General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What a mess this Government is in. What an absolute shambles! [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will start the member’s speech again. I do not want to have that sort of noise from interjections, and I urge members to control themselves.

What a mess this Government is in. What an absolute shambles! This Government is spinning out of control, as it tries to combat the mess that it is making in a wide range of portfolios and tries to cover that up. Let me just run through a few of the issues today.

I will start with the issue of the Māori claims before the Māori Land Court for ownership of the seabed and foreshore. The Prime Minister on day one came out and promised New Zealanders that she would be a leader of action, and that Labour would legislate to ensure that ownership remained with the Crown. What has happened is that every hour of every day since the Prime Minister made that announcement, there has been a little shuffle backwards. Every hour the Government has taken another little step backwards, and New Zealanders do not trust this Government on the seabed and foreshore issue. That is why in the last 10 days over 63,000 New Zealanders—63,000—have signed National’s petition that opposes this Government giving away the ownership rights to the seabed. Sixty-three thousand New Zealanders have gone online and signed that petition, because they can see this Government shuffling backwards on that particular issue.

We have seen the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues in the House today. What a shambles she has created up in Auckland! There she is—she is the person who the Government said would fix Auckland’s problems, and there she is today saying that because she made a call to the citizens advice bureau in Auckland and it reported that it had had no complaints about Auckland’s rates issue, that issue was therefore not a problem. Does she not read the New Zealand Herald? This is reminiscent of the leaky homes issue, which the Government said was a New Zealand Herald beat-up. Now we have the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues claiming that the Auckland rates issue is just another New Zealand Herald beat-up.

And then there is the Minister of Immigration—well, we have gone from a collective decision to lie in unison to a bit of collective amnesia in the Immigration Service, with the Minister involved in that same programme. That Minister said one day in the House that for there to have been an agreement to “lie in unison” she would have had to be a party to it, and then said we should not worry, because she had organised an investigation into it by the very same officials who would have been involved in it, if it had occurred. That just does not stack up. This Government will have to come clean and get the State Services Commissioner in to look at that issue.

What was the best that the Government could come up with, to try to distract attention from those issues? It wheeled out the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who on Friday announced a new scheme: no deposit on home purchases of $100,000 and under for people on low incomes. Beneficiaries can buy a house with no deposit, so long as the house does not cost more than $100,000. He made that announcement on Friday, and all over the country unemployed people, beneficiaries, and people on low incomes were searching for houses under $100,000 in the far-flung rural reaches of the country. Then, on Monday, he came out with a scheme that means that if people go and live in an out-of-the-way area in rural New Zealand where there are no jobs, the Government will say that they cannot receive a benefit and they have to get back to the cities.

So if people take up the Minister’s offer and buy a house for under $100,000 in somewhere like Shannon—there are no jobs in Shannon; there is no bus service and no other public transport out of there—he will then trundle into those people and say that they cannot receive a benefit if they live there, so they had better hightail it back to the city. How duplicitous is that sort of nonsense?

The historian Tom Brooking has written a biography of John McKenzie, one of my predecessors as MP for Waitaki and the Minister of Lands when the 1892 Land Act was passed—the legislation that put into effect the instruction by Queen Victoria on the public access strips originally given when New Zealand was still part of the colony of New South Wales. Mr Brooking gave his view that: “One of the great misfortunes of New Zealand is that it has been settled by two peoples who are romantic, and even sentimental, about land, and imbue it with magical properties that push past logic into the realms of the supernatural and transcendental. This idealisation and mystification of land raised to quite unrealistic levels expectations concerning its productivity and ability to solve social problems. New Zealand is still wrestling with the consequences of those unfulfilled hopes.”

That attitude towards land continues today, but, as our population creeps past the 4 million mark and the pressure on our environment grows, it is becoming more difficult to access the outdoor recreation that many New Zealanders consider to be their birthright. The legal situation around the Queen’s Chain is often confusing, public understanding of it is incomplete, and access over such land is sometimes discouraged. People have the impression that the Queen’s Chain applies to all beaches and rivers, but that is simply not true. In significant parts of Banks Peninsula and the Marlborough Sounds, for example, there is no right of access to the beaches, in law. So “beaches for all” is a meaningless phrase. Even in 1892, when the Queen’s Chain was enacted, it applied only to Crown land. It did not apply to private land, land owned by Māori, and land sold to European settlers prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

So in January this year the Government set up the Land Access Reference Group to look at that issue. Chaired by the former Meat Producers Board Chairman John Acland, the reference group has reviewed access to the foreshore of lakes and the sea, access along rivers, access to public land across private land, and access into private rural land, in order to better facilitate public access to, and enjoyment of, New Zealand’s natural environment. The reference group has focused on whether there are sufficient certainty, information mechanisms, and awareness of expected conduct to ensure responsible public access to waterways and rural land, while still providing for private land use both now and in the future. That group of 11 wise people, drawn from throughout the country and from different walks of life, but all with experience in different aspects of land access, reported to me on Monday night. The report should be printed and made available for the public next week, following consideration by Cabinet. It is an important report, and I will need approval for money to take the matter further.

