General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today the police have announced that they are going to prosecute Shane Ardern MP for disorderly conduct.

On Monday the Prime Minister made a series of statements about the actions of Shane Ardern MP. She said that driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament was disorderly, and that his actions were not acceptable. Today I want to compare the situation of Shane Ardern with that of modest, successful Prime Minister Helen Clark. He drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament, and she knowingly signed a painting that she did not paint. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since I began my speech Mr Mallard has made a continuous stream of interjections, and I suggest to you that that is outside the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I have made two points—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a longstanding convention that members will hear a point of order out. Members know that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I have merely made two points. One is to ask where Maurice Williamson is—[Interruption] There used to be a rule that members’ points of order would be heard in silence; does that rule apply to the Opposition, or only to the Government?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that under Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3) there are not to be any running commentaries during speeches. I am not going to tolerate speeches being broken up during the general debate. There are only 5-minute speeches, and in this case I am going to ask the member on my right to desist interjecting. I ask the Hon Bill English to continue his speech.

Here are some questions. Helen Clark knowingly signed a painting with her name. Shane Ardern drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament. Did the police interview Shane Ardern? Yes. Did they interview Helen Clark? No. Did Helen Clark answer the questions the police put to her? No. Did Shane Ardern answer the questions put to him? Yes. Did Shane Ardern cooperate with the police? Yes. Did Helen Clark cooperate with the police? No. What are the relative penalties for those two actions? For forgery it is 7 years’ imprisonment, for disorderly behaviour there is a $1,000 fine. The forgery charge was much more serious, and it was not pursued. Not only did Helen Clark not cooperate with the police, but as the police report points out, the evidence was destroyed after media commentary that there could be charges, but before “the active police investigation began”.

This is the same Prime Minister who is condemning Shane Ardern MP, who invited the police to prosecute him, and it is an outrage. Was the Solicitor-General called upon for constitutional advice for Shane Ardern? No. Was the Solicitor-General called upon for constitutional advice for the Prime Minister? Yes. Did the Solicitor-General counsel against prosecution in the case of Shane Ardern? No. Did the Solicitor-General advise against prosecution in the case of Helen Clark? Yes, and the police say that he strongly advised against it.

However, it was not just the Prime Minister who was at fault. Chris Carter, the orange boy for the Prime Minister, was asked by police to provide telephone records relevant to the inquiry. He declined, and said: “If you want to get them you may, but it will lead to all sorts of very bad publicity.” That is what Chris Carter said. He is a Minister of the Crown, and that is what he said. Did Shane Ardern sign his police statement? Yes. Did Chris Carter sign his police statement? No. He refused to sign the statement, and the police said they did not believe what he said.

The pattern is becoming very clear. Some members of this Parliament are subject to the law—the Opposition members. Some members of this Parliament are not subject to the law—Labour members of Parliament, like Harry Duynhoven, who broke the law and was saved by the Government; Chris Carter, who lied to the police; and Helen Clark, who refused to cooperate with them, answered no questions, would not be interviewed, and had the evidence destroyed. Yet she gets up on national television and accuses our member of Parliament Shane Ardern of disorderly behaviour and invites the police to prosecute him.

I say we have had enough. Mr Speaker needs to make very sure that he is not dragged into these matters. What actions did the Speaker take to protect the privileges of this Parliament? Today he would not explain, yet he seemed to be—gave the appearance of being—in communication with the same modest, successful, non-cooperating, lawbreaking Prime Minister, when it came to Harry Duynhoven. Helen Clark conducted herself as a member of Parliament above the law, and she got away with it. The alleged offence concerning Shane Ardern is much less serious. It was an impulsive action in a protest, by an MP representing his constituents, and he got prosecuted. We want answers.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to draw to your attention the fact that you gave a specific ruling early on during the continuous interjections from Mr Mallard. In your ruling you said you would not allow that to occur, yet after that ruling—and I was not going to interrupt Bill English’s speech—I counted 11 interjections. There were 11 interjections in the last 4 minutes. I want to know why you did not enforce your ruling. You had already given a ruling to Mr Mallard about his continuous interjections, but you allowed him to roar continuously, all the way through the speech.

