected $360 million into that company, New Zealand Rail, to get it ready for sale. So there was $1.2 billion, and $360 million, and in part 3, what did they do? They sold it for $328 million. Was that a good deal? Is it any wonder that that rhinoceros party, sitting in the middle of the tracks, is just a tad worried when it realises that 90 percent of the population of this country want to grasp the opportunity to get those tracks back into public ownership? And poor old Mr Sowry, and his poor benighted party, are sitting there with a blunderbuss coming down the tracks straight towards them.

I say to that party’s members that if they do not improve their polling in the TV3 poll tonight, it will be an unmitigated catastrophe for that party, and Mr English—wherever he is—might as well stay there.

Last week, during an examination of estimates in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I complimented the Minister on his ambition after he indicated he would fix up Auckland’s transport problems. I then asked him whether he was concerned about the greenfields retail development recently proposed for south Manukau. I asked that in view of the fact that such a development will add to the already serious transport problems there. He said that he was not. He said that the development would create jobs and would create wealth.

I have to ask where the evidence is for that. I ask where the evidence is that any of the communities that have been blessed by the presence of a megastore in recent years have actually benefited. Are their citizens any happier? Are any more of them working, and is the quality of the work they do more rewarding? Is it any more enjoyable? Are the products that those stores are peddling of a higher quality, or are they designed to fall apart and to contribute to the more than 10 million kilograms of stuff that New Zealanders throw on to New Zealand landfills every day? Do those “big boxes” reduce dependence on private motor cars by locating their premises so that their customers are encouraged to walk, cycle, or take public transport? I ask where the evidence is of community benefit, because research from Canada indicates that the big-box retail developments, remote from the central business districts, drive retail sales down and cause store closures in adjacent and pre-existing shopping centres.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that declining retail sales are just part of the problem here in New Zealand. I have some sympathy for local authorities that are faced with yet another request for a zone change to permit yet another retail development on the fringe of yet another New Zealand town. If they turn it down, they are likely to face the cost of defending their decision in the Environment Court, and in the absence of a very robust district plan, and in view of the dearth of research into the economic, traffic, social, environmental, and employment consequences, any decision to decline consent can be extraordinarily difficult to defend. But permitting big-box stores in the lower-value city fringe, or greenfields sites with lower rates, creates a most un-level playing field. If we add the obvious benefits of scale enjoyed by the big stores, it is clear that business closures and declining profitability are likely to result.

Whether or not local communities get additional retail space is an issue for councils to rule on, in consultation with their communities, but permitting the kind of urban development that undermines local economies and creates communities increasingly dependent on private motor cars for going shopping, is an issue that should be of concern to everyone in this House. Although I believe that a moratorium on big-box approvals until the necessary research has been done is a reasonable ask, if the Government is unwilling to make such a ruling, at the very least the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development need to implement a review of their impacts—that is, the impacts of those big-box stores—and their desirability. They also need to make the results of that review available for local communities, so that they are better equipped to make their decisions on the facts rather than on the desire of large retail entities to strip-mine local economies.

The new local government legislation increases the capability of councils to better care for their communities, but creating healthy, sustainable New Zealand communities is a team effort, and providing all councils with the kind of information they need to contest these issues is a reasonable job for this Government.

There is 54 percent support for the Labour Government and 44 percent support for Helen Clark. That says it all. This Government has got it right. We are straight up, we are accountable, we are fiscally prudent, and we are forward-thinking. We have good politics, good policies, good initiatives, and good government. What do we see? We see more New Zealanders in work than ever before—an increase of 132,000 New Zealanders employed since December 1999. Also, as a former nurse I am so pleased to see reduced health costs in primary health-care. Thirty-four primary health organisations in our country are delivering cheaper, more affordable, quality health-care to New Zealanders. And baby boomers—and I am one of them—feel a lot more secure knowing that we now have a superannuation fund that is working. That is good for all New Zealanders.