When the reference group was set up in January, it was pooh-poohed by many people. Some people said there was no problem with regard to access; I am quoting from the ACT member Gerrard Eckhoff. Recent times have proved that to be not true. Other members of the Opposition are tying themselves in knots, demanding that the Government legislate to extinguish any Māori rights to beaches, even while some of their fellow Opposition members demand that there be no disturbance whatever of any Pākehā property rights.

During my parliamentary career since 1984 one thing I have noted is that too often people leap to entrenched positions on issues, without sitting down and listening to what other people have to say. This group’s report is important, but it is not the final word on the matter. Rather, it is the first step in a long process. There will be consultation every step of the way.

I am reminded of a bill that was introduced into this House between 1972 and 1975 by Mike Moore—the coastal moratorium bill. That socialist Labour Government was going to seize the coastline from all New Zealanders, regardless of who they were. I gather from the Hon Mr Sutton that this Labour Government is to do that again. In a rather dull speech, I could not work out precisely what he would say. However, he told us about a report—and we all appreciate a report—and, from what I can gather, there is to be a report on that report before anything further is to be done. His speech typified for us this Government’s evasion of the main issues that face New Zealand today. The previous National Party speaker raised some of those issues.

New Zealand First wants to raise the very important and immediate issue of the problem that is being experienced on the North Shore of Auckland, in the Rodney District Council area, and in Auckland City, Manukau City, and Franklin District with regard to rates. I had the privilege of being at a meeting with the North Shore City Council on Friday, where I made it quite clear to the meeting that it is the view of New Zealand First, in so far as road taxes and suchlike are concerned, that we intend to phase them down and out—especially the excise tax that goes into the consolidated account—and to provide for more financial resources for roading and other transport areas. That is the firm policy of New Zealand First.

At the moment, for the year ended June 2002 the Government has collected $1.642 billion from roading charges. It spends $940 million. That is a sheer profit of $700 million. In addition, the Government has been collecting a figure of $220 million in the tax for roading improvements in Auckland. Do members remember that tax? It was to be on for 12 months, but the Government has now extended it again. Where is that money? It is sitting in the bank. The Government has now told us that that money will go into the consolidated account, to be used for other purposes. That money should be used immediately for the $27 million—yes, only $27 million—that is needed to help out all those workers, pensioners, domestic purposes beneficiaries, and other people in Auckland, including the people who rent homes, who find that their outgoings will go up as a result of the Auckland Regional Council’s levy.

We heard the so-called Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues say that improvements to the road transport system, to bus transport, and to the rail transport system are necessary. If that is necessary, what will this Government do about it? New Zealand First is very clear in saying we would make that $27 million available from the roading account. The situation is that the rates to be collected are going up from $75 million to $102 million. That is $27 million more. Next year they will go up by another $18 million, on top of that $27 million. Next year pensioners and the like in Auckland will have to find not an additional $27 million, but $45 million. Where will that money come from? This Government does not care in the slightest.

The National Party told us at that meeting with the North Shore City Council that it had no intention of drawing money from the consolidated account. The Labour Party said the same. New Zealand First is here to fix this problem; we intend to fix it. There is only one way it can be fixed immediately. The Government should back up the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, although she seems to think that the answer to this problem is for people to get out of Auckland and go somewhere else, even though the Minister for Social Development and Employment tells us that they must not go anywhere else, because they will not be assisted by the Government with benefits and suchlike if they do go elsewhere.

Aucklanders are in a cleft stick. Everyone says we should have the bus and rail transport system, but who will pay for it? Will it be the elderly, the sick, the people who have children whom they are bringing up on benefits, the workers, and suchlike? This Labour Government does not give a darn about workers any more—the workers of Auckland, in west Auckland, in Waitakere City, and all those Māori people. John Tamihere is laughing now. He is laughing at the Māori people in west Auckland and at all west Auckland people, whoever they may be, who are struggling to find an extra $200 to $300 a year for rates. They cannot pay the school fees to send their children to the local schools. This minority Labour Government, with John Tamihere, Lynne Pillay, and the like, is not prepared to help the workers of west Auckland, North Shore, or anywhere else.

New Zealand First would do that immediately. It has been our policy for years and years. It is not something that we have just dreamt up; we have always said that we would do that. It is the only way to solve the problem. There is no point in talking about amending the rating legislation, looking at infrastructures, and looking at this and that. It needs dollars and cents—cash. The money is there. The Government has a $1 billion surplus. We want some answers from John Tamihere.

It is always a joy to stand up after one of Dad’s Army’s boys who has been prattling on and having a say. The wonderful thing about his leader, of course, is that he has the ability to go out into mainstream Kiwidom and tell Kiwis how to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to joining the New Zealand First Party. He is a great guided-tour expert!

I want to take up the challenge issued by the little fella from Levin, the member of no fixed abode—the shoe salesman—about rorts and people stepping back from things. Over there we have one of the biggest bunches of bankrupt bozos—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. I refer him to Standing Order 117, “Personal reflections”.

I withdraw and apologise. To get back to the well-paid beneficiaries over there, they are the best-paid beneficiaries—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will apologise. That was a personal reflection again on other members.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder how much leeway there is. There have been times in the past when this Minister’s speeches have been terminated because he has continually strayed outside the Standing Orders. I wonder how much leniency you will give him this time before you take that action.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 leeway is given to respond to the previous speaker. The Minister has had the opportunity to do that now, and I ask him to come to the point.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister made so many unparliamentary remarks. I ask that he withdraw and apologise also in respect of the unparliamentary remark be made about Mr Dail Jones when he opened his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot ask on behalf of someone else.

