General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. “Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.” That is a quote from the beginning of one of those tacky, tasteless, brainless soaps where people lurch from one crisis to another, and hop from one bed to the next, constantly changing partners; where backs are stabbed, positions changed, principles compromised, and morals are a movable feast. I use it today because I believe that it sums up the National Party circa 2003. Like sands through the hourglass, so are the shifting positions of the National Party’s principles.

There was a time when the old National Party stood by its word. Its leaders stood by their principles—people like Sir Keith Holyoake, Sir Jack Marshall, and Jim McLay, and perhaps even somebody like Don Brash. They were real leaders and their words were their bond. But then came the new breed, aptly named the brat pack. They were bold, brassy, and belligerent; they are all sizzle and no sausage, and they have no principles, either—they could not even spell “principle”. Today I want to give just one example to illustrate why the National Party will never again be in Government. I will give the House one example of how it sold out its principles for 400 votes, not once, not twice, but three times.

It all started in 1998—June 1998 to be exact—when the then Minister of Health, Bill English, put up a paper to Cabinet entitled Removal of Ownership Restriction on Pharmacy and Optical Businesses; in other words, pharmacy deregulation. Bill English stated in his paper to his Cabinet colleagues: “The effect of the proposed changes will be to increase competition in the retail of pharmacy. Increased competition is expected to lower retail prices of medicine.” I thought, yes, competition is a core National Party policy and principle. Mr English went on to state: “Such ownership restrictions are not necessary to provide public protection from physical harm.” Mr English said there were no safety issues here. He concluded: “There is no justification for unnecessarily delaying such a useful reform that has the ability to reduce costs to the public and provide more consumer choice through increased competition.”

So far, so good; the National Party’s principles are intact. But hang on a minute, taihoa, there were troubled waters ahead. There was an election coming up; it was coming up to the 1999 election. Mr English had a committee down in Southland that was unhappy about such moves, so the National Party thought it had better put that little reform on hold, put it on the back-burner, put it out of sight and cover it up; it thought it ought to be hidden so that, hopefully, nobody would find out what the National Party had been going to do before the 1999 election. Four hundred votes could have been at risk, so out went the principles and in came the puerile.

The defeat of 1999 meant it was time to re-examine policies and principles in the National Party. There were lots of soul-searching, hand-wringing, blame-spreading, and muckraking. The National Party said it had to get back to basics. For 3 years it lurched from one reactive policy to the next.

Then we came to the 2002 election. I wanted to deregulate pharmacies. I thought Bill English was right. I told pharmacists that at their conference. Bill English followed me when I spoke at the conference. He told them in 2002 that his party opposed deregulation and that it could not be safe for the public—out went his principles and in came poppycock.

Then we get to 2003. One week ago in this House Rodney Hide put an amendment to deregulate pharmacies, and how did Bill English vote? How did the National Party vote? It voted to deregulate pharmacies. Suddenly there were no safety issues and suddenly there were no problems.

Three different positions over those 4 years show the shifting principles of the National Party. It will never be in Government until it finds out what it stands for and who it stands for.

The Government’s policy on genetic engineering is a shambles. It is beset by contradictions in the statements of Ministers. This Government has made it a bottom line to lift the moratorium on the release of genetic engineering, and to allow its release into our farms and our environment, and it thinks there will be huge economic benefit from doing that. But the Minister for the Environment says there will be no applications for years. It is hard to see where the benefits from lifting the moratorium will come from, if there are not going to be any applications.

The Minister says that if there are any releases for food crops, then she will probably “do it for them”, by which we take it to mean she will call them in under the Act and make the decision herself. But she confirmed in the House this afternoon that there is no policy on this call-in; it will be case by case decision-making. It is not clear whether this case by case decision-making will be because the Government does not actually have confidence in the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make those decisions, or because of recognition that the commercial release of GE is a political minefield and might need to be managed politically. The Minister says that Monsanto’s crops will not get approval for general release, but pine trees might because they are not food, but there appears to be no policy on food versus other crops. She says the call-in will be on a case by case basis, but assures us it will not be for political reasons. She knows that the public has huge concern, especially around crops like corn, wheat, and potatoes. However, this will not be a political decision. The Minister says that she has complete and absolute faith in the Environmental Risk Management Authority, but it seems that she is not prepared to leave decisions to it, if they are politically sensitive. She says that she has complete faith in the Environmental Risk Management Authority, but the review of the authority’s capabilities found some glaring and gross inadequacies that now need to be fixed.

