General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I rise on behalf of the ACT party to raise three issues quickly in this general debate: the issue of the foreshore, the issue involving Mr Williamson that we see on television, and the very interesting deputation to Parliament this week from representatives of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Firstly, on the issue of the foreshore, I recommend to members of Parliament that they take the trouble to do something that I do not think the Government has done—that is, to read the Court of Appeal’s decision. No judge in the Court of Appeal ruled that any Māori has any right to the foreshore or seabed. In fact, when we analyse what the Court of Appeal did, we find that all it stated was that under the rule of law a citizen can go to the court to assert his or her rights of ownership. The question that I ask Government members—and they should be answering it—is this: why are they not allowing the court cases to proceed?

As a lawyer, I advise the House that Māori will have great difficulty in succeeding. Indeed, in the particular case of Marlborough, the Chief Justice expressed a doubt as to whether they would succeed. Why is it a good reason to go for a court case? Well, we should look at the possible outcomes. A case could go to court and be turned down. In that event, we do not have to legislate or do anything. If a case went to court and Māori won, at that point the Government would know exactly what property rights Māori have. If the Government is saying—and I support this—that the public should have access to our beaches, then at that point we could work out exactly what property rights, if any, need to be bought by the taxpayer.

But what we now have is a lose-lose-lose situation. Every young Māori in the country thinks that every Māori owns the foreshore, so young Māori have a great sense that there is an injustice. They think the Government will pull out its chequebook and write out huge cheques. It is not just young Māori but young and old Māori who think they own the foreshore, when they possibly do not.

💬 Darren Hughes: How do you know?

I have been watching the television and hearing the statements that are being made, and I wish the Government member would also do that.

Government members should stop playing politics. I tell them that I made a similar recommendation to the Lange Labour Government in respect of the fishing case, which I said should be taken to court. I predicted that if we did not take it to court, there would be a huge bill. Who has been proved to be right? That matter still has not been settled. I remember Geoffrey Palmer telling me that it might take 6 years to settle if the case were taken to court. Well, it has now taken more than 12 years, and there has been no settlement.

On the question of Mr Williamson, I say to him briefly that I would love to see him back at the Commerce Committee. I do not get there as often as I would like to, but I think it would be a good idea if he went to the committee. It would be a good idea if he and the National Party recognised they should settle the issues. It takes two to settle, so I say that to both parties. I warn the National Party and Mr Williamson that if there is a by-election in Pakuranga, the ACT party intends to win it.

💬 Peter Brown: Ha, ha!

If the member wants to laugh, let him make my day! But he should not tell me later that we did not give him fair warning of that.

Finally, I ask the Government why representatives of the Sensible Sentencing Trust turned up in Parliament this week. They turned up—[Interruption]—and the member should have gone and met those victims of crime, instead of laughing as he now is. They turned up because under this Labour Government violent crime has gone up by 13.3 percent, robberies have gone up by 15.8 percent—those are the Government’s own figures—grievous assaults are up by 21 percent, and sexual offences are up by 16 percent.

This Government’s soft-on-crime approach does not work. It is a disgrace that the Prime Minister could not find time to meet the victims of crime. She is prepared to meet the Government’s own pet groups, but she did not have time to meet the victims of crime. The No. 1 responsibility of the State is to provide order and the rule of law, and this Government is failing to do that. I also give notice to the Government that the ACT party will respond to the sensible sentencing legislation.

There was, I think in the words of Winston Peters, a palpable and demonstrable excitement amongst the few remaining National Party members at the prospect of the recent National Party conference. After the election loss in 1999, the dumping of Jenny Shipley, the dawning realisation that the brat pack, as it was called, moved too early, the election thrashing in 2002, horrible polling, leadership rumbles from Gerry Brownlee and the new Mogadon man, Don Brash, the conference looked like an opportunity for the National Party to get together and maybe to start again. But, proving that even in the age of the decriminalisation of prostitution the National Party could not organise a good time in a house of ill-repute, it all went wrong.

Striding into the midst of the celebrations like a demented morris dancer came the lowest-ranked National MP, bells clanging, and handkerchiefs waving. Night after night on the television Maurice Williamson pointed out that the National Party was going nowhere, and that the No. 1 issue for the National Party conference was to find out the reason for that. National Party officials were stunned. How could Maurice Williamson do that to them? How could he not dance in uniform round the maypole with the rest of them? The National Party might have been wondering why Maurice Williamson acted as he did. The rest of us were wondering why the National Party did not fix that matter before the most important conference in 30 years took place.