The reason I bring this to your attention is that every single Wednesday during every general debate it is the same—same Minister, same possie, same routine, same ritual, and again I have to say that the Opposition has had enough.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that I acknowledge what he said. But the reality is that this has been a robust debate. The member did not impugn the Hon Bill English’s reputation, and because there has been a bit of toing and froing in this particular debate, I have allowed it to continue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a serious case when you give a ruling at the beginning of a speech. I want to point out that this happens every single Wednesday—not just today. Every Wednesday when the Leader of the Opposition leads the debate two things happen: firstly, Speaker Hunt leaves the Chair and somebody else comes in, and, secondly, Bill English has to raise a point of order to stop Mr Mallard from interjecting. It is the same every single week. This week you ruled that you would stop the continuous stream of interjections. You were approached by the senior Opposition whip, and, rather than breaking the speech, he brought to your attention the fact that Mr Mallard was continuing to interject. Then, following that, there were another 11 interjections. I have to ask where the fairness is, and when the Speakership will start backing its own rulings.

First of all, can I deal with the facts of the matter. It cannot possibly be true that every week Mr English gets up and leads the general debate, because the National Party leads this debate only 1 week in 4. There is a rotation.

The fact that Mr Speaker tends to leave the Chair after question time is irrelevant. Much more important is the fact that, in this particular context, during that speech there was an orchestrated series of interjections by National Party members themselves. There was a series of rhetorical questions from Mr English, and a well-orchestrated series of responses from his back-bench colleagues. There were at least 20 interjections, in unison, from the entire National Party caucus present in Parliament, so Opposition members can scarcely complain when they receive a reasonable amount of return interjections from this side of the House.

First of all, you can dismiss the points raised by the Leader of the House, because the statements made by Opposition members during the Leader of the Opposition’s speech certainly were not breaking up his speech. So it was a frivolous point of order.

I am disturbed to hear that a whip approached you during a speech to try to influence your rulings—if that is correct, it is very wrong. No one may approach the Speaker except by raising a point of order. So if an Opposition whip did try to approach you, he should not, and he most certainly should not on a matter of order—that has to be done by way of a point of order. Having said that, I think you should actually rebuke Mr Mallard. He is sitting in a position of prominence where he can interject over the live microphone of the Speaker. He has a strong voice. What I particularly object to about Mr Mallard’s interjections is that they are grossly out of order. He cannot ask where a member is—and that is what he was doing. He was calling out and asking where a member of Parliament is. That is an interjection that is out of order. When he was pulled up, he then repeated it, which, again, was out of order. I think it would be a reasonable ruling if you were to say to Mr Mallard that if he wishes to stay in this debate for the rest of the afternoon, he should be silent unless he gets a call.

I thank all honourable members for their contributions. They have certainly been taken into consideration. First of all, I did not rule out all interjections. I ruled out vociferous interjections, and Mr Mallard was more restrained after he was warned. Secondly, Mr English made a hard-hitting speech. Some interjections can be expected, but not so much as to drown out another speaker. The Speaker will not allow a member to be drowned out. Thirdly, in relation to the point raised by Mr Prebble, there is nothing wrong with a whip approaching the Chair.

That is a very serious matter. Are you now saying that instead of raising a point of order we just stroll up to your chair and start whispering into your ear matters that no one else is able to hear, with a purpose of influencing the Chair? I suggest to you that that is grossly disorderly, and if I thought that that was going on every time anyone comes to speak to you and if I believe they are doing it in order to influence your rulings, we will have many points of order.

It is fairly rarely that Richard Prebble and I agree, but on this matter we do agree. Maybe the right approach is to have a considered ruling later.

The Speaker encourages members to speak privately to him. This has always been done. It happens all the time. In fact, there are times when members approach the Speaker to ask what order of speaking they are entitled to take. It happens frequently, and it is one thing that will continue to happen.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone going up to talk to the Speaker on a matter such as what the order of speakers will be, or a suggestion of that sort. But what I think I heard was a whip approaching you to suggest that you make a ruling on a matter of order. If someone wants to raise a matter of order, he or she should do so by raising a point of order, and there is a very good reason for that—the whole House should know what the matter is. If the Speaker encourages the two old parties to do that, then we ought to have him back because he most certainly should not. If a member wants to raise a matter of order, the Standing Orders are quite clear. He must do so by calling and saying that he is raising a point of order. He most certainly cannot raise a point of order by whispering in your ear to influence you. In this particular case you clearly took no notice, which was the right thing to do, but you most certainly should not suggest to members that they should now raise points of order by approaching you and secretly whispering in your ear.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What Mr Prebble has said is correct. However, we then get ourselves into difficulty. Obviously, we do not want to interrupt the flow of a member’s speech. Given that the Speaker had already made a ruling, as you had, the reason that I approached you in the Chair was to make the point that Mr Mallard was not abiding by your ruling. I did not want to interrupt the flow Mr English’s speech, but I asked that you make sure your ruling was carried out. I asked you to do that. The point is that if a ruling is made and abided by, then there would be no need for a whip, or anyone else for that matter, to come up to you in the Chair and ask for you to carry out the ruling that you have made. That is the fundamental point here—if we have total discipline in the House, from the Chair, as we on this side of the House ask for, then we will not have these difficulties.