The select committee that has just reported back the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill got a paper from the Environmental Risk Management Authority in which it had set out, clause by clause, its responses to the 49 recommendations of the review. It does not make reassuring reading. Let me quote: “There has been a reallocation of responsibilities between the authority and the board.”—good; that was overdue, but to what effect, for what purpose, and with what result, we are not told. The authority has overhauled its meeting procedures, but what the purpose of that was we do not know, either. The group has set up some non-governmental organisation consultative groups to address the problem that submitters do not trust the process or the agency, but the minutes of one of those meetings show simply that there was a lecture from the authority on what its purpose, role, and functions were, and the non-governmental organisations do not seem to be taking up the opportunity to go to those meetings.

The prime answer, on a recommendation about the standard of proof needed in decision making, which is a key issue in the accountability of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, was, we were told, that this was “a matter of continuing discussion internally”. The select committee was not a great deal the wiser as to how the Environmental Risk Management Authority has fixed those glaring problems, on being told that it was “a matter of continuing discussion internally”! We are told that a new structure was recommended by the review team, but not what it is going to achieve or how things have changed on the ground as a result of it.

Finally, in response to the serious concern of the review that reliance on agency relationships between the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to deliver core services creates risks that the other agencies’ priorities might precede those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority—they also said this was the prime risk to the environment posed by the regulatory system—the Environmental Risk Management Authority simply replied: “These changes will further develop a cooperative arrangement that already functions very effectively.” We are not reassured.

I have been in this House for about 10 years now. The first year I spent desperately trying to get on select committees; the last year I spent trying to get off them. But the last few months on the Local Government and Environment Committee have been very, very disturbing. Nothing in Parliament is more disgraceful, disappointing, and ultimately self-defeating than members who use inaccurate slurs and accusations in a select committee, or anywhere in this Parliament. I have witnessed something I would never have thought possible in this House—an unholy, unlikely, and ultimately unsustainable alliance between the National Party and the Green Party. Collusion, collaboration, and cooperation have been taking place on that select committee, and I am most disturbed by that.

Another strange partnership has taken place in Parliament in the last couple of months. Two men who are well known to Parliament—one is Nick Smith, and the other is Nicky Hager—have formed an alliance. “Tricky Nicky I” and “Tricky Nicky II” have formed an alliance—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Reference to members of this House will be made by name and nothing else.

“Tricky Nick Smith I” and “Tricky Nicky Hager II”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is just being silly. He cannot refer in that way to any member, or the obvious conclusion can come. However, comments about people outside the House are matters of taste.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Those two people—who are well-known masters of manipulation, well-known Oscars of omission, and artists of inaccuracies—make wild claims because they are desperate to seek publicity in whatever form it might take. Nick Smith has been referring time and time again to a book put out by Nicky Hager that is full of inaccuracies. They both share the same paranoia over the Gisborne corn inquiry.

I came onto that committee as a new member, and was amazed at the way it operated: the chairperson is delivered a set of questions—from her research unit, no doubt—and asks them, one after the other, on and on and on, until she runs out of time. She then passes notes to Nick Smith, who, I presume, reads the notes and will ask questions, on and on and on. That unholy alliance is something I would not have thought to see in this House.

I would like to refer to one other issue. In making a personal statement to the House yesterday, Nick Smith might have got it wrong. He said he had disclosed to the select committee a possible conflict of interest.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think our friend on his feet might be questioning a personal explanation. Mr O’Connor said that Nick Smith, in his personal explanation, got it wrong, and in doing so Mr O’Connor was calling into question a personal explanation. I think he is going to do so again.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think he had better leave that subject alone, because, of course, I have received correspondence about it. I would prefer him to move onto something else.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The only sound reason I can think of for Nick Smith being so desperate for publicity is that he wants to run for the leadership of the National Party. National members are desperate. We would welcome Nick Smith as leader, but they are absolutely desperate. I hope that party gets the New Zealand Herald. I hope its members read the editorial last Friday. It talks about confusing signals from a party that is struggling in the polls. It goes on to say: “ It is a lesson that appears to have bypassed National MP Nick Smith. So intent is he on scoring political points from the `Corngate’ inquiry that he seems unaware his activity is putting potholes in the path along which his party wants research and genetic modification to proceed.”

I want to ask in this House: does the National Party support genetic engineering or does it not? Is the National Party prepared to sell out its principles and go into a coalition with the Green Party just to score cheap political points? Let us get on record some of the things that are clear.