Why did it not fix it? After all, Maurice Williamson has constantly criticised the National Party. From his lowest-possible position in the National Party, after he was demoted, he has told National that it was not doing well, and this is what he said: “I haven’t criticised Bill English. I’ve talked about the fact that we need to deliver a performance that the public sees as credible.” He said that English lacked “excitement, charisma, humour, personality, or talent”, and what is wrong with that? He described the National Party as being like the Titanic: “I’m yelling. Will somebody tell the orchestra to shut up? Will everybody get on deck and man the lifeboats? I am not prepared to sleepwalk to defeat once again, having done just that the last time. I guess”—speaking of Bill English, the leader—“he’s the 2000 equivalent of Bill Birch. You vitally need people like that in the team, but there’s no way you would have thought that Bill Birch would be a leader. Bill was about as boring as watching paint dry, and that’s probably a bit unfair on the paint.”

Those kinds of statements were summarised by Maurice Williamson’s electorate vice-chairman, John Upton, who said: “Maurice doesn’t suffer fools gladly.” Linda Clark, the interviewer, asked him: “You mean Bill English?”. John Upton said: “Well, yes, that’s exactly who I mean.” One would think that if one were running the National Party and somebody who had been demoted to the lowest-possible position in the National Party had been frequently saying those kinds of things, one would get alongside him or her and ask to sort the matter out before it got to the conference. But the National Party did not do that. Maurice Williamson arrived at the conference, National did nothing, and it turned into a farce.

Mr Brownlee and Mr English were screaming at Mr Williamson, the soon-to-be-defunct women’s branch moved a motion of censure for the not-yet-put-in-place board to carry out, Mr Williamson was threatened with being cut off from being in the party, and the whole thing looked, as one person said in the media—and with great sympathy in my heart I say this to my friend Mr Power over there on the Opposition benches—like one was watching a slow-motion train wreck take place over that whole weekend. It was like watching a slow-motion train wreck.

Members on the Government side of the House just watch Simon Power and the National Party in amazement. We watch them in amazement as they continue to unravel, without being able to break out of that. The National Party is now a fiction. As Mr Williamson said, National members are irrelevant. They stand for nothing; they have no policy. Their constituency has gone to New Zealand First, to United Future, and, in the case of the central part of the constituency, to Labour. That leaves them being no Opposition at all.

The New Zealand beaches belong to everybody. The seabed, foreshore, and beaches of the Marlborough Sounds belong to everybody. The issue of ownership of the seabed and foreshore is the line in the sand for New Zealanders. I grew up in the Marlborough Sounds. As a child I played on the beach, took the mail boat home on a Friday night, and fished in the Marlborough Sounds. It is the New Zealand way of life to be able to walk on a beach and to be able to fish. It is part of the freedom that is at the heart of all New Zealanders.

I went to the Chatham Islands a few years ago. I got up in the morning and went for my usual run, and was ordered off the beach. It belonged to somebody else. That really brought home to me that the beaches should belong to all New Zealanders, and that we should all have access to them. Māori try to reassure us that our access will be maintained, but that cannot be guaranteed if ownership passes to the hands of individuals or groups. That would be a creeping erosion of the rights of New Zealanders. The Māori Land Court should not have jurisdiction over the foreshore and the seabed. The land is the land. The foreshore and seabed must remain in Crown ownership, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. If Labour does not introduce legislation to confirm the title of the beaches, foreshore, and seabed, and to extinguish any claim for customary title, National will do so. That legislation does not give rise to any matters of compensation.

We have had enough of Labour’s spin and duplicity, and of Labour holding secret discussions behind closed doors. I recall that when I came into this House Tariana Turia said to me in a speech that I was a visitor in her House. I tell members that I am no visitor to New Zealand. I am a fifth-generation New Zealander who loves this land as much as anybody, and I will not have my rights as a New Zealander of European descent trampled over. This issue is causing a great depth of feeling, an outpouring of emotion in New Zealand society, anger, frustration, concern, and distrust of this Government on the part of the New Zealand public. Labour MPs need to listen to the public. They are misjudging the depth of feeling amongst the New Zealand public about this issue.

National has given members of the public a chance to have their say. I shall read a few of the things that they have been saying. “If we divide the country by race, we fall into the age-old race / religion / ethnic issues that have destroyed many countries.” That is from a person in Auckland. This is from someone who is overseas: “There is a time when all people of the land, everyone who is a proud New Zealander, must pull together and fight for common sense and the rights of the people.” This is from another person in Auckland: “I agree. This is the greatest issue of separation of Crown and Māori in New Zealand for a long time. I agree that Māori have had past injustices done to them, but which people have not? That does not justify anything. It is a fact. Would the treaty have been created if such claims as this were possible? I think not. We as a whole country must work together to solve this issue, or I fear we will wake one day in a nightmare.”