The National Party, which stands on being the party of great integrity, says things on its billboards like: “National will see that the coastline and the beaches of New Zealand remain in the hands of all New Zealanders.” It will expropriate, nationalise, and socialise. How can a National Party of the great, old free-enterprise model stand on that? How can a caucus of National Party members sign off on that and give that mandate to their leader? The National Party leader said in the debate on the Queen’s Chain Protection Bill that “landowners are starting to get interested in the controversy because they are not that impressed by the public access lobbyists who assert to them that members of the public have the right to go anywhere they like within 20 metres of the waterway.” That is simply not the case.

The leader of that party knew 7 years ago when he made that speech, recorded in Hansard, Volume 358, at page 18023, that when he went out to tell Kiwis—mislead them—he was going to socialise, nationalise, and confiscate private property rights it would be OK, but: “But only if you’re a Māori. We’ll take Māori rights, but not my Pākehā mate’s.” This is where the debate is, fair and square. How crass and how low! How can a National Party caucus with any backbone—unlike those jellyfish over there—sign off on that? They cannot possibly. They did, though. How dare Mr Simon Powers and Mr John Key, the new breed, sign up to such a shameful policy. These are the politics of divide and rule, the politics of envy. How dare they divide a nation! They have a greed and a lust for the Treasury benches and they will do anything to destroy the fabric of a nation going forward. There is only one party, one Government, that will sort this and fix it, and it is the Labour Party in Government. Even the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp has opined absolutely differently and in contradistinction—he is one of the few honest ones—to the so-called leader, for no other reason than he actually owns some foreshore. He will own up to that, as well. It is all about vested interest when it comes to the National Party boys. It has nothing to do with rights and nothing to do with due process.

Māori have used the courts. Māori have not stormed over everybody else’s rights. These rights need to be explored, and we will uphold the rule of law. We are not going to walk over other people’s land, just storming it and taking it. What sort of a leadership is that? It merely cooks up the people in Nelson, for all the wrong reasons. We know how to build a nation; they know how to destroy it. They know how to wreck it, all for the lust of the Treasury benches, all for greed and vested interest. It is absolutely disgraceful politics. We need to continue to bang on about it. We need to continue to point it out, because, as a nation going forward, we have so much potential to unleash, and we do not need it stymied and suppressed by those members putting out ugly, envious gutter politics.

This is the worst, the lowest, that a Tory party has ever stooped to. It is using a race card. The National Party used to talk about rights; it now talks about race. Over on this side of the House we talk about rights. We are the true face of New Zealand. Members opposite are ageing, over 50-somethings. We hear about rorts. A good example of a rort in the National Party is the “member for the Casablanca Night Clubs”, the “member for the Camel Jockeys”, and the “member for Monaco”. The “very part-time member for Remuera” sits over there. What a rort—yet another one! It just goes on and on with those people. It is all about desperate little men and vested interest and greed. We have had enough. Those members need to be identified for their politics of prejudice and race. It has nothing to do with rights. We need to explore it.

About a year ago—in fact, on 22 July 2002—a judge sentenced a man who had seized a women from the road, taken her in his car to a public car park, raped her, and tipped her out of his car bound and naked. The judge was troubled because he was having to look at the new sentencing law and work out whether this odious crime was so odious that it was out of the ordinary enough for him to set a non-parole period. As the judge said, rape is odious per se.

The circumstances of this case were not out of the ordinary for rape, but the judge had to deal with section 86 of Phil Goff’s new Sentencing Act, which told him he could set a non-parole period only if the offence was “out of the ordinary range of offending of the particular kind.” The judge was obviously anguished that if he did try to set a non-parole period, he would simply set up a situation for the rapist to appeal. If the rapist could successfully appeal, if he was not seen as a clear recidivist—in other words, as long as he was not a clear reoffender—he would be out of prison after serving one-third of his sentence, and, given the normal rape sentence, that would mean this fellow would be out of prison in 2 years 8 months. That was repulsive to the judge’s idea of justice.

The judge told us what was happening, on that date in July last year. He said: “I can only apply the legislation which Parliament passes. I hope that once the political rhetoric dies down”—there was an election on at the time—“and a new Parliament convenes, urgent consideration will be given to answering the questions I have posed, with greater clarity.”

A year later, on 19 July 2003, the Court of Appeal gave a decision in two more rape cases. The Court of Appeal was also struggling with this notion that it could set a non-parole period only when the offence was “outside the ordinary range of offending of the particular kind”. The judges’ view, expressed by Justice Tipping, puzzled over what “the ordinary range of offending” might be. As the judges said, it involved substantial difficulties of interpretation and application. What is an ordinary rape? They are all horrific—or horrific to someone. They cited the Hon Phil Goff in his greasy introduction of the Supplementary Order Paper to the legislation, and set out in about 10 lines the language in which he had introduced the intended effect of section 86. They concluded: “The problem is that section 86 as enacted is not, either in its language or in its structure, fairly susceptible of that interpretation.” That is the delicate language of the court saying: “Minister, you were talking crap.”