The member for Bay of Plenty wants to draw the House’s attention this afternoon to the performance of our Prime Minister. I want to say this: the halo is slipping. The arrogance of the Prime Minister will bring her down. She made this comment: “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a competent and popular Prime Minister.” Never have more arrogant words been spoken by the Prime Minister, who has spent the last month hiding behind Dr Cullen’s coat. Dr Cullen is now freely referred to as the Acting Prime Minister, even when the Prime Minister is in the country.

Mr John Armstrong—hardly a friend of the Opposition—made this comment: “Corngate Mark II will have one consequence: erosion of trust in the Prime Minister.” He went on to talk about the fact that the memo from Ruth Wilkie was kept, although Helen Clark promised full disclosure of all relevant documents. He said it was damaging because it centred on the Prime Minister’s trust.

The fact is that this Prime Minister is a Prime Minister who plays the blame game. Everything is everybody else’s fault. She blames “corngate” on the Greens. She has no recollection of “paintergate” and blames the Sunday Star-Times. Do members remember the “ancestral landscapes”? She said she did not sign the Cabinet paper, but she did, and when she was found out, she blamed her staff for not getting all the files.

What about her anti-American comments during the Iraq war? She said she did not say them, but when she was found out, she blamed the media for goading her into saying them. What about the OECD growth targets? She said she had no recollection that the Government had had that policy, and when Bill English provided the paper she signed, she said she had no recollection of signing it and blamed her officials for putting that sort of piece of paper in front of her.

What about the Gregory Fortuin mediation with the Alliance? Do members remember that? She had no recollection of it whatsoever, but it was all checked with people in her office, and she blamed her staff for not telling her. What about the Historic Places Trust payout? The Prime Minister denied it and said there had been no payout, and when it was revealed that there had been a payout, who was to blame? It was the staff—for not telling her what was going on.

But here is the best one of all. Do members remember the Prime Minister campaigning before the 1999 election on State housing, and saying that New Zealanders should welcome disadvantaged people having “halfway homes” in their own areas? The Prime Minister said we should welcome disadvantaged people into our communities. Then we realised that there was a letter to the Auckland City Council, on official letterhead, signed by Helen Clark, saying: “We don’t want this halfway house in our neighbourhood because it is going to destroy the 18th century Edwardian values”—as though we could have 18th century Edwardian values—“of our neighbourhood.” Who was to blame? It was the staff—they used the wrong letterhead. The fact is that time and time again this Prime Minister blames everyone else.

Why is she not going to Gisborne for the “hui-hopping” on the beaches issue? Micky Savage would have fronted on those marae. Peter Fraser would have fronted up on marae to talk about that issue. Norman Kirk would have had the guts to front up on marae to talk about the seabed and foreshore issue. David Lange, the man she discarded, would have had the guts to stand up on the marae and defend the Government’s position. Mike Moore would have had the courage to go to the marae to stand up for the Government. But where is Helen Clark? Nowhere!

I would like to start by coming back to the central question that was originally behind the GE corn inquiry. That was the question of whether the Government allowed, and covered up, the growing of the GM sweetcorn crop. It seems very strange that that particular question has been lost amongst other arguments as to whether one of thousands of documents might not have been disclosed at the time but a little bit later. That is because the underlying issue here is that there was no GM sweetcorn crop, therefore there was nothing to cover up, and there was no cover-up. There are not many interjections against that—there is silence. I think there is general agreement within the House that that was the principle and the underlying issue, and that is where the issue ends.

This talk of a cover-up in the middle of 2002 is really not supported by the evidence, which has been traversed by the select committee in recent times. One of the most telling bits of evidence that has come out is a copy of a memo that was sent in the middle of 2001—a year before the controversy erupted in 2002—from biosecurity at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to Greenpeace. Greenpeace is not backward about coming forward when it thinks it has evidence of some sort of cover-up, but that Greenpeace memo was publicly read out in the Local Government and Environment Committee, and it states what actually happened. An initial test gave concern that there might be GM in the corn crop, but further testing disclosed that that was not the case. The original test by Crop and Food Research was positive, but it was later discounted and therefore cannot be counted as a positive test. It was invalid for at least three reasons, the most of important of which was that the negative control for the test also came out positive. The calibration of the equipment being used in that sensitive test was shown to be wrong, as was the test result. All subsequent test results were shown to be negative.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Nothing in it.

There was nothing in it. On that basis, what are we concerned about here? We have the self-appointed “searcher for truth”, as he describes himself, Dr Nick Smith. Look at his history! He pulled another scam a couple of years ago over at Meridian Energy. Freeze! It’s the rug squad! He went in there as a self-appointed searcher and performed a citizen’s arrest on a rug. His allegation was that those rugs were some sort of cover-up. Rugs do cover the floor but they did not cover his allegation. That bizarre exercise ended up with him having egg on his face. That is a man with selective amnesia. Not very long ago, he criticised payments the Government was making to North Korea as part of the UN-mandated campaign to try to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He forgot that those payments were authorised by his own Government when he was a Minister.