Our kids are having much better chances—through the Gateway programme initiatives, apprenticeships, affordable tertiary education with a fee maxima regime, and a fair day’s pay for trainees. All trainees will now receive the minimum youth rate of $6.80 per hour. That is good for New Zealand. And why? It is because we want to see 150,000 people in training by 2005. We need their skills, and we want to ensure that all 15 to 19-year-olds will be in either training or education, or work by 2007.

We are investing in our future. Our growth and innovation strategy will strengthen this country’s growth, and it is working. We are getting support—yes, we are—of 54 percent, compared with 26 percent for National.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: 28 percent!

And 7 percent for Bill! And where is Bill? He is closing his electorate office—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member must refer to members by their full names, not just by their Christian names.

Where is Bill English? He is closing an electorate office and now he is off to the USA—if the heat is too hot, get out of the kitchen!

I quote from Bill English: “We want to create the kind of relationship (with Washington) we’ll need in government.”—dream on—“I’m confident. There’s no question about the leadership.” Dream on! Here is the doozy: “But he said the group was not going ‘trophy hunting’ by looking for meetings with senior members of the Bush Administration. ‘We will be meeting a range of mid-level people.’” This comes from a party that is not even engaging with mid-level people in its own country. It cannot do it here, because it is too hard, so it goes and tries it some place else.

The trend for National is downwards. Let us look at the statistics. We see National has lost support in the main centres and among women and young people. It may be up 1 point, but support is down 5 points in Auckland to 20 percent; it is down 6 points in Wellington to 16 percent; and in its heartland, the rural areas, it is down 13 points, to 27 percent. When Bill English took over, National had 39 MPs. It now has 27, and, of those, very, very few are women. What about ACT, the perk-busters, the party of values, not politics? Where is the missing member? The leader says they do not want that member in the party, but will they expel her? No, they will not expel her because they will lose the money. They will lose over $100,000 of party advertising.

Lynne Pillay would put Mogadon out of business if she had one more minute. There is an old saying in the Good Book that pride goes before a fall, and I want to tell her that the polls might look good now, but we saw at the last election, when the media bias in looking after Labour could not go on any longer, that in the closing 4 weeks Labour lost almost 14 percent. It lost almost 14 percent in 4 weeks flat. We intend to make sure the media does not get away with it this time. We will make sure the media gives us a fair go this time, and Labour will fall a darn sight further and faster than that.

I want to ask this: what could be more frightening than having Parekura Horomia as the Minister of Māori Affairs? What could be more frightening that that? Do members know what it is? It would be having John Tamihere, the Labour Party’s bright-eyed boy whom Helen Clark keeps promoting beyond anything to do with his talents. I want to deal with that because I saw Helen Clark deal to a Minister of Māori Affairs in the most despicable, personal way I have seen in my whole career in politics. She never had one leg to stand on. She gave fuel and fire to the allegations of criminal behaviour, and she dumped him, and she has the effrontery to bring back other Ministers although she did not bring him back. There was a full-scale police inquiry, and were there any facts? No. I have never seen anyone so destructive in terms of dealing with someone to whom that person owed loyalty. But she tells me that John Tamihere is the man—the man who, in today’s Dominion Post, comes out attacking Māori leadership. He can mention Graham Latimer—Graham Latimer has been called a crook for years, and he is one—but when he starts on someone like Api Mahuika, a man with a far better brain, far better background, far better lineage and training, and a far better record of behaving himself according to the law, then he will buy himself some trouble. What is John Tamihere’s record? He had a practising certificate in law once, as a solicitor.

💬 Craig McNair: What happened?

He resigned it before he had it taken off him.

💬 Craig McNair: Why?

Why? He was guilty of charges like forging documents.

💬 Craig McNair: Are you serious?

Yes, forging documents.

💬 Opposition Member: A lawyer?