There are two more pages. I will read the judges’ statement: “We end this section of our judgment with a respectful plea to Parliament to revisit section 86 of the Sentencing Act and express itself with greater clarity. We have done our best to discern Parliament’s meaning on the point at issue from the language it has used, in the light of the section’s purpose as we perceive it. Major problems still remain with the section, in particular with the concept of ordinary range of offending when used with the qualifier ‘of the particular kind’. We can foresee this subject being a fertile source of difficulty for some time to come, both for sentencing judges and on appeal.”

What was the reaction of the Hon Phil Goff? First, I shall tell members what he said a year ago. He said that the Act was a huge improvement, that the judges’ comments showed that the new law would lead to longer sentences, that he believed that a review to clarify was not necessary, but that if changes became necessary he would not hesitate to make any necessary changes to the legislation. What did he say a year later—many cases later—when faced with the Court of Appeal’s absolutely clear statement? Phil Goff preferred to pour scorn on me for raising the issue. I first raised this issue with him in a letter. He in effect told me that I did not know the law and that I should read the precedents. He then came back and said: “The legislation, like any major piece of legislation, will be subject to review. We need time to see it settle in.”

The last time I had an opportunity to contribute to the general debate, I did as I am going to do now—dedicate my contribution to the dead wood “Blues Brother”, Maurice Williamson. My support of Maurice Williamson’s integrity and honesty clearly did not have an impact on the National Party, although I have noticed some wavering on behalf of its future leader, Simon Power. In fact, I hold out some hope for that young man now. I think he has got a future ahead of him. There is a clear vacancy. I think Simon Power should put aside his natural modesty and humility and say as the previous Governor of the Reserve Bank, Don Brash, has said: “Move aside, Bill; it is time to go.”

What makes me more convinced than ever that it is time for Bill English to go is the absolute desperation that he has shown in resorting to something that I never thought he would do. I had always thought of Bill English as a “Kiwi Keith” type of person, until recently. He is clearly not. Mr English has behaved in a gutter politics way, and that is a very civil description of his behaviour; he has behaved in a way that I think totally discredits him and totally discredits the once-great National Party. He will now be remembered, if anyone does ever try to remember him, as one of the most irresponsible politicians New Zealand has ever had. There is never an excuse to resort to divisive, gutter politics, in my view. Too many people in New Zealand know politicians for them to be able to get away with that. Even in a large country one should not do it, but in New Zealand not only should one not do it but one cannot get away with it.

When Mr English said that the country should not trust Māori, I want to know how Georgina te Heuheu felt about it. How did Georgina te Heuheu feel about being referred to in that way by her current leader? This is an issue that we have to get right. If National members do not want to be part of the solution—and, frankly, I recommend that they have another bit of a think about that—then the least they can do is not contribute to the problem. This is a grown-up, serious, big issue, and I think some of those members, particularly those who played a part in a previous Government, should understand that, and should give themselves a bit of thinking time so that they can come up with a proper answer that maybe will not fit on a billboard but will fit in New Zealanders’ hearts and minds.

Bill English has been just extraordinary. Trying to get a fix on his position is like trying to pick up mercury with chopsticks. Every time one gets it in the corner of the bowl, it flicks right over the other side. Mr English started off by saying on the website: “The Government must legislate to confirm Crown ownership of beaches foreshore and seabed. This is what National would do.” That was a strong, confident statement from the current leader of the National Party. Then, in a press release not very long after, he said that National was working to ensure that the remaining foreshore and seabed were safeguarded for all, regardless of race, by means of legislation to preserve exclusive Crown title What is the difference? Quite a lot, as my colleague John Tamihere very strongly explained during his contribution to this debate. So it is one standard of citizenship for some, not for all, and not even for National Party members.

Simon Power, whom I referred to earlier as—I am confident of it now—the future leader of the National Party, has been having a bit of a tussle with Mr David Carter. Simon Power said, and I think it certainly reflected the views of his constituents from Feilding: “We must all be allowed full and free access to our beaches and lakefronts and to the seabed.” His constituents want to be able to go down to Foxton Beach, Himatangi Beach, or the Manawatu River, and get on to the beach and the river. Whereas David Carter said that our public access group, which does exactly what Mr Power referred to, was just a “stalking horse for this Government to nationalise private land for public access”. Well, I think Mr Power should talk to Mr Carter because he is on a different planet from him, and I think the oxygen is of better quality on the planet where Mr Power resides.

Not only did Mr Power disagree with Mr Carter but then Bill English started contradicting himself again. He said that he wanted all the coastline to remain with the Crown, then said “as long as it didn’t disturb private landowners’ rights”.

In recent days a number of media have covered the story of Marc and Ivy Powell, a wealthy American couple who gained New Zealand residency and purchased the large Waitai Station on D’Urville Island in 1999 with Overseas Investment Commission approval. The way this couple have used and abused our country’s immigration, foreign ownership, and commercial laws is a disgrace. This case raises questions about how effectively residency and overseas investment conditions are enforced.

I make no apologies for using the privileges of this House to expose this matter. Those who worked for the Powells were required to sign horrendous confidentiality agreements with $100,000 penalty clauses for mentioning any aspect of this couple or their development on D’Urville Island. There is an air of fear about this couple, reinforced by writs served against those who dare question them. This secrecy, fear, and litigiousness are not the New Zealand way.