That man has selective memory, and that has brought about some strange alliances. He is in cahoots with the Greens, and we should never forget that this is the issue on which the Greens have said they wish to bring the Government down. We should never forget that on the day after the election interview between John Campbell and Helen Clark on TV3, mysteriously pre-printed stickers started appearing on Labour Party paraphernalia. We should never forget that the publisher of Nicky Hager’s book was Craig Potton, and that he was not only mysteriously on the list for the Greens but was out of the country on a surfing holiday during the middle of the election campaign. It is not credible to suggest that the Greens—or at least some Green members—did not know about the Hager book prior to it being published.

Why is Nick Smith interested in this? What is he trying to deflect consideration from? It is certainly not the Budget, because we have a surplus.

Recently, in the Christchurch coroner’s court, a Japanese woman told an inquest into the death of her daughter that she had come to this country solely to give birth and thereby obtain New Zealand citizenship for the child. The New Zealand Herald, in an editorial on 1 September, indicated that the Government needs to get a better grasp of exactly what is going on. There are too many travellers in our maternity units for comfort.

Today we have heard the Minister of Health, Annette King, and an Associate Minister of Health, Damien O’Connor, speak in this debate, but neither of them has shown the slightest concern for those women in our country who are going to maternity wards and being told, as was the case with a young woman at the North Shore Hospital, that they will have to leave. After delivering the child, that North Shore woman was told that she would have to leave in 2 hours. She was packed off and sent on her way 2 hours after giving birth. This was reported in the North Shore Times Advertiser on Thursday, 28 August: “A North Shore mother is upset after being asked to vacate her North Shore Hospital bed at 4.20 a.m., only two hours after giving birth.” The hospital tried to say that it did not want her to do that, but in actual fact, the hospital found a car seat for the couple to borrow, and Ms Maire, the mother, was delivered by wheelchair to the car. That is what we are seeing happen in New Zealand today. Why is it happening? It is a fact, it would seem, that women are coming from overseas to take advantage of New Zealand’s hospital services. They are paying for it, of course. Is that the difference? Those people come from overseas, and the hospitals charge them for having their children in the hospital. The hospitals want overseas people to come to New Zealand so they can charge them for having children, but when the mother is a New Zealander, she has 2 hours and she is gone, and this Government does not care two hoots about it.

This Government has been asked by the New Zealand Herald, and it is now being asked by New Zealand First: what is its policy on this issue? This is a North Shore matter, and I am disappointed that no National Party members in the House have taken the slightest interest in the issue. I believe it is the most important issue facing New Zealand, and especially Auckland, at the present time. Do we not care about the birth of our children in New Zealand? The Minister of Health is a woman, and the Prime Minister is a woman, but we just get these fancy statements from the Prime Minister that she is the victim of her own success as a competent and popular Prime Minister. She should tell that to Ms Maire, and Ms Maire should tell that to all the other women on the North Shore. There is now a concern in both the North Shore and west Auckland. The article in the North Shore Times Advertiser states: “Ms Maire says she has a lot of pregnant friends who are now worried about giving birth at North Shore Hospital.”

What is this country coming to? We cannot even deliver our children. New Zealanders cannot even get preference to be born in a New Zealand hospital, and the Labour Party does not give two hoots about it. All we heard in the debate today was talk about “corngate”. We heard the Minister of Health have a go at somebody in the National Party about something that happened in 1999. We heard an Associate Minister of Health go on about something irrelevant, as well. What is important is what is happening today, and, in fact, what is not happening today. Our mothers should be spending more time in hospital than just 2 hours, and they should not be given the boot at 4.20 a.m. by North Shore Hospital staff, or the staff of any other hospital. Is it not also an irony—I have read this in one of our newspapers—that we do not have enough jobs for doctors in our hospitals? Members might ask why. It is because the Labour Party’s immigration system is bringing in foreign doctors to take jobs from our own doctors.

There is absolutely no coordination in what the Labour Party is doing. It does not have the faintest idea of what is happening in our country, and does not give two hoots. I am really staggered that in the House today the Minister of Health, Annette King, gave no indication whatsoever about her concern for the women of the North Shore, and of Auckland, or for the children. That kid was 2 hours old and he was off down the road. Jesus Christ was born in a stable, but at least he had a bit more time in it. Now, young New Zealanders spend 2 hours in the hospital and they are off. They are stuck in wheelchairs with their mothers, and they are off down the road at 4.20 a.m. It is an absolute disgrace.