Someone from Hamilton wrote this to the Prime Minister, Helen Clark: “I am a 34-year-old married male New Zealander, driven to anger and frustration by the current claim of ownership by Māori of the foreshore and seabed, and how it has been handled. This claim undermines the very essence of our country’s freedom. What is compounding the matter is Labour’s decision to deal with this behind closed doors. This is a national issue, not one to be discussed behind closed doors. Essentially, a wedge is being driven into our community by this claim, and the way it is being dealt with. It tells me that I am not, in fact, a New Zealander but maybe an individual renting a spot in a country owned by a small minority of its population. I am ethnically inferior. If the claim is ratified, my tenancy agreement is dissolved.”

I want to present a bit of a ballad this afternoon during the general debate. It is called the “Deadwood - Blues Brothers Blues Ballad”.

I want to dedicate my ballad to a young east Auckland man—a young east Auckland man who has been described by his constituents as honest, and as being the only one who is prepared to stand up and tell the truth. His constituents say he is their MP, and they are proud of him—

💬 Phil Heatley: From Whangarei?

No, they are not from Whangarei; they are from Pakuranga. The man from east Auckland has been described by his former friend and colleague Bill English as being “capable and talented”; and is described by other current friends and colleagues as “energetic and able”. This same man, in a TV3-NFO poll last week was described by 66 percent of people as a person whom they did not want the National caucus to suspend. So 66 percent of the people who vote National said no to that, and 74 percent of National voters said he should not be expelled from the party. That same man, Maurice Williamson, once said: “This is a job where you are a rooster today and a feather duster tomorrow.”

Maurice Williamson has been in Parliament since 1987, and I frankly hope he is here for a lot longer—and not just for fairly obvious party political reasons. Leaving all party politics aside—[Interruption] well, perhaps not all, but a lot—I say Maurice Williamson is a capable, energetic, talented, and able person. He has always been someone to speak his mind, and, clearly, is one of the few people left within the National caucus who have the ability to do that. He said, a little while ago: “A few ill-informed commentators have said, ‘There’s only one way for National from here, and that’s up.’, and I say they’re wrong. If we don’t make significant changes, if we don’t go back to our grass roots, then we’re doomed to languish in the mid to low 20s.” Yet again, he was right. But what was his most recent error, in the view of his former friend and colleague Bill English? It was to say that Bill English should be put on notice, and should be sacked as National’s leader if the party does not get two decent poll results during the next 12 months. So for saying that, Maurice Williamson is out.

The editorials around the country have been absolutely consistent on this issue over the last week. They have stated a lot of really good things, but one of the best comments is from Hawke’s Bay Today. I must admit I do not quote frequently from that newspaper in the House, but this quote is well worth reading. It starts off by asking:

“What on earth is up with the National Party?”, and ends with this statement: “Mr Williamson may be irritating, but National is not going to rise to challenge Labour by shooting the messenger. It would be better listening to the message.” Every single editorial and commentator has said exactly the same thing. Maurice Williamson is the only person in the National caucus who is prepared to say publicly what I know many of his other colleagues have been saying not very quietly and not very privately.

There are a lot of reasons that Maurice Williamson would say negative things about Bill English. I thought one of Maurice Williamson’s more astute comments compared Bill English to Bill Birch, who made an extraordinary contribution in this House. I did not agree with his politics, but I found him to be an extraordinarily competent member of Parliament. Maurice Williamson said that Bill English is the “2000 equivalent of Bill Birch. You vitally need people like that in the team, but there’s no way you would ever have thought Bill Birch would be the leader’’—and nobody thinks of Bill English as the leader, either.

Bill English has been very quick to defend his own position, unlike most of his front-bench and other colleagues, with the exception of Nick Smith. In fact, when Bill English was discussing this issue with the media he said that the issue was not about his leadership, of which Mr Williamson had been a harsh critic. “I don’t think it is seen by anyone as about the leadership.”, he said. “The point here isn’t what I think about it. The point is what everyone thinks about it. It is not about my leadership. This is a very big step to consider.” After saying it was not about his leadership, Bill English went on to say: “It’s not about free speech, either. It’s about whether people can work with people or not. It is not about my leadership.” The National caucus then went on to suspend Maurice Williamson, in a secret ballot.

I trust—[Interruption] Well, Government members have finally woken up. After listening to Ruth Dyson, who put them to sleep, they have finally woken up. I hope that members on this side of the House will also be granted an hour each, because that is how long that speech seemed to go for. I say to the member who has just sat down, that she was about as sincere in that speech about Maurice Williamson as she was when she was president of the Labour Party, defending David Lange and Roger Douglas around New Zealand. I have to say, there is a member who could do much better than that; and there are members opposite who sat through that speech looking like they were watching their cat being spayed: “It was something you have to do, but you just don’t enjoy it.” Steve Maharey spoke. Nobody chipped in; nobody was behind him on that.