That is right—he was a lawyer. I know it is hard to believe. He was guilty of offences like uttering. These are serious offences. Forging and uttering are not grounds for promotion in politics, unless you are under Helen Clark, of course. What else did he do? He headed the Waipareira Trust at a time when it had a business and was in serious deficit. Its whole liquidity and solvency was in question, so what did it do? It got hold of a building that it had not sold, and entered its unrealised profits—despite the fact that there was no sale—in the books as income for that year. What is that called? That is called fraud. In the Fortex case, the directors got a loan and entered that as income, and ended up in jail. What is the difference between this case and that case? There is no difference whatsoever. A man who was the former solicitor for the Waipareira Trust came before the Māori Affairs Committee—and that is why this Parliament stinks sometimes, when it comes to a lack of accountability—and he alleged that Mr Tamihere had forged the names on 34 cheques. There are members here who were at that committee. They heard this evidence, and what did they do? Nothing. There are senior Ministers here, like Trevor Mallard and others, and what did they do about this allegation? They gave John Tamihere a ministerial post. In any other society that would be the end—but no. There was one offence after the other: covering up the books, uttering, forging, and falsifying cheques, and on top of that there were five drink-driving convictions.

💬 Craig McNair: How many?

Five. I can understand that a guy might have a bit too much on one night.

💬 Lynne Pillay: How many have you got?

I have got no drink-driving convictions. Sorry! [Interruption] The member should not make an allegation that has no merit whatsoever. [Interruption] I see. That is funny. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

No, Mr Speaker, I can handle this. I can always handle lies. What does the court case say? It says no such thing, but of course lies are stock-in-trade where Trevor Mallard is concerned.

That member has twice been a Minister and twice failed. He does not stick it out, and when the heat comes on he cuts and runs. That is the member who I never thought would join the Greens, and what did we see today? We saw him join the Greens—I have never seen a bigger case of recycled nonsense than we saw in the House today. He said he had a big hit and he was going to do John Tamihere over. What did he do? He brought up the stuff that had been brought up before and explained in the House. Winston Peters is a green. That is a kiwifruit, I suppose—brown on the outside and green in the middle. That is the new Winston Peters. That is the approach he is taking now. The one positive thing I can say for him is that he is doing a helluva lot better than Bill English. He might have cut and run twice as a Cabinet Minister—it got too hot in the kitchen so Winston threw in the towel—but I think that is probably something that Bill English should do now.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He can call me Winston Peters or Sir Winston, but he cannot call me Winston. He should be more respectful.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly correct. I would ask the member to obey the rules.

He threw in the towel. He threw it in twice when it got too hot in the kitchen. When he lost the argument, when he lost sway, when he was regarded as hopeless by the rest of Cabinet, he tossed in the towel. But I wonder about Bill English. He said that the TV3 poll last time was nonsense, and that it was far too low. He said that if he took another big hit he would go, and I want to know whether that is true. I want to know whether, if there is another hit and the National Party goes down in the TV3 poll tonight, he will keep his word and resign.

💬 Hon Member: Let him stay in Washington.

No, we are not going to give him the job in Washington—let me make that absolutely clear. He will not be the ambassador in Washington if the TV3 poll says that the National Party has gone down.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to know what ability we have to deal with a matter that is patently untrue. The Minister on his feet knows full well that Mr English never made any of the comments that have been attributed to him. He never comments on any polls—he never has. The Minister should stop making it up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is a political point, not a point of order.

I reiterate that it is my understanding that the Hon Bill English has given an undertaking to his caucus that things would go up and not down.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has absolutely no understanding of the National caucus—luckily for us. He should not keep making it up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a point of debate. The member should listen to what is being said; I thought it was very flattering.

What is really important in this Parliament is to find out whether Bill English gave the undertaking that things would be going forward, that National’s polling would be going up, and that he would be delivering or he would go. Did he say that or not?

💬 Government Member: Of course, he said it.