My interest in this matter arises from constituents in Nelson having fallen victim to the deep-pocket litigation employed by this couple. There are over one dozen creditors—small, honest Kiwi business people—who have been done over by this couple. Let me tell a few of their sad stories.

Fraemohs Industries, a well-known South Island building firm, did major building work on D’Urville Island. The firm lost over $320,000 in its dealings with the Powells. The company has gone from employing 40 people to fewer than 10. The dispute wrecked the health of the managing director, who has had to sell that business. Tilley’s, a well-respected plumbing and drainage firm from Nelson, has been done for $120,000. This is a crippling debt for a small family firm. When the firm attempted legal action to recover the money it was hit by a $300,000 counterclaim. A Nelson barging firm, Tyco Marine, transported materials out to D’Urville Island for the couple’s luxury mansion. It sought payment for just $1,300 in the disputes tribunal, and was hit with a spurious counterclaim of $30,000 from the Powell’s lawyers—no surprise. The firm simply walked away unpaid. The firm of architects and designers involved in the project is trying to recover $45,000, but it too has been hit with huge counterclaims totalling over $600,000. The consulting engineers involved sought payment of $23,000, and got a counterclaim and suit for $200,000 for its claims.

These sums would bankrupt any of these individuals and businesses, and they hang over them as dark, intimidating clouds. The stories are repeated over and over again. The claims for payment are first diverted off to consultants or other companies. Spurious claims are made about the standard of work. The Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act, and the confidentiality agreements are quoted at length. Huge counterclaims are lodged as intimidation, and most creditors have just walked away.

What irritates me further is the way our residency requirements have been so blatantly abused. This couple told the Immigration Service that they would reside permanently here. There is strong evidence that they never intended to do so. The facts are that they have spent negligible time in New Zealand, and have breached their commitments to the Immigration Service, and today I am formally writing to the Minister of Immigration to have their residency revoked.

Nor have the couple carried out their business plans as stated to the Overseas Investment Commission. This too requires inquiry. I cannot see any benefit for New Zealand in allowing very wealthy absentee landowners to own some of our most precious coastal farmland. We cannot allow our country to be prostituted in this way. I do not care how many millions or billions of dollars people have; we should not put up with this sort of abuse of New Zealand’s sovereign territory. This case highlights how we need to rethink our approach to business migration and overseas land sales, to ensure that New Zealand is able to benefit.

I seek the leave of the House to table a series of documents obtained under the Official Information Act from the Overseas Investment Commission, on the matters I have raised.

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

I seek the leave of the House to table public documents filed in the courts against the many creditors who have sought payment for their work done on D’Urville Island.

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

That was another typical Nick Smith speech—wild, reckless allegations under the privilege of this House. It shows one thing: Nick Smith has learnt a lesson about speaking out outside this House. He spoke about the abuse of foreign ownership rules. The House ought to know that the people he referred to applied for ownership of that land in 1999 and—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I said that.

No, the member did not say that. It was signed off by the Hon Bill Birch; it was signed off under a National Government. That member was a member of the Cabinet in that Government that signed it off.

The second reckless allegation made by Mr Nick Smith was that there were problems with immigration and immigration issues. The House ought to know, because that member will not tell it, that permanent residence was granted to the people concerned in May 1999 under a National Party Government.

💬 Darren Hughes: That’s two down.

That was another reckless allegation. I am gobsmacked that the people of Nelson would ever go to Nick Smith with any concerns about the judicial system, given that that member puts in court cases then does not turn up. Why would people ever trust his opinion on anything?

That brings us to the parlous state of the National Party and its leadership. Murray McCully has proposed that a new axis be formed after the next Government of National, ACT, and no doubt New Zealand First because they would not make up the numbers without it. A few friends and I sat around the other night and thought about who would get what jobs. Of course, Mr Power jumps up and down and says all these things. Ruth Dyson is right: Simon Power will become Prime Minister one day, but the children who will see that happen—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh no, he won’t.

Oh yes, he will, but the children who will watch that happen have not got to primary school yet. We figured Nick Smith would not get anything, but we did figure some things. We thought Mr Gerry Eckhoff would make a very good Minister of Conservation, given that he wants to commercialise kiwis, wants to have kiwi farming so that we can buy kiwi thighs in the supermarket.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Kiwi roast dinners.

Yes. We thought Rodney Hide could have cultural affairs. He has been past a theatre once and he has been hamming it up ever since. I remember Mr Moore saying one time, when Rodney was in his presence, that Rodney Hide was the perfect example of why an ugly actor should become a politician. In terms of finance, Don Brash and Richard Prebble would be the new finance people. One time, when Richard Prebble was away from the Labour caucus, he sent a telegram from China. Before the text could be read out, someone in caucus said: “Dear colleagues, I’m in China; so much to sell, so little time. Richard.” The public needs to know that Richard would sell the lot.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use a member’s full name or his title.

Mr Richard Prebble would sell the lot. Obviously, Peter Brown would get senior citizens, Craig McNair would get youth affairs, and Winston Peters would get ethnic affairs. He has great rapport with the Somalian community.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Urban affairs.