There was nothing improper in Mr Carter approaching me. If there had been, then I would have said so at the time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you are in grave danger of making a ruling that I have never heard in this House before. The procedure for raising points of order is clearly set out in Standing Order 84. Standing Order 84 states that a member may raise a point of order and that the point of order takes precedence over any other matter. Mr Carter was clearly raising a point of order with you, but he was doing it in a way that is grossly disorderly. No member may approach the Speaker privately and raise what is a point of order. He has just said that he went to you and suggested to you that you should rebuke another member. I understand his dilemma—he did not want to raise the point of order—but that is the dilemma we all have. We all have to make that judgment, and one cannot get around the fact that one does not want to disrupt one’s own leader by going to see the Speaker. I say to you that you most certainly should not be encouraging that. If Mr Hunt is telling you that we should do that, then when he returns to the Chair I will raise the matter with him, as well.

As the member who raised this matter, I agree totally with the Hon Richard Prebble. I know that the National Party senior whip does, as well. It is not the way we wish to conduct business. We wish for the speakership of this Parliament to enforce the rules of the Parliament. We wish for the leader of the National Party to be able, for once, to give a 5-minute speech in this House without a concerted effort being made by the members opposite to deliberately break up his speech by way of forcing points of order. We wish that when you make a ruling, you back the ruling. If we can get all of those things, then we will not have whips approaching the Chair.

This is a very important day for Parliament, because all manner of members have had a chance to take part in the debate. I think we have spent enough time on this matter. More important, I point out that having to handle Mr Mallard is like taking candy from a baby, and I have never protested about it in the whole time that I have been in Parliament. So why should anybody else?

Members can talk to the Speaker about anything that they wish. They may not try to intimidate the Speaker. It is up to the Speaker as to what, if any, action he takes. I chose to take none in recognising the points that were made.

Members and those listening at home may remember that before all those points of order a person was screaming into the microphone. It is a kind of a worry the way that the leader of the National Party—he is not really the Leader of the Opposition any more; Mr Peters is clearly the person who has that role—gets up here time after time. By the time he has finished, after 5 minutes, he has basically just screamed himself hoarse. All we can do is to have sympathy for him. I cannot remember what he said. I could not hear most of what he said because his own members behind him kept up an unbroken chanting of interjections the whole way through his speech, as though they did not want him to speak. It was a remarkable performance. He was trying to scream above his own back-bench members, who were trying to overwhelm him all the time, but, in the end, we just feel sorry for him.

We come to the conclusion that maybe we are dealing with an extremely angry, desperate man. Why would Bill English not be desperate? There is 53 percent support for the Prime Minister, and Mr English hopes that one day he can eclipse Mr Peters and get himself back to being the second preferred leader in the country. But he is on 7 percent. I would be angry if I were on 7 percent. I am on this side of the House and I am on the Prime Minister’s side, but if I were in Opposition and on only 7 percent, I would be angry. No wonder he is angry and desperate. No wonder he gets up and screams himself hoarse every time he has a chance to speak.

The other reason he is angry is that Maurice Williamson is back. I would be spitting if I were Bill English and the maverick—not the martyr—was back. Maurice Williamson has not been sacrificed. He has been able to say whatever he likes. He is back here in the Paul Keating position, at the bottom of the party, waiting to rocket back through the ranks after everything he said. Of course, he had a right to say the things he said. The National Party lost two elections. It changed its leader, it has polled pathetically for over 4 years, and it is not really in the running now with a leader who can promise to be the next Prime Minister. Mr Williamson had a reason to say: “We resemble the Titanic.” He said that somebody should get the orchestra to shut up, and that everybody should be on deck, manning the lifeboats. He said: “I haven’t criticised Bill English. I’ve talked about the facts. We need to deliver a performance that the public sees as credible.” Maurice Williamson has also said: “I guess Bill English is the 2000 equivalent of Bill Birch. Bill was a bit boring, as boring as watching paint dry—and saying that is probably a bit unfair on paint. Mr English lacks the excitement, charisma, humour, personality, or talent to lead the National Party.”