I tell the House, the reason is pretty simple. That caucus knows that it is on a hiding to nothing, over the foreshore and seabed issue. Let us see whether Georgina Beyer, who represents a general electorate rural seat, turns up to the Federated Farmers meeting tonight to talk about the flatulence tax. Let us see whether Georgina Beyer is walking around Wairarapa talking to the constituents of Wairarapa about seabed and foreshore rights. I bet a pint those words have not come out of her mouth, while she has been walking around the Wairarapa electorate.

Although Darren Hughes, the member from Otaki sits there and is busy telling us the foreshore issue will be solved, we on this side of the House know that another devious, slippery deal is getting done behind closed doors about that issue, and we will be monitoring that, right from start to finish.

Parliament can legislate to fix this issue, very, very quickly. What we have seen from this Government is the proposal to do that—a back-down; other MPs saying that it will not happen; other MPs on the radio saying that it will happen. I say this to those members opposite sitting in those Government benches, that talking about the possibility of mooting things like “dual title”, or “honorary title”, or “guardianship” will buy one thing for that Government—that is, an election hiding like they have never experienced before.

I want to follow the comments made by my colleague Dr Scott and say that any compromise this Government thinks it can put into place, using terms like “guardianship”, or “honorary title”, will only result in this issue coming back to bite them in a big way, when we are standing on the platforms around this country during the next election campaign.

We have, as my colleague Dr Scott pointed out, spent some time finding out what the public of New Zealand is saying about the Government’s oscillation on this issue. At 11 o’clock on Monday we set up a website to monitor what New Zealanders had to say. Since that time 10,000 hits have occurred on that website. I say to members who represent general constituencies that 10,000 hits is big trouble for those of them sitting on majorities of 5,000 or less. It is big trouble, indeed.

Comments like this have been flowing in: “Labour stands for hidden agendas. I don’t trust their management of our natural assets, at all.”; things like: “I’m a long-time user of the sea, seabed, and beaches, and it’s a great shame not to be able to use certain pieces, because this Government wants to let us down.” The foreshore and seabed issue is the last straw, constituents say, and another says: “I’d be prepared to fight for the right of myself and my family to freely wander on beaches, and fish in waterways.” I say that members opposite have badly misread the New Zealand public if they think that members on this side of the House will not represent those views, right to the bitter end. The slipperiness that the deputy leader of the Labour Party and the Attorney-General have indulged in over the different use of terminology relating to this issue will come back to haunt them. There is no consistency in the approach that is being taken from members opposite, and New Zealanders have had an absolute gutsful.

As one visitor to the website said: “One country, one law for all, with the same rights for everyone. It is time for this nonsense to stop.” One further submitter to the website had this to say: “I am European, Ngāi Tahu, but most important of all, I am a New Zealander.” I believe that New Zealanders all over this country are appalled by the slipperiness and deviousness with which this Government is undertaking this issue, and we will hold it to account.

Let me say to that member that he should just be a little careful about believing his own rhetoric. I remember some very, very brave words being said about Iraq. I wonder whether they have set up a website to say: “We’re sorry. We got it wrong on Iraq.” That member is young enough to have a bit of promise in this place, and could be around for some time. It is right that he is not in the leadership yet. It is right he is not there yet, but his turn is coming, and I say to him that there is an old saying: “Act in haste and repent at leisure.” I counsel him to think on that.

I want to talk about Bill English. I really do not know why. I suppose it is because he is so incompetent. He cannot even manage a sacking. He is so in control of his political party that he allows an advisory committee to hijack his conference. Let us get that clear: it was not Maurice Williamson who hijacked the conference. It was Bill English’s little friends from the south on the Women’s Advisory Committee who, without Mr English’s knowledge, decided to do something about Maurice Williamson. Why did they do that? Because they are the last vestige of Michelle Boag’s supporters.

Of course, Mr English was a very strong supporter of Michelle Boag, and we all remember what Maurice Williamson said after the election. He said that it was time to lance the boil on the bottom of the National Party. He was talking about Michelle Boag, and, unfortunately for Maurice Williamson, the boil bit back. The boil bit back with Bill English’s knowledge and support, and it destroyed the entire National Party conference.

How is that for management? Here we are listening to an Opposition that is trying to make out that the Government is in some trouble. I say to Simon Power that they will never be seen as an alternative Government while this side of the House laughs at them. When they stand in the House and make speeches, they are laughed at because they are simply not believed. That is a shame for a once-proud political party, and I tell him and his party that they have to start looking.

We also remember that Bill English is blaming Maurice Williamson for the National Party conference debacle. Well, let us go back to another thing that Maurice Williamson reminded Mr English about. It goes this way: it is a bit rich to blame the assistant tea boy when the ship is sinking, rather than the captain and the officers on the bridge. That is the issue. What has happened as a result of the conference? Well, Mr English’s little cheer squad is no longer around. The women’s organisation has been restructured. Not even Georgina te Heuheu could support Bill English’s rather badly chosen words about Māori recently. She could not support him, and she is embarrassed by him.