He could get urban affairs. Obviously, social welfare would go to Muriel Newman. She has written a book on how to get by on the smell of an oily rag in which she has advocated stealing and prostitution, so she is well equipped to dismantle the social welfare State and bring in the law of the jungle. We thought that senior whip would be a very good position for Maurice Williamson, and we thought Richard Worth could be the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, given his relationship with Monaco. He is now a consul for another country.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: And camels.

The member interjects about camels; that is very good. Given Richard Worth’s trip to El Alamein and the advice he got from camel drivers, we thought that would bring an interesting twist—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s unfair on camels.

Someone says it is unfair on camels. It would bring an interesting twist to the sort of advice that would be given. We spent lots of hilarious time contemplating the very, very unlikely prospect of a National - ACT - New Zealand First Government. It is very unlikely because those parties are trying to scare New Zealanders into changing their alliance and changing their votes. Those parties should see that wonderful commentary Bowling for Columbine, where it is quite clear that one of the tactics of some people is to frighten the community into doing other things. Those parties will not frighten the public into changing their opinion.

I have one question to ask members of the Labour caucus and the Labour Party today: “Whose side are you on?”. After nearly 4 years of Government boasting about its achievements for ordinary workers and low-income people, such as income-related rents, the Employment Relations Act, and the rest of it, it all seems to have come to a screeching halt with Steve Maharey’s “Jobs Jolt” programme announced on Monday.

Without warning, we now find out that 55 to 59-year-olds will be subject to the same sanctions regime as unemployed 20-year-olds, and that the “remote areas” conditions abolished in the mid-1980s by a Labour Government—theoretically, more right wing than this one—will be reinstated. The Minister justifies the extension of work testing to 55 to 59-year-olds on the grounds that that is the only way they can be provided with the full employment services of Work and Income New Zealand. What a fallacious line of reasoning. If the Minister had chosen, he could easily have directed that those workers be proffered the full assistance of the department, without their having the psychological pressure of sanctions being heaped upon their unsuspecting heads.

Mature-aged people are one of the most highly motivated, and at the same time, one of the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed workers in the country. It is often very difficult to get into the regular workforce, both because we still have high unemployment, and because of employer prejudice against anyone from around age 40 and up, much less age 55 and up. I would go out of my way to commend any Government that increased job placement, support, and training for mature unemployed. However, to extend the whole blaming and sanctioning apparatus of the State on to that age group is callous beyond belief. I do not think that the Minister can begin to comprehend the humiliation involved, nor the anxiety of people who are plunged into despair at that attack on their dignity and self-esteem, at a stage of their lives when society owes them a lot more than sanctions and punishment for daring to be out of work through no fault of their own.

I turn to the question of booting people out of so-called “remote areas”. I see in this morning’s Dominion Post that the Employment Service is already drawing up a list of no-go areas for the unemployed. Does the Minister not realise that one reason so many beneficiaries live in rural and provincial areas, where there are fewer jobs, is that it is a lot cheaper to raise a family well in such districts than in a big city like Auckland or Wellington? Does he not comprehend that another reason people live in those areas is that people who are unemployed in the big city often choose to move to their papakāinga, or home rohe, because they can survive better with whānau support, and in an area where the land and sea can be a source of food?

Unemployed and beneficiary groups around Aotearoa fought a long hard battle in the early to mid-1980s to get recognition of the injustice shown, particularly to Māori people returning to their home districts and being denied the benefit. After a long struggle, which included, memorably, the first occupation of the Kaitaia social welfare department in 1985, the “remote areas” clause was overturned. It is now pitiful that a Labour Minister in a Government supposedly more sympathetic than its 1980s predecessors sees fit to turn back that particular clock.

I am beginning to ask myself whether Steve Maharey and Darren Hughes are driving Labour’s welfare reforms, or whether the real drivers are the ghosts of Jenny Shipley and Christine Rankin, as personified in 2003 by Katherine Rich, Don Brash, and Muriel Newman. It appears that Labour has taken National and ACT’s momentum on welfare reform to heart and is now making a bid to capture all those voters who love anything that beats up on beneficiaries. Does Labour not realise that after all this time we still have literally hundreds of thousands of people out of work and that it is not unemployed people’s fault that the system has failed them?

There is a further ugly twist in all this. Since Labour has come to power, it has made a justifiably big deal about its willingness to consult community groups about the issues that affect them and the people they serve. After 4 years of a non-governmental organisation Government consultation process, and regular meetings between the Ministry of Social Development and beneficiary groups, and between the Mayors Task Force for Jobs and public officials, all that nice talk has been rendered meaningless by Maharey’s latest effort. Ask any of the task force mayors or any of the advocacy group representatives whether they have been consulted about this latest attack on beneficiaries, and I am pretty sure that the answer will be that no such consultation took place. In fact, the Minister confirmed that in the House this afternoon. I do not know whether all Labour MPs realise it, but they are now moving on a fast track, back to the era where Government trampled wholesale on its erstwhile allies in the community sector and local government, and on unemployed people and beneficiaries. I ask again: “Labour, whose side are you on?”.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some brief comments today. Initially, I would like to take members’ minds back to the general debate last week. I cannot for a moment imagine a more telling example of the real difficulty the National Party in Opposition faces than the extraordinary performance of its leader, discredited and failing as he is, taking a speaking opportunity with its first call—namely, the fourth call—in the general debate last week. Aside from his sad and pathetic performance in that debate, the most telling comment was that five members of his caucus came down to support their leader in a major speech in this Chamber. That is how much support Mr English has in the National Party. Perhaps it is rather a poignant and telling comment to observe that today the largely invisible and certainly ineffective and ineffectual deputy leader, Mr Roger Sowry, managed to double the leader’s support by having the princely sum of almost one-third of the National Party caucus, 10 members, in this Chamber to support him.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member will say. I just bring members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 5/2 (Supplement), under which he cannot refer to the absence of members from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is sort of skating around the rules, because he is not referring to the absence of members. However, I ask you to rule that it is out of order to refer to the numbers of people; otherwise we would be saying that there are only five Labour people here to listen to this pathetic speech.