The last National Party conference was likened, by Mr Williamson, to a slow train crash. That is not much to say about the leadership of one’s party, is it? It is not much to say about the National Party. It is not really something one would expect a person to be demoted for, vilified for, or threatened with excommunication for—then survive. Bill English likes to think he is in control of the National Party, and here is someone who likes him so much that he is not stabbing him in the back; he is stabbing him in the front—and he still survives, after all that. All I can assume—and Murray McCully, the strategist of the National Party, will know this for sure—is that Maurice Williamson has won. Members will remember that Maurice Williamson’s advice was—apart from all the things he said about the National Party—to narrow the National Party down. He said: “Don’t appeal to Māori, don’t appeal to Pacific Islanders, don’t appeal to young people, superannuitants, and beneficiaries. Don’t appeal to all those people, because if you do, you get a party that doesn’t seem to be able to appeal to our core constituency.” I am not sure who the core constituency is for Bill English—the people right of Dipton, I guess, are his core constituency.

All I can assume—and I am sure that Murray McCully, the strategist for the National Party, will confirm this when he rises—is that Maurice Williamson is now one, and the National Party, under Bill English, is officially now a minor party. National wants to appeal to a very narrow constituency of New Zealanders. It does not aspire to represent the wide range of diverse people who make up this country. It wants to fight over that little narrow centre-right part. National does not want to contest the national socialist position of the New Zealand First Party, it does not want to contest the moral conservative position of United Future, and it does not want to contest the scandal-busting position of the ACT party. National wants to establish its own position, and its own position was revealed last week. It wants to represent people who drive old tractors. That is the constituency it wants to represent—the people who drive old tractors. Today, in an hysterical speech, the speech that led off the most important debate of the week in the House, we heard the Leader of the Opposition—the would-be taker-over from Winston Peters as the Leader of the Opposition—spend his whole 5 minutes on his own constituency; he defended those tractor drivers.

The last couple of weeks have seen a couple of episodes that are sadly illuminating about the state of the Labour Party in Parliament, as of September 2003. First of all, we saw the strange affair of the Prime Minister’s attack on our co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, who must be one of the most assiduously hard-working and fair select committee chairpeople in Parliament. This unexpected verbal assault was accompanied, of course, by much publicised prime ministerial statements showing a kind of hubris, which was thankfully not particularly visible from Labour in its first term after the 1999 election. Then this week the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party sent a unanimous message to its caucus, expressing its “very grave concern at aspects of the Gambling Bill.”

💬 Jim Peters: Whose council?

Labour’s council. Did the Labour members at their caucus meeting yesterday pay any attention to this memo? Apparently not, as by 10 o’clock last night the Committee stage of the Gambling Bill had been pushed through at high speed and without any change of heart from the Government benches. With this bill, the Government faced a number of stark choices: going with the Greens, which would mean compromising so that local councils could control how many pokie venues they had, and where; or going with United Future and allowing local authorities to control only 16 percent—one-sixth—of the gambling machines in this country. Likewise, Labour could have gone with the Greens and stopped the Lotteries Commission getting into Internet gambling—one of the most pernicious forms of gaming now available—or they could have gone with United Future and taken problem gambling to a whole new level. On these, and on at least three other critical issues, Labour chose to go with the anti-family, right-wing United Future party every time.

This bill may well be the watershed, marking the moment when we look back and say: “Yes, there it was; that was the moment when Labour definitely turned to the right again—the moment they chose the gambling industry over the people they were elected to represent.” The ghosts of the fourth Labour Government have been haunting this Gambling Bill and, in fact, they are haunting Labour on the GE issue, as well. We know from many polls that a majority of Labour voters and supporters do not support their leadership’s gung-ho support for the immediate lifting of the moratorium on GE release. As of Monday, we have very clear evidence that even the party’s own leading internal body certainly did not want its MPs aligning with United Future rather than the Greens over the Gambling Bill.

I am afraid all this takes me unavoidably back to the 1980s when, for example, David Lange as Prime Minister said that the Government was prepared to go on ignoring its own party’s remits—for years and years if necessary. How many times did the membership of the Labour Party tell the fourth Labour Government to stop, change direction, and move away from the new right? It never listened, and members can see what happened. The Labour Party was destroyed, or nearly destroyed, and spent 9 long years in Opposition.