Well, they are not denying that he said it. There are no denials at all from the Opposition members, so we will take them at their word. We will be watching television very, very keenly tonight. We will see whether there is any expectation of delivery, on the part of the National Party caucus, for Bill English. Will he deliver or will he not? I see that John Key is going to speak. I ask Mr Key to say whether, after Bill English’s promises, he will be satisfied if the National Party goes down again. Will the member be satisfied? I think that Bill English is, in the end, quite honourable. He will keep his undertakings to the National Party, and if that is the result, I make another prediction, and that is that John Key will be deputy leader of the National Party within the next 6 months.

Twelve days ago the Government once again waded into New Zealand’s corporate arena; this time it was to bail out Tranz Rail, a company that for months has teetered on the edge of insolvency. The Government was so sure that Tranz Rail would go broke that it did not even wait for the liquidators to be called in. Instead, it relied on the directors of Tranz Rail, which is something the investors, after multiple downgrades and the obliteration of shareholder value, have learnt not to do.

Dr Cullen was so confident that his deal would be approved by battered shareholders that he spent most of the press conference giving Toll Holdings a lecture about how unwelcome it was in New Zealand. As he put it, Toll Holdings was on a collision course with the Government. What the Minister failed to consider was what the shareholders want to see happen to the company. He was so confident that the deal would be approved by the shareholders that he refused further meetings with Toll Holdings. He refused to talk to it about what might happen, and he refused to see its managing director, Paul Little, when he came to New Zealand; instead, the Minister dispatched one of the minions from his office, as he was a little bit too busy that day. All the while, the Minister was locked in secret negotiations with the directors of Tranz Rail, over a deal that will see a failed board and failed management locked in a monopoly for 64 years.

Well, I have some good news for the Minister and for New Zealand. The New Zealand financial services industry has more confidence, more brains, and far more business acumen than the Minister. It will accept Toll Holdings' offer, and, what is more, it will do it within the next 6 weeks, prior to the Government having an opportunity even to put its deal on the table. And why would the industry not do that? The Government’s deal is so vague that the institutions have not got a clue as to what they can expect from Tranz Rail in the future. All that the institutions do know is that they will be stuck for decades with a failed management team, and with a cap on their return that will inevitably lead Tranz Rail back on to the track of wastage and inefficiency—the very hallmark of New Zealand Rail prior to deregulation. The institutions will sell, and they are so angry that they have written to the directors of Tranz Rail with a very strong message. They have said: “Do anything that wilfully breaches the conditions laid out by Toll Holdings, do anything to scupper this deal, sell Tranz Link before this transaction can take place, and we will see you in court.”

The Government had better work out fast that if it wants any ownership rights to New Zealand’s rail, it is negotiating with the wrong party. It is high time that Dr Cullen dismounted from the high horse that he is well and truly perched on, rolled up his sleeves, and started to nut out a deal, before the New Zealand taxpayers have to pay a whole lot more for the privilege. Mark my words: sticking two fingers up to Toll Holdings is not endearing the Minister to that company, a well-capitalised company that will be able to negotiate from a much stronger position than an under-capitalised, desperate company can.

The New Zealand taxpayers up and down the land will pay for the arrogance of the Minister. They will pay for the way that he has treated with them, and the Minister will learn that dealing with that company is very different. Maybe the Minister should learn just one thing, and that is to stay well away from this deal, and to allow Toll Holdings to run an efficient and effective railway in New Zealand, like it does in many other parts of the world. The Minister should let the corporate sector do what it does best, which is to run an effective rail network for the people of New Zealand.

This has been a particularly interesting Wednesday general debate in the House. It started off with the National Party's so-called deputy leader railing against a Government Minister, repeating sentence after sentence of the same tired old political rhetoric, without mentioning a single National Party policy. The deputy leader has major portfolio responsibilities affecting very serious public policy issues that the Government of New Zealand is addressing, and he did not mention one of those issues. His speech was full of all the usual vitriol, and made a personal attack against one member of the Government, and it was a shameful performance.