Who is the only woman on their board? There is one woman on their board, and that is poor old Judy Kirk. I suppose Eric Roy will end up being the women’s officer on the National Party board. That is Bill English, though. That is him—no judgment, no strategic vision, and no future. But that also explains one other thing. The question, really, is this: was yesterday’s decision to exclude Maurice Williamson from the conference unanimous? Was it? No. There are some wise people in the National Party, led by Don Brash, who were not prepared to back that resolution. Don Brash is prepared to lead a group of people who actually want to see some strategic vision and some thought put in.

Who are the people who are actually supporting Don Brash in his sensible approach? None other than a very credible and thoughtful lawyer: Richard Worth! He is prepared to support an alternative approach to what the National Party has adopted. Also, supporting Don Brash is the new face—the face that is actually going to push Simon Power into a position where he will have to compete—and that is John Key. Those members know that they cannot treat a member of Parliament the way they have treated Maurice Williamson.

They know that; and let me tell them one other thing: while Mr English has been going around closing his electorate offices in Balclutha and Invercargill, he has been putting up billboards, going on about one standard of citizenship for all. What about one standard of citizenship for the National Party caucus? What is wrong with a member of Parliament taking on an alternative point of view when he does not agree with the leader? The message for the country is this: “If you disagree with Bill English, we will get rid of you.”

A couple of weeks ago the Government finally released the report of the panel set up last year to review the capacity and the capability of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to carry out the increased responsibilities it will have if the moratorium on the release of genetically engineered (GE) crops and animals is lifted in October. I have to speak about this matter during the general debate because it was judged yesterday not to be sufficiently important to require the time of the House in an urgent debate. But that report should worry every member of this Parliament who voted last year to lift the moratorium and who will shortly have to vote on legislation to facilitate that release by allowing for conditions to be set.

The Government has said repeatedly that it is proceeding with caution in the release of GE organisms. Its whole case for allowing release rests on the cautious, case by case assessment by an expert body, which is the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Keen to wash its hands of any political responsibility for the possible consequences of release, it is leaving more and more to the expert judgment of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Yet this review, initiated by the Government and commissioned by the Government, with terms of reference agreed with the Green Party, has now shown that this expert body is not sufficiently expert; that it is dysfunctional; that the authority has allowed the staff to usurp its role of making judgments; that its chief executive regularly rewrites staff scientific reports without giving reasons; that it is rule-bound and has a culture of ticking the boxes to avoid judicial review, rather than taking a strategic approach in considering the big picture; that it weighs evidence from applicants more heavily than evidence from submitters; and that it is more concerned with the risk of missing an opportunity to profit from genetic engineering than it is with the risks of damage from a consent gone wrong. If this is a picture of the body that is all that stands between us and the destruction of our agricultural markets, then we should be very, very afraid.

The question is: can it be fixed by October? Replies to my questions in the House yesterday by the Minister for the Environment are not reassuring. Challenged with the finding of the review team—that the authority has a skewed approach to risk, treats applicants more seriously than submitters, and does not give the same attention to the benefits of caution as it does to the benefits of taking risks—the Minister could only quote, out of context, a remark that the authority should be more flexible. This related in the review to the tendency for the authority to merely tick boxes and get bogged down in a rigid process, but the Minister has seized on the word “flexible” and used it to mean that the Environmental Risk Management Authority should be even more tolerant of risk than it currently is.

The Minister continues to claim that the authority and its staff have the necessary skills and expertise to do their job. That is in direct contradiction of the review, which states that authority members lack skills in gene technology, ecology, and social science, and that staff are missing expertise in environmental or public police development and strategic planning. These are not minor matters, one would have thought, given what the authority is in charge of.

The review also referred to monitoring mishaps, tardy compliance reports, non-detection of errors, and tensions between the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on regulating compliance matters, which in its opinion is where the environmental risk management system is most vulnerable. The Minister has moved, in new legislation, to clarify that the ministry is responsible for compliance, but the new system has not been tested and it will not have been by the time it is required to cope with the release of GE organisms.

The key issue for those anxious about whether we have an adequate system in place is that the Government, in the 4 months since it received this report, has done nothing of note. The same members and the same chief executive are in place. The public is not confident that the remaining 3 months until the lifting of the moratorium are sufficient to address all these deficiencies, if in fact the Minister wants to address them, which is not clear. The sole safeguard on the release of GE organisms is a supposed strict regulatory system, managed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. This has fallen down, to the point where we can no longer claim that release is subject to strict oversight and safety systems. It must, at the very least, be delayed until these matters are remedied.

Evidence is accumulating that the public agrees. In the last 2 weeks one poll showed that 54 percent of New Zealanders, including two-thirds of Labour’s own voters, want the moratorium extended in its totality. Today’s release of a Colmar Brunton poll shows that 80 percent of New Zealanders want the moratorium continued for food, at least until our export markets will accept GE products.