On behalf of the Green Party, I am making a plea to current Labour MPs: please do not let history repeat itself. Our party continues to be willing to work with Labour on the many areas we have of common concern, whether of workers’ rights and welfare reform, conservation, transport, or a host of other issues where sharing experiences and ideas can produce many useful, forward-looking synergies. Labour does not have to dig another final ditch for itself as it did in the mid to late-1980s. That party does not have to succumb to the fatal temptations of what seems to be absolute power, or to what appears to be the easier blandishments of the United Future right.

There is a pattern for Governments who last for more than one term in this country, a pattern into which this illustrious 2003 version of Labour seems to be falling. Somewhere in the second term those Governments come to believe they are born to rule, and they simultaneously lose track of where both their own memberships and the voting public want them to be. Labour need look no further than to its 1980s predecessor, or to the currently depleted National benches, to see what happens when people in power—no matter how well intentioned—start to lose track of where they have come from.

Today I want to reflect a little bit on that very fiery, spirited address by the current leader of the National Opposition. Frankly I do not believe he is Leader of the Opposition. Not wanting to give faint praise, I do not think he is the Leader of the Opposition; I think the “Leader of the Opposition” is sitting further along the bench. Bluntly, no wonder Mr English—

💬 Pita Paraone: What’s his name? Winston Peters.

Well, yes, and I do not want to give Mr Peters faint praise, but it is pretty obvious that the member for Tauranga can do 100 percent better than the member who spoke at the beginning of this general debate. When I listened to the Hon Bill English I was reminded that, really, the voice was rising. There was a concept of the rope supporting the condemned man, and as the rope was being pulled tighter the voice was obviously reaching a higher octave.

I believe that Maurice Williamson’s contribution and current situation are very, very interesting. I do not know—and we are running bets on this side of the House—how long Maurice can, and will, stay quiet. We are running a bit of a sweepstake, and the odds, in my view, are shortening. How much can Maurice stay quiet, and will Maurice sit over there on the other side of the House with his binoculars looking on at proceedings—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). The member may not use Christian names in the House.

Mr Williamson, the member for Pakuranga.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That’s better.

Absolutely—and just how long will the member for Pakuranga sit there with his binoculars, and stay silent? Because, in his heart of hearts, even though Maurice has been told—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but if he looks at Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement), he will see that he may not use a person’s first name. Members must be referred to by their titles, their portfolios, or their full names.

OK. Even though the suspended National Party member for Pakuranga—currently suspended, which means he has to seal his lips; I guess over time those sealed lips will start to crack at the edges—because you know in his heart of hearts that he will say—

💬 Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, that member is infringing the Standing Orders by now drawing you into the debate with the use of the word “you”. He is a senior member. Why does he foot fault so often?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member.

I appreciate the acknowledgement that I am a senior member, and I thank the member for that.

Maurice Williamson said there was little point in debating policies if National was never going to be in a position to implement them. Again, in his heart, members know that he believes “It’s a bit rich to blame the assistant tea boy when the ship’s sinking, rather than the captain and the first officer up on the bridge.” That quote is from the New Zealand Herald on 29 July 2003. What is that programme with the line “My lips are sealed.”?

💬 Richard Worth: Teletubbies.

OK. Indeed, my lips are sealed, but we know that in his heart of hearts that is what Maurice is seeking. The only crime Maurice has committed is that he is saying—

💬 Richard Worth: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say. The member on his feet has again drawn the Speaker into the debate. He must refer to the honourable member or to the honourable Minister when he is referring to other people. He must not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do apologise to you. Such is my enthusiasm for Maurice Williamson’s message. I believe that Maurice Williamson does have a message for this country and that he very eloquently shared it with the country, until his lips were sealed by his colleagues. In their heart of hearts those colleagues from that bit of the Opposition know that Maurice Williamson is very, very right in his observation of the destiny of that party under the leadership of Mr Bill English. In their heart of hearts they are scared of the member for Tauranga. They know that they are very, very close, frankly, to being eclipsed by the member for Tauranga, and that New Zealand First has the potential for being a major player in the Opposition. They know that, and when we come to an election, the best they can do is win 28 percent of the vote.

Today in question No. 10 I raised the subject of Wali Allahayi. He came with a false passport in 1999, when I was not a member of Government or a Minister. At the end of question time the Minister tabled a document to do with Hassan Ahmed Shaqlane—a different person—who was convicted of rape and kidnapping in August 2000, after Helen Clark had been appointed Prime Minister. She sought to defuse the situation by tabling the wrong document, but here is the point: back then, spokesperson Ian Smith—we know who he is, do we not—said that deportation was “highly likely”. However, the service had plans to bring the family together, and it has done so since that time, and that is the reason given by the appeal authority for not sending him home—that is, that the family has now been reunited. It stinks to high heaven, and the Prime Minister, in her duplicitous way, sought to come to the House to claim something totally different from the facts.