It was followed by a smattering of applause from a few of his colleagues who had stayed behind to listen to what he had on offer.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Where were the rest?

I do not know where the rest were, but when the Hon Annette King got up in this House to lead off for the Government, very early on in her piece she mentioned opinion polls. She mentioned an opinion poll that might be on TV3 at 6 o’clock tonight, and National members could not scarper out of this House fast enough. If there had been speed cameras outside in the lobbies, this Government would have had a significant revenue collection, because they could not wait to go back to whatever little part of this parliamentary complex they now occupy to find out what the results would be.

We have focused on the polls, and, no matter which poll one looks at, it is bad news for the once-great New Zealand National Party. It keeps changing the goalposts in terms of what poll it wants to take notice of. It wants to look at the TV3 poll, but then it is bad, so it does not want to look at it. It then looks at the National Business Review poll, but it is no good, so it moves away from that one, too. It then puts huge emphasis on the Television One poll.

There are three reasons the National Party feels so good about itself and is so puffed up. One is that it has isolated its poll swing to between 21 percent and 28 percent. Apparently, when one is trying to become the leading party in the Parliament of New Zealand it is some great victory to have a poll rating that stabilises in the 21 to 28 percent range. It is absolutely ridiculous. National is also feeling good because Dr Brash has said: “I don’t think Mr English is doing disastrously now; I just think he is doing very, very badly.” That means the National Party now has a sense of unity in its team, to go along with the new-found fantastic poll rating that it thinks it has.

But the most telling reason of all that the National Party feels so great about its political prospects in New Zealand is the fact that Mr English has now started to be taken seriously by Mr Peters. Apparently, Mr Peters granted Mr English an audience at 3 a.m. at the Hummingbird “convention centre” down Courtenay Place. All of a sudden Mr English feels as though his leadership has purpose and progress, because Mr Peters allows him to drink with him in the early hours of the morning, down at Hummingbird. Those are the kinds of measurements the National Party now makes of its political progress.

The National Party is being run by people who call themselves the brat pack—four MPs who like to go to McDonalds and have their photos taken with one another as they order a Big Mac Combo and, probably, try to trade with each other the little toy that one gets. What happened? The National Party rolled into Parliament in 1990 with 47 percent of the vote. This Chamber was full of National Party MPs. Today, the brat pack is in charge and the party is down at 21 percent. It has gone from 47 percent to 21 percent, and its members believe they are political geniuses. It is extraordinary. They just get everything wrong.

Mr Sowry criticised Mr Horomia for not being able to find out some information within 4 hours. Mr Sowry had 4 and a half hours to get his supplementary question right, and he could not even say the word “kaumatua”. This is the man who wants to be Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and he talks about “kaa-mah-tuas”, whoever and whatever they are. National members have no vision for New Zealand, because they cannot even understand what ordinary New Zealanders care about. It is a terrible state of affairs for them to be in.

John Key gave a speech and talked about Tranz Rail. I congratulate John Key on that. He actually talked about a policy issue, rather than just spouting vitriol, and that is why the seat he is currently occupying in the Chamber, which belongs to Mr English, is one that, I believe, will be thrust upon him very, very shortly. All his colleagues are just useless. He is someone who focuses on the facts. But, of course, getting it wrong being a typical National Party trait, that party gets the issue wrong. On the issue of Tranz Rail, when the country is asking who the idiots were who hocked off our rail service in 1993 and put a key infrastructure investment at risk, and when the Labour-Progressive Government buys back the tracks, securing the assets and infrastructure for New Zealand in a hugely popular move, what does the National Party do? It is so desperate to have a policy that its members come out and oppose something that everyone else thinks is common sense. They are an extraordinary bunch of people in that regard.