Today I want to share the fact that life is not a game of Monopoly. My brief appeal today is for every member of this Parliament to stop playing Monopoly with other people’s precious lives. Yesterday, a very small number of brave MPs attended a meeting, and heard and saw heart-wrenching, graphic, life-and-death stories from some mums and dads and friends of people who have been murdered in this country. Each of them expressed the point that as a result of a vicious murderer, they were now innocent victims of what is no more than a gutless justice system. As a result, in their minds people are saying that the murderer is out of jail, but they, the victims, are still in jail. They made a very strong plea for all MPs, and this Parliament in particular, to give actual meaning to the words “Life means life.”

So today, along with those who were there, and together with my United Future colleagues, I join their cries for justice. They meant there should be no parole ever again. Many of the murders we heard about yesterday were committed while the murderer was on parole, or indeed on bail. As in the game of Monopoly, “Go to jail.” means just that, not: go on some well-kept visit or holiday programme for a few years. As in the game of Monopoly, “Do not pass Go.” must mean that. There is no revolving door; the door is closed, once someone is inside. As in the game of Monopoly, “Do not collect $200.” means just that. No financial help for the murderer is required. As in the game of Monopoly, I notice that everyone else can then go about their lives peacefully and gainfully.

Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister stating that a dog that had mauled a child should be killed and the owner face serious charges, and at the same time making a speedy promise to put legislation into place to stop vicious dog breeds—with which I believe that everyone agreed. But is there any urgency about the two-legged mongrels who have killed innocent citizens in this country? The answer is no. These victims come from next door. They come from every walk of life, from all around New Zealand. They voted us to be here in this building, in Parliament, to be their voice. They are disillusioned—yes, some even mentioned they were bitter—by our New Zealand justice system. They cried out against the liberal do-gooders who somehow have hidden themselves in this Parliament.

As an MP, I am ashamed at the lack of fortitude among us all. My colleague Marc Alexander in February this year, in this Parliament, called for a cross-party voice for these victims. I sincerely reopen that invitation to us all. New Zealanders want some hope from us. Let us return their trust by doing something together in this MMP environment. United Future members add their voice to the Sensible Sentencing Trust and to the tens of thousands of Kiwis who, by the way, have had enough. A life sentence must mean life, with no parole. That, surely, is a clear, common-sense message.

The United Future MP, the man who sits on the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Marc Alexander, did not negotiate one of the things mentioned in that speech at the time that that party gave its support to the Labour Party. Enough said! A number of years ago a famous Englishman, Winston Churchill, said: “The truth is so precious it must be protected by a bodyguard of liars.”—everywhere but here

He was referring, of course, to the English Parliament. We New Zealanders claim to live in a democracy, and in a democracy Parliament holds the executive accountable. That is done in a number of ways, in and throughout Western societies that have had democracy for centuries. One of the most critical means of accountability in Parliament is question time, which should be substantial and it should be real. In New Zealand’s Parliament today, question time has become a veneer, a charade, a sham, an abject disgrace. For the first time in New Zealand’s political history, a Prime Minister is failing constantly to front at question time in Parliament, and hitherto she has got away with it.

This is the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who will go anywhere and everywhere for a photo opportunity or for a soft news story—anywhere and everywhere, but Parliament. Her first duty is to Parliament and to the people of this country—but she will not front up. She operates in a cocoon of spin and image creation, such that her whole public relations image is unrecognisable from the real person—so much so, that when she went overseas recently to Asia, the people, having seen her climb off the plane, were still waiting for the Prime Minister whose photograph they held. That is what they pass in the Labour Party as a fair presentation, and she thinks she will get away with it. Our warning from New Zealand First to this Parliament, and to those who would seek to circumscribe our rights, is that she will not succeed in doing that. She will answer in this Parliament this week, after a 2-week break, only one question, and then she will vanish.

She has been asked countless questions, all of which have been wrongly referred to other Ministers, and in some cases to Ministers who are not present. That is a disgrace. She has used every parliamentary device to avoid being accountable, and she is being protected. She is being shielded and she is being wrongfully cocooned, to avoid exposing her most serious shortcoming, the inability to front on the political stage as every other leader has done and is required to do, both in this country and in every other Western democracy.

This idea that she can have one public meeting and vanish for the rest of the day and get the 6 o’clock news is going to stop the moment we have an unbiased, neutral parliamentary reporting system. This idea that she can avoid coming to this Parliament is going to stop the moment people stop trying to protect her in this House.

Today’s question time, according to this parliamentary transcript, was an abject disgrace. We have the tape, and we intend to prove just what a disgrace it was. Members should check the record of question No 6. Mr English was sitting. He had no intention, by his own confession—and I am grateful to him that he admitted it—to ask any question, yet someone got expelled for demanding his right to ask a question. How can that be explained?