It is time for the Prime Minister to end the ministerial career of her bungling, illegal immigrant-loving, hand-wringing, ineffectual, incompetent, no-hoper Minister of Immigration. A few days ago we received this open letter from Lianne Dalziel. In it, she tells us why she cannot do a thing about an alleged Muslim terrorist, because the United Nations will not let her. In an urgency debate in July, 20,000 people lose their applications or their rights, but she says she is hamstrung in respect of that alleged terrorist. The letter is full of excuses. We have filed it in the wastepaper basket, alongside the Labour Party’s immigration policy. It reminds me of the prisoner-of-war guard in that television programme Hogan’s Heroes—Sergeant Schultz, whose famous comment was: “I know nothing.” She makes Sergeant Schultz look like an informed intellectual. Every time she is caught, she knows nothing about it and she blames someone else. Her duties are being performed in a way that is an affront to all New Zealand. She has done more to destroy the fabric of our society than any other Minister I have seen in my time in Parliament.

It is an indictment on the Prime Minister that she has let that novice Minister bring in planeloads of Third World ratbags and then claims she cannot deport them. What sort of Prime Minister lets a Minister of Immigration keep a convicted rapist in the country? What sort of Prime Minister lets a Minister of Immigration keep a convicted kidnapper in the country? What sort of Prime Minister keeps a Minister of Immigration who lets an illegal immigrant stay here to shoot a woman in the back while she is hanging out her washing? What sort of Prime Minister lets a Minister keep her job when an illegal African immigrant is raping New Zealand women, infecting them with AIDS, and condemning them to an early death? It is a shame.

This letter from the Minister is two-and-a-half-pages of bleating about why she cannot do her job. It does not explain why we have to keep illegal, HIV-infected immigrants here. It does not explain why North Shore Hospital and Auckland Hospital are bursting their seams with 70 percent of TB cases from the Third World that they have brought here. We are sick and tired of hearing the Prime Minister, when asked in question time whether she has confidence in Lianne Dalziel, saying: “Yes, because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.” [Interruption] I know it is market day—I can tell.

I have news for the Prime Minister, her useless Minister of Immigration, and for all the Labour Party Klingons who are polluting this country with the riff-raff of the Third World. It is time to put the health and safety of our people first. We are part of the politically correct drivel about saving the world’s flotsam and jetsam. We do not believe in illegal immigrants, bogus asylum-seekers, or refugees living off the sweat of the New Zealand taxpayer. We will kick that irresponsible party off the Government benches in 2005. We will clean up the system. To use Oliver Cromwell’s famous words: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

The Hon Lianne Dalziel is a hard-working, conscientious Minister of Immigration. If anyone can fix it, the honourable Minister of Immigration can. Can she fix it? Yes, she can! She is a good Minister of Immigration. She is just one of many Ministers who represent a talent on this side of the House. That is more than I can say for that side of the House. I am a little bit concerned—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I am having difficulty hearing her speech. I want silence. I do not mind the odd interjection, but not running commentaries. Members should look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5, which states that a running commentary is out of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was speaking, there were all manner of interjections from Mr Mallard, the visiting fish-seller from Wanganui, and all manner of people, and I never protested or objected. We are long way away from that member. Really, if a member cannot hack it in this Parliament, he or she should find a new job.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While I do not agree with the exact words or the tone of what Winston Peters, the right honourable member from Tauranga, has just said. I think it would be fair to say that the member was doing very well and there was not a problem. Members down in this part of the House could hear her pretty well.

The truth hurts—just a little bit of the truth hurts. If there is a Minister of Immigration who can fix it, it is Lianne Dalziel. She is a great Minister and represents one of many talented Ministers on our front bench. That is more than I can say for a lot of comments from members on the other side of the House. I am a bit concerned about the comments about the leadership void in the Opposition. It is not just a reflection on the Hon Bill English. In fact, it is a reflection on the whole of the National Party, and people on that side of the House should be concerned about that. The leadership void that has been created has given rise to a lot of questions from the media about who will be next, and who will fill that void. Is it going to be Richard Worth? I see him sitting up in his chair. Is it going to be Wayne Mapp, who is looking proudly over here? Is it going to be Simon Power, who is pretending to be disengaged from it all, but has a wry smile on his face? That is the type of talk that has arisen because of the leadership void on the other side of the House.