The debate in the Chamber is robust. It always has been and always will be, and it is good that we have passionate and intelligent debate. But in the immortal words of Tana Umaga: “This isn’t tiddlywinks, Ref!” However, members should be careful and temperate in their language, and not bring the House into disrepute, impugn members, or behave in a way that will incite disorder.

💬 DAVID BENSON-POPE: Clearly the one standard of membership that is supposed to apply in our community does not apply to the National Party’s own members, including Mr English himself, that rather benighted Mr Williamson, and now Mr McCully. The only message that voters in this country are getting from National is that a party that struggles to manage its own problems and its own affairs would do more than struggle to manage the country. The community in this country certainly will not be supporting them.

Also, I go back to the extraordinary performance of the National Party last week in relation to the great post-conference suspension, where the National Party caucus met behind the normal half-closed door that it has, and, in 10 seconds, suspended Maurice Williamson. He was suspended for saying what people throughout New Zealand have been saying, and saying out loud. What happened as a result of that suspension is telling. For 2 days in this Chamber the National Party voted 26 votes, one vote down. But by Thursday it was voting 27 again, because Maurice Williamson, just like others before him, had passed a proxy over to the party so it could vote its full vote again—the Clayton’s proxy; the imaginary suspension! Beside that behaviour, ACT’s behaviour over Donna Awatere Huata looks almost principled.

After that little shambles along came Murray McCully, saying the same sorts of things about ineffectual performance from the so-called leadership of that party—comments not approved by its leadership. What happened to Mr McCully? Nothing happened. Why did he do it? Was it about the great new National-Act coalition, the grand coalition of the right? No, it was not. Like everything in the National Party, it was about self-interest. We have to take only the briefest look at the electoral results to see why Murray McCully wants no ACT candidate to stand against him.

Government member: Why?

💬 DAVID BENSON-POPE: The reason is that Murray McCully is on the slides. Unless he has ACT standing down in his electorate, then there will be no Murray McCully in this House. Let me talk about another vulnerability, in the form of Richard Worth, who is sitting at the back of the Chamber. We know that Richard Worth is extremely worried about this grand new coalition. Richard Worth is the one who will be the sacrificial camel rider for Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide is the one who will be nominated by this great new deal of the right to stand in Epsom. How happy is he?

I would now like to spend a little bit of time building on what my colleague Rick Barker said about the quality of the membership of this great new “Cabinet” that we have. Clearly, we know about the leadership; the leader is Bill English. What portfolio would be given to the poor benighted Bill English? We think it would be Auckland issues. He has put up billboards in the cities while closing offices in his own electorate. Bill English, the spokesperson on Auckland issues, believes that if Aucklanders want more roading projects, then Aucklanders should pay for them. What about Māori Affairs? I think John Carter, the party’s current senior whip with a Māori name he is proud of, clearly will be the member in charge of Māori Affairs—the one who rings up talkbacks.

I will start by saying that if there exists today a reason for this Government to pause and rethink its deployment priorities with regard to security risks that face New Zealand, its friends, and its allies, it has to be page 1 of the New Zealand Herald today. If there exists and if this Government needs anything more than the briefing papers it has already received from senior defence officials as to the appalling state of the staffing and the problems created by overreach and overstretch, then I think possibly the front page of the New Zealand Herald might help persuade it that we do have some problems in our defence force that need to be considered, and not dismissed, as they have been. I ask the Government to rethink its priorities in its deployments, the size of our defence force, and its initiatives to encourage people to rejoin our defence force and help us meet our security needs.

I want to talk now about an appalling state of affairs that exists internally, in terms of security for private citizens. Have members heard this statement before? “It is a sad day for New Zealand when the police lack the resources to catch a burglar who has knocked off the same six houses in a fortnight.” So said George Hawkins in January 1997. “I am well aware that the police are overworked and understaffed, and as of 1 December, 1996 the Waitakere police were operating with 13.5 fewer police than they were entitled to.” It is interesting, is it not, because today nothing really has changed. “A fiend is given a ‘Get out of jail free’ card’ ”—Mr Hawkins once again, complaining in April 1997 about offenders getting away scot-free because police neither have the time nor the resources to apprehend them.