I want to take the opportunity afforded to me by this debate to talk about an emerging issue of great significance to the future prosperity of New Zealand families. I am referring to the reality that first-home buyers are increasingly being shut out of the New Zealand housing market. Almost daily at the moment our newspapers are filled with news of the housing boom, and the press writes it up as though it were some kind of magical road to wealth for all New Zealanders. Yesterday, for example, we were advised that the average Kiwi household is now $13,400 richer than it was a year ago because of the booming house prices, but we are yet to see any in-depth analysis of the negative consequences—the flipside, if one likes—of that reality.

Statements that average household wealth is increasing overlook the reality that when it comes to homeownership, we are now seeing our nation divided between the haves and the have-nots on an intergenerational basis. I can give members a figure, just released. In the 10 years between 1991 and 2001 the number of homes owned and occupied in New Zealand increased by 20,000, but the number of rented homes in New Zealand during the same 10-year period increased by 111,000. That bears out my contention that an increasing number of New Zealanders are being consigned to the long-term rental of properties. On the one hand, we have people in their 50s and 60s buying up their third or fourth investment properties, whilst, on the other hand, an increasing number of first-home buyers are being shut out and consigned to long-term rental of homes owned by other people.

I want to spend a moment looking at what that means for those young first-home buyers, on whom the future of our society so fundamentally depends. A recent ASB Bank survey showed that, at existing housing prices, a 20 percent deposit, which is normally required for a new home, is now equal, on average, to two and a half times the average annual salary of New Zealanders. This is but one indicator that more and more New Zealanders are finding homeownership completely beyond their reach. Those young families who are able to scrape together a deposit for their first home are then faced with the stress of endeavouring to service a huge mortgage, which greatly reduces their ability to meet their day-to-day living costs and to raise the kids. Never before during my lifetime have I seen so many young couples so heavily indebted. It concerns me that this is putting an intolerable financial stress on the very group in our society who most need our support—if only because they are doing the most important work that any of us can do; namely, raising the beautiful children of our next generation. Faced with those realities, Governments should not stand idly by.

A Labour-led Government, with its traditions of opting to offer a helping hand to the have-nots rather than to the haves, should be prepared to grapple with this issue. We need to begin with some rigorous analysis concerning the factors that have led to this situation. I can identify a number of those factors. Firstly, New Zealand interest rates are presently the highest in the developed world, at about 5.25 percent, but they are low in relation to the rates that New Zealanders have become used to paying since the reforms of the 1980s. This combination of circumstances readily enables banks to attract a flood of funds from overseas sources for on-lending to Kiwis. Banks make money only if they can lend, and therefore have the strongest possible incentives to go right on making money while the opportunity exists to do so. They used to lend up to 80 percent of the amount for a house, but now the banks are prepared to go up to 95 percent and sometimes higher, placing the borrowers in a vulnerable position. It then only takes a redundancy or a job loss to mean that many of those households will be unable to keep up with the servicing of their debts. It places real stress on marriages, even leading, in some circumstances, to separation.

Secondly, investment in residential rental property has never been more popular. I have already told members that it increased by 111,000 in the 10-year period to 2001, and it is continuing to increase to this day. That is because of the favourable tax treatment that applies to those investments. However, the popularity such investments enjoyed during the 1980s and 1990s has now been influenced by a new factor. I refer to the fact that company equities and fixed interest returns have dropped markedly in the last couple of years.

What is the bet that United Future does not have that member on the hustings at the next election? He will not be anywhere to be seen when it comes to whipping up public fervour over various issues that this Government is putting through. Up until now, this was a reasonably lively debate, and I have come to the conclusion that the Labour Party members have worked this tactic out. When the Opposition starts to get on top of them, they put up someone from United Future, and that will kill the debate dead. I want to thank that member for reading to us newspaper articles that we have all read non-stop over the last 4 or 5 days. If the member is going to talk about first-home buyers, then he should at least have the decency to get up and speak from the heart, not from written notes, or, alternatively, give the speech to Marc Alexander and let him have a crack. At least we know that when Marc Alexander gets to his feet, he is likely to have a go at the Government. The more that we encourage Marc Alexander to get to his feet and have a go at the Government, the better off we will be. We will be watching the Labour Party’s tactics of putting up Gordon Copeland when the going gets tough.