This is no abstraction. When the deputy chair of the Pakuranga branch of the National Party says something like: “There is an 80 percent dissatisfaction level among the National Party’s financial members with the quality of the party’s message.”, what does that say? What do we see? We see Maurice Williamson suspended. I think the National Party is floundering in terms of the talent it can generate for new policy development, new ideas, a vision, and a way of going forward. What do we see from the National Party? We see the politics of fear being stirred up in our society. We see the politics of divisiveness being stirred up in our society.

Today, on members’ day, when there is a general debate, when we have a whole lot of issues to debate here in the House, what did the Leader of the Opposition choose to speak about? The Hon Bill English brought up the issue of tractors. That is the niche he wants to fill. That is the niche that the National Party wants to attract into its new-look party. It is like watching a B-grade sitcom—“… so are the days of our lives.”

National Party members should be very concerned about the image they are presenting to the public, because it will keep them at their current polling rates. While we are talking about polling rates, on 22 August this year the National Party mustered up a stunning 23 percent. Given its stance on the beaches-for-all campaign with regard to the foreshore and seabed, could it claw back further support? No, it polled a stunning 23 percent.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Bill English got 7 percent.

Even more than that, as my colleague points out, the Leader of the Opposition claimed only 7 percent. At a time when there is an issue that challenges us all as a nation, what could the National Party do? It could muster only 23 percent as an Opposition. Who is the real Opposition? Those members should be very concerned about what they are presenting to their voters, and to the niche market they are trying to fill. It is not going to work. Everyone in the House knows it, and we should all be concerned, because if that is the best they have to give, then I cannot say too much about it.

I recall the Hon Bill English being at a hui—the Māori Sports Awards at Ngaruawahia in 2001—and what did he say? He said: “Well, you know, we are in the Opposition, we can say anything.” What kind of leadership is that? What kind of leadership does that present to the people of New Zealand on hard and difficult issues?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who said that?

The Hon Bill English said that. It is unbelievable. When there is leadership like that, when there is a lack of direction, and when there are people pressing in from behind wanting the leader’s seat, National has nowhere to go, and it should be concerned.

Public confidence in the New Zealand Police is vital for law enforcement in New Zealand. Mr Speaker, I think you need to know that public goodwill towards the New Zealand Police is rapidly evaporating in the face of its inconsistent and aggressive approach to a number of enforcement issues, such as speed cameras, but also its inconsistent actions with regard to members of Parliament.

Firstly, before I contrast the way Mr Ardern was dealt with by the police with the way the Prime Minister was dealt with, I would like to turn to the role of the Speaker in this case. I am looking forward to the Speaker’s statement on how he will deal with such matters as they involve members of Parliament, because the contrast is stark. The Speaker remained silent for days on the Harry Duynhoven matter. He sought legal advice and referred matters to the Privileges Committee, then waited and said nothing. That silence was somewhat coincidental, I am sure, with the fact that it enabled the Government to change the law to erase the offence that Mr Duynhoven committed. Yet I note that the Speaker appeared on television news within hours of Mr Ardern driving the tractor up the steps of Parliament, with that quote we often hear about “never in my 37 years” had he seen any action like that. But only a few days later, we discovered that Mr Tizard had driven a tractor up the steps, and I am sure that the Speaker will now recall that in his 37 years he did see reports in the newspapers of Mr Tizard driving a tractor up the steps.

I will be looking forward to the Speaker’s advice on how he will deal with the way members of Parliament are responded to, and I hope he will comment on why he seemed so keen to draw the public’s attention to what Mr Ardern had done. I certainly hope that those who might have suggested that there was some other intent will find that there was not. I would never believe that our Speaker would be involved in anything that would bring any disrespect to the Chair of the House.

I would now like to contrast the way the New Zealand Police dealt with Mr Ardern versus the Prime Minister. I have had the opportunity this afternoon to reread the official police documents on the allegation of forgery against the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The police found that there was a prima facie case that the Prime Minister of New Zealand had committed forgery. The police went on to actually question the Prime Minister’s evidence. There is a quote here where the Prime Minister said she could not recall television coverage or any publicity about the original charity event. The report goes on to state: “It is, however, considered unlikely that Miss Clark or her staff were unaware of this coverage.”