What has changed since that man became the Minister? What has changed since he was making these press releases about the safety and the policing in our streets, given that he has had 4 years in the job, a big limousine, a ministerial house, and all the trappings of power? What has changed? Nothing has changed. This is worse than the “Maharey principle”, which is saying things during an election that are not said when in Government. This is about things that were said in 9 years of Opposition that were going to be corrected and dealt with, and nothing has changed. I had to laugh—but it is quite sad really—when I got a fax from a person in the Minister’s own electorate that stated: “Could you please today in Parliament congratulate the Labour Party, in particular George Hawkins, our esteemed police Minister, for completely failing to provide a safe and secure country to bring up a family and operate a business.” That was from one of his constituents. I sought leave of the House today to table this fax and the Labour Party denied it.

This man has gone on to describe how for the second time in 3 years a pharmacy has been ram raided only metres down the road from George Hawkins’ own electorate office.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Ramrodded or railroaded.

Ram raided. The question people are asking is that if the man cannot provide security to a pharmaceutical business in his own patch, then how the heck can he hope to provide security for other people around New Zealand? Then we read an article in his electorate, Manurewa—printed 8 July—that thieves had been busy in Manurewa. Between 23 June and 29 June a whopping 51 burglaries were reported. That is 51 burglaries in 6 days. The real ripper is that we have already had information provided to the Government and presented to a select committee that shows clearly that about one-third of actual crimes are being reported.

This is reported crime. Therefore, there is no motivation for all those low-income families and people who cannot afford to have household and contents insurance and who have no hope at all of getting any compensation to report those crimes to the police. They know what the police will do. The police will turn up 24 hours, or 17 hours, or 7 hours later, and simply issue them a little ticket that enables them to go and make an insurance claim, because both they and the police officers concerned know that these guys will never be caught.

Before I get to the main part of my speech, I acknowledge the comments of Mr Mark in respect of the tragedy in Indonesia, but I remind him of one small fact, which is that while he was in a coalition Government with the National Party, it enacted the most savage and the deepest cut in the history of this nation in respect of the defence budget. Since we came in, we have increased the defence budget by hundreds of millions of dollars. I acknowledge the intent of his speech and I respect his views, but I say to Simon Power, the defence spokesperson, that it was his Government that cut the defence vote in a huge way.

I want to reflect for a moment on Mr Sowry’s speech. Mr Sowry talked about a mess. It just shows, since Mr Sowry was bowled, demolished, and wiped out from his seat in Otaki, just how out of touch that deputy leader is, and how lazy he and his party are. I am told that it is said of Roger Sowry that he is so lazy that he does not walk in his sleep, but that he hitch-hikes. That is how lazy he is. That party on the opposite side of the House is coming apart at the seams.

💬 Stephen Franks: Oh!

Do we have a doctor in the House? I think somebody in the ACT party is in pain. The National Party is coming apart at the seams. They are a lazy pack of whingers, and they have no base or constituency.

Members should look at the fiasco over Maurice Williamson. There are, as colleagues have said, two standards of citizenship in the National Party. Maurice Williamson tells the truth. For instance, he stated in the Sunday Star-Times on 13 July: “‘I haven’t criticised Bill ... I’ve talked about the fact that we need to deliver a performance that the public sees as credible.” That is a fair comment, yet he gets bowled for telling the truth.

And now we have Mr McCully, whom I would have thought, if I were a member of the National Party, had committed the ultimate sin by suggesting that the best Opposition performer was not his leader, his deputy leader, or anybody on that side, but Richard Prebble, and that the best “demolition expert”—or however the New Zealand Herald put it—was not one of the National Party members, but old Rodney Hide. That shows the division within that particular party.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Pathetic!

They are pathetic, as my colleague said. They are totally pathetic.

Then we have the great idea of a grand coalition between ACT and National, but the geniuses over there have not realised that if one takes the total centre-right vote and does a deal between ACT and National, it does not get any bigger. If the ACT vote is combined with the National vote, the total centre-right vote does not get any bigger. We have the “brains trust” opposite.

Then we have the debacle with Nick Smith. I am told that Nick Smith will go down in history as the most sued member of Parliament.

💬 Simon Power: Careful.

The member should wait for this. I am told that Nick Smith is currently defending five to six lawsuits against him. I am told that by a member of his own party. He is the most sued member of Parliament in history.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Big mouth.

He has a big mouth, but he cannot back it up, as my colleague Mr Tamihere says. Then we come to the seabed and foreshore issue. Here was a chance for the National Party to show some leadership and some consistency.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: And that’s the point. We have done precisely that.

The member for Bayswater, Mr Mapp, who has a flash pad, an estate—he is a member of the landed gentry—on the foreshore of Auckland, has a vested interest, so I invite him to keep very, very quiet. Members should look at the inconsistency in the National Party. Wayne Mapp says one thing, and Bill English says another. There was a chance in that whole debate to show some leadership for Kiwis. This is a tough and complex issue. It is one that is very worrying for New Zealanders, but it will be sorted, and it will be sorted only by this Government. It will not be sorted by race-based remarks and policies, or by members of this Parliament acting in a gross and irresponsible way by scratching at every ugly scab that may exist in a very, very small proportion of red-necked New Zealanders.

Those members of Parliament opposite do this place no service at all. They provide nothing by being in this place when they act in the manner that they do. What New Zealanders want is some leadership. They want this issue sorted. It will take time and negotiation, but as John Tamihere has said, every New Zealander knows that, under this Government, all New Zealanders will be able to take their kids to the beach.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.