So the brat pack must move on. We will give Nick Smith a job as a modern apprentice, doing darning or something like that, so that he can make rugs for Meridian Energy at a low price. We will try to cure Mr Ryall’s bitterness by making him a bank teller at Kiwibank, where he can promote the new credit card. We will give Mr English a job somewhere. He basically agrees with the Government so much that he will limp out of this Parliament, join someone’s Labour electorate committee, and, probably, offer himself as a Labour Party candidate somewhere, but we cannot promise much. As for Mr Sowry, he can pack up his things in his shoebox.

It has been an interesting day in the House. First, I want to touch on some comments that Mr Peters made. I have seen Mr Peters in many forms in and out of the House—we will not go into that—but what he demonstrated today by his brutal attack on John Tamihere, which simply regurgitated a whole lot of things that have been talked about previously in the House by Mr Tamihere, was the biggest display of the politics of envy that I have ever seen. Mr Peters referred to Mr Tamihere’s comments about the old guard in Māoridom. It is very interesting that Mr Peters concentrated on that, because Mr Peters, of course, is the old guard. He is like one of those old wethers—I am not a farmer, but I am told that is a very old sheep—that, when it gets too old, is taken to the works and dealt to.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I wouldn’t describe him as a wether.

What would you describe him as? I say to Mr Peters that he knows that John Tamihere is better than him and twice the politician he is, and I think it has finally got to him.

I want to concentrate on what we have seen in the last week. I want to concentrate on Mr Hide’s attack on Mr Hemana Waaka. At the conclusion of this speech, I will seek leave to table the declaration made before a justice of the peace that was given to Mr Dover Samuels that refutes, according to Mr Waaka, Mr Hide’s allegations, and also challenges Mr Hide to make those allegations outside the House. We have seen that the ACT team is the party of rorters. I, and others, have talked about this. We know that Mr Hide came down to the House and made a personal explanation today, which I will not refer to, and apologised to the House.

He never apologised to the hundreds of New Zealanders who lost millions of dollars in respect of a Fiji rort involving a conference that he attended. He never apologised to Syd Taare, the victim whom Mr Tamihere and I represented. What he did was to send the boys around—the lawyers—and threaten to sue him. He never apologised to the people of New Zealand for ACT denying Donna Awatere Huata her vote in order for ACT to retain $111,000 of taxpayers’ money. The taxpayer is now forced to pay for the biggest beneficiary in our nation, Ms Awatere Huata, who is on $90,000-plus per year, but does not vote and is not allowed to speak. She should be out of here. But, of course, the ACT people somehow reconcile that as a fair go. Mr Hide never apologised regarding the Pipitea Street electoral office rort. I am told that the office is now moving from Pipitea Street to a location close to the High Court, so the walking distance will be shorter—which is quite convenient for Mr Hide and Mr Prebble. He never apologised for that. He never came down to the House and apologised for acting in a thuggish way on Waiheke Island. He never apologised to the person whom he harassed in a certain latrine. He never apologised at all to that person.

Then, of course, he came a gutser yesterday. I am all for accountability, and everybody on the Government side of the House has said that they are all for cutting out corruption and dealing to those who misuse taxpayers’ money. I am all for that. We should get those people. They should be nailed. But what I am against is slander. I do not know Mr Waaka, but when he says that a member of Parliament has wronged him in this House, and challenges the member of Parliament to say it outside the House, I think that member, Mr Hide, should front up and do that. Mr Hide’s modus operandi is very interesting. His modus operandi goes like this: whenever his feet get put to the fire, he whips out a personal explanation, because then we cannot talk about it. Whenever his feet are put to the fire, he is like the school bully hiding behind the teacher—in this case, behind parliamentary privilege.

I would never accuse Mr Hide of being gutless. That would be out of order. I think he has a ton of it. I say to him that he should front up, go outside the House, and lay it all out. But what does he do? He comes in here and grandstands. I acknowledge the issues that we are now dealing with as a Government in terms of corrupt practice, misuse of taxpayers’ money, and people rorting, but I find it just a tad ironic that, when Mr Hide comes down to the House and apologises, he does not apologise to that chap’s family. I do not know him. All I know is that there is a declaration refuting the allegations. Mr Hide does not apologise for the hurt he has caused, but comes down here and grandstands. I say it is about time he fronted up outside the House and showed the guts he possesses.