I want to respond to David Parker, the member for Otago. I was in Oamaru on Thursday. The local newspaper has a column that asks locals: “What was the one thing you would like your local MP to do?” What people say when they answer that question is: “Who is my local MP?” They do not have a clue who he is. That seat is marginal. David Parker goes to bed every night hearing “knock, knock, knock, knock”, as the National Party door-knocks in Otago. That seat is coming home after the next election, and that member will have to find another job. He will not be one of the members following the Prime Minister as she makes remarks such as: “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a competent and popular Prime Minister.” What have we here? Could one get arrogance of any higher levels when dealing with the media?

What I particularly like is the fact that this Prime Minister is now starting to refer to herself in the third person, for example: “The Prime Minister is aggrieved.” “The Prime Minister believes … ”—blah, blah, blah—“who, incidentally, is me.”, she said on radio earlier this week. It is almost like Margaret Thatcher saying: “We are a grandmother.” Remember when Margaret Thatcher said that? It will not be long before this Prime Minister takes herself far too seriously and backs herself with comments like: “I wonder whether I am a victim of my own competency and success.” Well, we are crying buckets over here for the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair, the master of spin, whom the Prime Minister bases her administration on, fronts up to select committees. He fronts up to committees of inquiry. He fronts up every time he is called. What does this Prime Minister do when the heat comes on? She sends Michael Cullen in. She sends Michael Cullen into the House, while she sits somewhere else in New Zealand, leaving him to carry the workload when it all goes wrong. Will the Prime Minister be fronting up to New Zealand farmers tomorrow at 12.30 p.m. on the steps of Parliament? No. She stood in the House yesterday and said: “The Prime Minister has very pressing engagements in Auckland.” I bet she does. The last thing this Prime Minister wants to do is to face down the people who provide the wealth of this country and provide Don Brash’s—er, Michael Cullen’s surpluses. The money that Michael Cullen is banking in his super fund is farmers’ earnings.

Those farmers deserve to have Labour Party members front up to them tomorrow when they arrive here at Parliament. [Interruption] Is Darren Hughes going on the steps tomorrow? That member should front down those farmers. They are furious with what this Government has done. It is just not good enough. If it is good enough for Tony Blair to front up before committees of inquiry, this Prime Minister should get down from being a victim of her own success and front up to “corngate”. She should get off her high horse and get in front of that select committee, just like Tony Blair has done in the UK.

I rise to talk about the GM issue that has been spoken about earlier. I am someone who can actually understand what the difference is between tolerance, probability levels, and detection levels. I have been sitting on the GM inquiry, and I have sat on the Education and Science Committee while it has listened to submissions on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. I have read through hundreds of pieces of paper, and I have not come across any papers suggesting there was any contamination of sweetcorn in Gisborne. [Interruption] I have actually seen all the data that has been presented to the committee, and I have not seen any data suggesting any contamination at all. All the relevant tests that have been presented show negative GM in those samples. The only test that suggested positive results was due to an equipment failure, where the control negative is a positive, which clearly suggests that we cannot trust that particular sample.

I will talk about how I see the future of GM around New Zealand and around the world. There are 58 million hectares of GM crops grown in 16 countries, and that includes corn, wheat, cotton, canola, and many other crops. So the genie is out, if you like. The GM crops are out there; there is no way we can go back, and the sooner we realise that fact the better it will be for us. I have sat on the Education and Science Committee and listened to submissions on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. I have asked of almost every scientist who has given evidence: “Please give me evidence. Please give me a scientifically reviewed paper. Tell me whether there has been any evidence of an adverse effect of GM on human health or the environment.” Not a single piece of evidence has been shown in that committee, at all.

No scientist anywhere in the world has shown any evidence of an adverse effect on human health or the environment. However, I can tell members that there have been positive effects. For example, one-third of the cotton grown in Australia is now from a GE crop. In that situation, it has been shown that pesticide use has been reduced by 50 percent by using a GE crop. In terms of our agriculture, I feel that the use of pesticide is a more important issue than GM, because excessive use of pesticides is destroying our land and our waterways. If there is anything we can do that will reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides, it will be good for agriculture.

What we need in this country is more informed debate. This country has gone through a royal commission of inquiry, and I think we have done very well in that, but we need a lot more informed debate. Members on the other side are suggesting that at least one sector of society is using really scary tactics. They are saying: “GM will do this, and GM will do that.”, but I have not seen any adverse impact because of GM crops. I believe that unless we do some research in this country and show leadership, we will be left behind. I have been an agricultural scientist for 27 years, and I know that the agricultural advancement we have made in this country has come about because, in many ways, we have led the development of agricultural science around the world. If we can do the research here and add value, using the opportunities we have in this country to improve our agriculture, rather than having patented crops coming from overseas, then so much the better.