Members should go and look at the Hansard record of the numerous explanations as to how it arose. The fact is, that if someone’s behaviour is being objected to, parliamentary precedent requires that the objection be at the first available opportunity. That so-called defence is not available to him. It is a disgrace, and we will not—unlike other parties—sit here mute, without a syllable, a sound, a mutter, or a murmur, and put up with it. We have the record, and we say that it has to stop. We will not go on being warned every time that there is a challenge to the correct proceedings of Parliament.

Members should remember this: every warning is a spur to us. Every slight is a motivation to us. We do not intend to put up with it. We know why it is going on. Members can laugh, but I know how people are bought off in this Parliament. The venal preferment or promotion elsewhere for their silence constantly contaminates the proceedings of Parliament. We know why it happens, but we do not intend to put up with it. In a court of law, the person charged with giving evidence is required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The New Zealand people deserve an apology, and so do I.

I want to speak about one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders. It is becoming very apparent to us in this very united party on this side of the House that it is fine for all of those people in the National Party who sit outside their caucus, because they believe in one standard of citizenship for New Zealanders, but within their own caucus they do not. What do you do with the one person who is prepared to challenge you and the dominant view? You sort him out and send him out. You cannot stand to be challenged. You have to have a dominant view, and you do not want to listen to minority views from those outside the caucus.

💬 Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member used the term “you”, I think, four times. Colleagues on this side of the House have kindly pointed that out to her directly. She used it another four times—

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

💬 Phil Heatley: I am concerned for you, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I accept that. The member will desist from using “you”.

Let us look back at what the Leader of the Opposition believes that one standard of citizenship actually means. When they were polled, 60 percent of New Zealanders did not even know what it meant. It is a slogan; it is all about the rhetoric that the Opposition stands for.

I say that we are a party that will sort out those issues. We are prepared to front the difficult issues of access, customary rights, seabed ownership, and the Supreme Court. When I see our Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations walking out with the Minister of Māori Affairs to hui in this country—two people walking together to build a nation that gives my children hope for the future—I am glad that we are in Government. The Opposition simply stands for divisiveness and destruction of nationhood. That is an Opposition that cannot stand minority or other points of view.

Why on earth have National Party members shot themselves in the foot trying to wrench a loaded gun off Maurice Williamson? Even two senior MPs in the National Party have said that Mr English showed really poor political skills and a lack of a political nose in allowing that entire debacle to overshadow the conference. That conference was to be the flagship of new policies and new radical change. Where on earth will that come from in that wretched Opposition? It will certainly not come from Nick Smith, who was out paddling his waka on our lakes. He comes up there every now and then when he needs to get away from the heat in his own mates’ kitchen and wants to boost National Party membership. I want to read the House a letter from someone who wrote: “To see the Opposition spokesman on the environment paddling on Lake Rotoiti with a face mask on Sunday made our blood boil. I guess he did not think what the downstream effect of his grandstanding would do for our business and other small businesses who use Lake Rotoiti and other lakes in our region.”

It is strange how a few years in Opposition dims some memories. What did his Government do about the water quality in our lakes when it was in power? Absolutely nothing! Nothing will be coming from Nick Smith while he is paddling in our waters. I am very proud that he got access to our lakes, and he will always be guaranteed access while we are in Government. We will ensure that that continues for all New Zealanders, and we will do that by consultation between two peoples—tatou tatou, we together. We will sort out the waters of our taonga in our region, and it will be a joint approach, with the oversight of authorities, local government, and Government.

That Opposition spokesperson then invited someone quite close to him, the Commissioner for the Environment, to oversee our lakes and sort out water quality. We have sorted it out. Before he even invited the commissioner, we had set up a joint committee to look at water quality and oversee the two authorities that have an action plan and are getting on and doing it, with some contribution from the Crown.

Where else will those new ideas come from? We heard appalling comments in the Chamber last night from both ACT and National about race-based funding in health, and we are sick of it.

We have had 10,000 New Zealanders visit our website on the beach issue. They are appalled that Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark are selling the beaches down the road, and they do not like the idea of Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark selling the beaches down the road.

💬 Darren Hughes: If you’re going to exaggerate, say a million.

Darren Hughes might pipe up. I would like members to know that of the 10,000 people who have visited our website, 2,000 came from Otaki. They said they would like to object to Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson selling the beaches down the road. Do members know what those people’s question was? They wanted to know who their local MP was, because they wanted to write to “her”. I said that it was Hughes, and they said: “Mrs Hughes? What’s her first name? We want to write to her.” Two thousand New Zealanders from Otaki do not even know who their local MP is.