I seek leave to table a sworn declaration made by one Hemana Waaka JP to one Angela Gillespie JP, outlining and refuting Mr Hide’s allegations.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I think most members would acknowledge that one of the basic rules of the House is that Oppositions should oppose. They should scrutinise Ministers, they should ask questions about departments, and they should make sure that money is spent in the way that it should be spent. That is their job.

It does not matter who or what someone or something is, whether a Māori Minister, a Māori department, or any other part of the State or part of the Government machinery, that person or thing should be under scrutiny and accountable for what is spent. Questions from the Opposition should be able to be answered, in terms of what has been done. Te Māngai Pāho is no different from any other organisation.

It is an organisation that stretches back some time. It goes back to section 53B of the Broadcasting Act 1989, when Te Māngai Pāho was charged with the responsibility of advancing the Māori language and culture by making funds available, on a variety of terms and conditions, so that people could make programmes for broadcast for that purpose. There is a vision that says: “Speak Māori every day, every way, every where." It is a vision that has been very clearly stated and very clearly followed through since that organisation was put together, basically, by Maurice Williamson of the National Party—and well supported, of course, by the National Party.

Problems have arisen with Te Māngai Pāho over the last little while. Quite reasonably, there have been questions asked about what it is doing. That has resulted in the chairperson stepping down, the chief executive officer being on indefinite leave, and Wira Gardiner being brought in to spend his time as chairperson of that organisation, ensuring that everything is being run as it should be, and that it is being properly overseen by the Minister of Māori Affairs, who is keen to make sure everything works as it should.

Through all of this, of course, has run the number of questions raised by members of the House—in particular, Mr Rodney Hide. Mr Rodney Hide has raised a number of questions, usually by coming down at question time, standing, and, in a pontificating way, saying across the House in that imperious tone of his that he wants answers to some latest accusation that he wants to raise. And he has raised many. He has wanted to cast aspersions on all the activities of Te Māngai Pāho, despite his being repeatedly told that, out of the many contracts let by this organisation, only a few of them are in question at all, and despite his having access to reports from the Auditor-General and other people who tell us that, overall, this organisation is running well and doing its job as it should.

There is a definable, small problem here to be resolved. Mr Hide comes down to the House time and time again to raise questions. I ask this question of the House: if this organisation were not a Māori organisation, would Mr Hide have been doing this? This is the litmus test. Mr Hide came down here yesterday, asked his question yet again, and told us the long story of a sad saga about broadcasting that he had to reveal to us. Then I woke up this morning to find, like everybody else, that Mr Hide would not appear on the radio. He could not be found. He had nothing to say. He did not know what was going on with his question, because, as it now turns out, he has had to apologise for having absolutely no evidence at all. That is the test that I do not think Mr Hide has passed. Mr Hide would not have come down to the House without evidence, and assumed that something was wrong, assumed that he could get away with saying whatever he liked about this organisation without proof, and assumed that somehow it would just be OK—that he could make these kinds of accusations without any proof, and he would get away with it, it would be OK—if it were a Pākehā organisation. I do not believe he would have done that to the Inland Revenue Department, to the Ministry of Social Development, or to Treasury; he would have got his facts right.

Mr Hide is no fool. Mr Hide is a man who spends his time in the gutter, getting the scandals out—that is the nature of his trade as a parliamentarian. He is not a Don Brash; he does not want the issues. He wants only one thing—the scandals. He checks his facts, usually before he comes down, but not this time. That really does raise something in my mind that I want to reflect on today, and that I want members to reflect on. We all say to each other in here that there is one rule of accountability for us all, and we agree with that. Well, let us see Mr Hide do that. Let us see Mr Hide come down here and raise questions only when he has proof, and not cast aspersions, as he did yesterday, that prove to be wrong.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.