It is good to see the Minister of Defence here today; I am just hoping he will take a call before the end of the day. We can probably help him out a little bit. The leaves are rustling, and we are starting to hear some movement in defence. I hear that he is about to announce the purchase of a very expensive vehicle, the Humvee, and he may like to take a call to tell us about that. But what I would like to ask him to do is to cancel the motorisation plan, go back to square one, and let us have some sensible decisions. We have a better plan than that—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Do nothing! That’s all you want to do.

The Minister should listen to his colleagues and do the right thing. The Minister from Taupo, who leads a peacenik organisation, is touted internationally as our Minister of Defence—what a joke! We have the founder of a peace movement leading our defence forces.

Today I want to talk about another group of people who have been poorly treated in this country. Today I asked the Prime Minister whether she had confidence in the Minister of Health and the people responsible for running mental health services, and she said she did. How can the Prime Minister have confidence—[Interruption] They do not like it up them, do they? How can this Government have confidence in a mental health system that spends 26,000 hours of good police time chasing mentally unwell people in our community who should not be there? How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a health system where 6,175 mental health cases are in the hands of the police force? How can we have confidence in a Government that shoots its mouth off in elections, tells everybody it cares about people, then locks up mentally unwell people, leaving them to rot in jails?

Former Prime Minister Mike Moore said: “We have closed down hospitals, and are now planning to rebuild similar wards inside prisons.” I ask Labour whether it is proud of that. We have people all over this country whom this Government does not care about—people who suffer the daily trauma and rigours of watching their loved ones being subjected to the mental health system. An article entitled “Woman Wants Staff Charged Over Death” talks about a woman who asked that her son not be released. She asked that he be taken care of because he was suicidal. His brother also made representations, and where is that young man now? He is dead—suicide. Failure! Who is responsible? Annette King is responsible. Who is responsible? Helen Clark, who started the whole stupid total deinstitutionalisation plan, which was supported by Jenny Shipley. What greater credit could the Labour Party bring upon itself than to get plaudits from Jenny Shipley on mental health care?

What else is happening? In the last week—[Interruption] Steve Chadwick is shooting her mouth off, but it is her Government’s failure. In the last week, a man in Masterton was involved in an axe rage attack; that man should not have been out in the community. In another case, a young woman in Porirua threw herself in front of a train. And what do I hear coming out of the mouths of Labour MPs now? “Oh, we don’t care. It’s just another one. We’d have to lock them all up.” What about the case of the man who was found walking the motorway with a replica pistol? Had it not been for the professionalism of the police force, he would be dead. The police would have been justified in shooting him dead, but they did not do that. They talked him through it, because they know that this Government has turned nutters loose all over the streets of this country. This Government does not care; it just says: “We can’t do anything else.”

This Government promises big but it does not deliver. It does not care about the trauma faced by the Burton family down south. Where is the accountability? Helen Clark was big in the mouth when she promised—she was reported as promising—a hard line on accountability, saying she would go all the way to the top, including sacking bungling Ministers. She was going to usher in a new standard of accountability. Where is it? People are dying in our streets, and dying in community care, and this Government does nothing about it.

There we have it, the member whose party is so committed to defence that in 1996 it did not have a policy. Ten days after his colleague took umbrage at my saying it did not have a defence policy, he sought leave to table it. Ten days later he tabled a paragraph—one miserable little paragraph—from a coalition agreement. There was no policy, not a bean.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is interrupting a speech. It should be a genuine point of order.

💬 Ron Mark: Well, I will raise it after his speech, then, thank you.

After 10 days he produced one miserable paragraph. Now the member tells us his policy is, to sum it up, to do nothing, cancel everything, and condemn our men and women to have clapped-out equipment. It was clapped-out when that member was in Government. He would have us abandon our men and women completely. I say to the member that they deserve better than that hopeless, useless—

💬 Ron Mark: Are you buying the Humvee?

We will tell members what we are buying when we have made a decision. The decision is not made, and the member should grow up. This is a great example of the sort of misleading nonsense that comes across the Chamber. We heard it from Mr English earlier on, and what a desperate man he is. He has got his own colleagues chasing him. We saw the member for Manawatu try to take his chance after that appalling performance from the Leader of the Opposition.