Of those replies, a third talked about the stupidity of this Labour Government pandering to its voter base and selling the beaches down the road. One person said: “I can’t believe we’re even discussing this. Keep our treasures for everyone to enjoy, please. Definitely, all foreshore to be owned by the Crown. We are all New Zealanders, and it’s time for all who live here to realise we’re not living in the past. We all have the use of our wonderful land—beaches, sea, to look after and pass on to our children to do the same, with no segregation of race or otherwise.”

New Zealand is very, very upset about this issue. New Zealanders know that this Labour Government is all at sea over it. About 3 weeks ago, New Zealanders saw Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark say that they would legislate to secure what everyone has always known to be true, which is that the beaches and the seabed belong to all New Zealanders. In fact, in our local paper, the Northern Advocate, Margaret Wilson said: “The Crown is going to clarify this. In fact, the seabed and foreshore is owned by all New Zealanders in the form of the Crown.” She said: “Everybody has always believed that that situation already existed.”

That is what Margaret Wilson said 3 or 4 weeks ago. That is what Helen Clark said 3 or 4 weeks ago, but they have done nothing in that month except to have hui and meetings, and, behind closed doors, chat to their voter base. They have no interest in all New Zealanders, Māori included, visiting the beaches, taking their kids out for a picnic, going fishing, mooring a boat, or doing anything else. That concerns me; it concerns 10,000 New Zealanders—2,000 from Otaki who do not know who their local MP is—and I bring that information to the House today.

Do members know what Māori are saying about this issue? Māori are saying, for example: “I am a Ngāpuhi descendant, but a New Zealander first and foremost. All New Zealanders should have equal rights regardless of race if we are ever going to achieve one unified country.” Another response to our website was: “I am a Māori, a Kiwi, and proud of it, but this is just insane. What next do these radicals want to take ownership of—the air from me and all my fellow Kiwis, the air that we breathe? We play sport together”, this New Zealander said, “so we should share the beaches together.”

I wonder what the other MP from Whangarei, Brian Donnelly, thought of that speech. I think Mr Donnelly would have been embarrassed to think that someone from up his way would have said something like that. Mr Heatley said that 10,000 people were visiting his website. Well, have not the National MPs been busy over the last little while? Their research unit, their members of Parliament, and the half dozen members of the National Party are now all on the website day and night, trying to get the numbers of people up to 10,000—but no one, of course, believes that.

There should be one standard of membership in the National Party, but unfortunately we now have two standards: Koru Club members, who are those who support Bill English, and the economy class—the ones down the back—who are Maurice Williamson supporters. I would venture to guess that those two members over on the other side of the House, Phil Heatley from Whangarei—I bet he is a Koru Club member and voted against Maurice Williamson—

💬 Phil Heatley: Are you a betting man?

I am a betting man. Did he vote for Maurice Williamson? He will not say that. What do members reckon about Simon Power—a man with an eye for the future? If he is the future leader, God help the National Party! Did Simon Power vote for Maurice Williamson, or not? No, he is not saying, either, but I reckon both of them put their finger up. They tested the wind and—well, we will not go there. But Simon Power would have tested the wind, and both of those members would have voted against Maurice Williamson. That is a shame and a tragedy, because we have not come here to bury Maurice Williamson. We have come to praise him, because he is somebody who does understand the new, modern economy. He is the only one, actually, who understands anything to do with information technology, communications, or anything new. The National Party is locked in the last century, and without Maurice Williamson it does not have a hope.

What was poor old Maurice Williamson’s crime—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Telling the truth.

His crime was exactly that—telling the truth. Simon Power voted against Mr Williamson because he told the truth. Maurice Williamson said that in business excuses do not get accepted. No one cares if people have been working hard and putting out lots of brochures and other material. If their sales are low, they will not be kept on. He was proposing a performance agreement.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Did Murray McCully vote for him?

Murray McCully would not have voted for Maurice Williamson. Murray McCully used to be a friend of his, but Murray McCully is an old yachtsman—the wind shifts, down he ducks, over goes the boom, and he heads off the other way. He is not going to say either, but we know that he would have voted against his old mate. What a shame! Does mateship not count for anything more in New Zealand? He probably does not know—one sells one’s mates out. But Murray McCully has no hope in hell of getting back a decent job in the National Party. In the next reshuffle, he will be sitting out in the lobby, and in the one after that, he will probably be out in the Grand Hall. He is on the way out, yet he would not stick up for his mate.

Maurice Williamson proposed a performance agreement that required Mr English and his front bench to lift the party to 30 percent voter preference by Christmas, and to 35 percent by the middle of next year. If they failed, the party was to look for new management. What is wrong with saying something like that? Well, in the National Party one gets dicked. Maurice Williamson then went on to say that when the ship was sinking, it was a bit rich to blame the assistant tea-boy, rather than the captain and the first officer on the bridge. That is absolutely right. The National Party is in disarray and should do something on behalf of all New Zealand. It is a tragedy.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.