What is it about? It is about trying to create a beat-up around documents, and trying to capitalise on the confusion that is now being created. The facts are absolutely different from anything we have heard from Opposition members. We have heard about documents that were not released at the time. Half the documents in question were released to Mr Price; a request was made under the Official Information Act in November-December. In fact, half those documents relating to Nicky Hager’s book were published back in 2002. Other documents that they say were not released were actually duplicates of material that was released in July 2002.

I want to go to a very specific thing that happened in here this afternoon. I take members’ tabling of documents somewhat seriously. The Leader of the Opposition, in tabling a document this afternoon, an email from Mr Wintringham, the State Services Commissioner—someone who should not be dragged into debate, but he was dragged into it this afternoon—gave the clear impression to the House that he was quoting the tone and the text of the State Services Commissioner’s email to chief executives. He gave the clear impression to members of this House, in seeking to table it, that the commissioner was concerned about the conduct and the appropriateness of a press conference that took place with senior public servants following the release of Mr Hager’s book.

That, clearly, simply is not accurate; nor is it truthful. If members turn to the actual paragraph, they will find that what Mr Wintringham said to a public servant who had raised with him what was appropriate: “Explaining the work of Government departments is a normal role for senior Government officials. You are right that this needs to be handled with particular care in a pre-election period and you’ll have seen that the State Services Commissioner provided the ‘umbrella’ for yesterday’s media conference. This was precisely to ensure that the briefing was limited to the provision of full and accurate, but non-political, information from the Public Service to the media and any other enquirers … . The briefing did not include the participation of any politicians, nor did it defend or criticise any particular party policies. In addition …”.

That is about as far as possible from the impression the Leader of the Opposition gave this House this afternoon. That is the depth to which the National Party has to sink. That is the sort of behaviour we expect from Nick Smith, the rug rat. That is the sort of behaviour we expect from that member, who makes up scams then falls flat on his face on the very rug he has been talking about. We all remember the Meridian Energy rug incident, where he made gross accusations, dragged all the media along, and, indeed, we found out that all the accusations of extravagance and wrongdoing were wrong. He was absolutely wrong. He had made it up. He had no evidence, and when the facts were produced he was found to be as wrong as Bill English’s appalling performance in this House this afternoon was.

I well remember the Minister of Defence running away from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; he would not front. He turned up to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, then ran away. He ran down to the Chinese Embassy to celebrate 50 years of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, rather than front up to Parliament. I have come to expect from that Minister that he will never front and will always run away.

I have to say that although I disagree with Helen Clark on many, many things, I always thought she would front. I always thought the Prime Minister of New Zealand would front up to the 4 million people of New Zealand and give an account, because that is what New Zealanders expect. They know that the Mark Burtons of this world cannot hack it, but Helen Clark prides herself on being a plain-speaking, blunt Prime Minister. What are we finding? She will not front up to Parliament at question time. Oh, she is busy; she is a world leader; she is up there hobnobbing with the Europeans, and too busy for the day-to-day cares of Parliament.

We have discovered that this Prime Minister will not front up to a select committee. Why? This great Prime Minister, who is a victim of her telling success, who knows everything, says: “Actually, I know nothing about the one issue that drove the 2002 election campaign, so I don’t have to turn up to the select committee, because that is beneath me.” In fact she calls the select committee, which is chaired by the Greens, who support this Government, a circus. She calls the fact that Opposition MPs are working together to try to get to the truth a conspiracy—compared with this conspiracy to lie and cover up.

I can understand the Prime Minister not wanting to go along there, because, as she says, she is the Prime Minister, but what about this issue, ladies and gentlemen? For the farmers of New Zealand coming to protest the fart tax—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot use that term; I have ruled it out. He will use another term.

The flatulence levy. Mr Speaker you have sensitive ears.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I have a regard for the Standing Orders and the dignity of the English language.

Will the Prime Minister front up to the farmers of New Zealand on the steps of Parliament? The answer is no. Will she front up to the Māori people of New Zealand, whom this Government campaigned for? It said it represented the Māori people of New Zealand. The Māori people go to court, they go through the court process in good faith to hear their claims, and Helen Clark says: “We’re going to legislate over the Māori people’s rights. They cannot have the rights that every other citizen of New Zealand enjoys.” Does the Prime Minister front up to the Māori people? Is she turning up to the Gisborne hui to explain her policy? Is this issue beneath this great Prime Minister, who is blunt, and plain speaking, and goes on the front foot? Is talking to Māori people beneath her? Who made that decision? It was the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and the Attorney-General. Who is sent? The poor sick, tired Minister of Māori Affairs—that is who. I say to this Prime Minister “Front up!”.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.