The police drew only one conclusion from the Prime Minister’s evidence, and that is an important issue. The Prime Minister did not make herself available to answer police questions. She provided a statement that did not address some of the issues at the core of public and police concern. She refused to be interviewed by the police. Frankly, in this quite weighty report, the police point out that there was a prima facie case that the Prime Minister did commit forgery. The police go on to say that there was evidence of a conspiracy to defraud, and that it might have been appropriate to consider other offences.

The report also indicates that Mr Chris Carter, a Government Minister, gave evidence to the police. He refused to make his telephone records available. He further refused even to sign the statement he gave to the police. When it came to accessing his telephone records, he threatened the police by saying that they could ask, but that it could lead to some very bad publicity. This is all contained in the report, which is absolutely extraordinary.

So what did the police do? The police have discretion in these cases. In making a decision, they have to weigh up the various mitigating factors and issues. The police decided that they would not take action against the Prime Minister, because they thought the consequences would be too great. Why was that decision not made with Mr Shane Ardern? Was it because he is National and she is Labour?

As a new member of this House I have been surprised and disappointed at how little importance is placed on the facts by the Opposition parties when it comes to debates before the House. Firstly, in relation to the corn inquiry, it seemed strange to me at first that the National Party seemed to be so incapable of understanding the difference between the tolerance of uncertainty versus the tolerance of detectable levels—after all, that is something that is almost intrinsic to scientists. I wondered why the Hon Nick Smith had to be told again and again how that worked. Then suddenly I realised it was not that he failed to understand it; it was that he did not want to understand it. I certainly hope that the biotechnology sector is sitting up and taking notice of how technologically inept the Opposition is when it comes to those issues. Let us make no mistake about the fact that the Opposition members will be out there wooing that sector at the next election, yet they cannot understand even the basic, fundamental principles of biotechnology. Who in New Zealand now knows what the National Party’s position is on genetic modification?

That brings me to the matter of the foreshore and seabed. The National Party has decided that slogans are an adequate substitute for consultation and policy—which does not surprise me—and came up with the fantastic slogan “one standard of citizenship”. I suggest that the subtext of that actually means “I am sick of uppity Māori speaking out when they’re unhappy”, or “treaty claims are so last century”. Or how about: “Now that we’re no longer chasing your votes, we no longer care about your rights.”? The fact is that the National Party is suggesting two standards of citizenship: one where people’s rights are upheld, and the other where those rights are ignored and eliminated. It is a shame that the National Party is not as passionate about one standard of living as it is about one standard of citizenship. This Government is about one standard of living for all New Zealanders, and we are working for that every day.

That leads me, as a new member, to a sad and cynical conclusion: the Opposition does not care about the issues that face New Zealanders. It does not want to help New Zealanders; it wants only to make them more afraid of their problems and issues. I say to Mr English that this country needs a leader who can propose serious solutions. It needs a committed Government to provide and implement those solutions; it does not need sloganeers. Maybe Mr English should stick to what he outlined in the Dominion Post, by pretending to be the Prime Minister in the quiet room off the Beehive theatrette, with Helen Clark’s old desk. I am sure Mr Sowry could perhaps bring along his teddy bear collection, and they could play at being the Cabinet. After all, Mr Sowry is no stranger to the region of make-believe, as he fantasises about being the member for Otaki all the time. However, I am told that even in that forum Mr English would still struggle to get the numbers.

The fact is that Mr English is not capable of running this country. He claims he is a nation builder and a proud New Zealander; yet only a few weeks ago we found out that he had a photo of the Australian netball coach on his fridge, because the Australian netball team was the world champion, and now that our team is the world champion, he thinks he might quite like to have a photo of the New Zealand coach. It is not that I am suggesting that Mr English should be rolled as leader, of course. We in the Labour Party would be quite happy for him to stay there as leader of the National Party for long as he wants. I think he should be that party’s leader for ever. In fact, I think I feel a member’s bill coming on. Perhaps the “Bill English (National Party’s Perpetual Misery) Bill” might be in order.

Bill English’s conspiracy theories, I have to say, are starting to rival those of his colleague Dr Nick Smith. Mr English now thinks that the Prime Minister, years and years ago, had a hand in determining the time slot of Mana News so that decades on she could make comments on the programme at 6.45 a.m. and not be heard by most New Zealanders. How is that for a conspiracy theory? That honestly does rival Nick Smith’s theories.

That brings me to New Zealand First—and I see many of my New Zealand First colleagues sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber—and to a comment on the matter of immigration that was made last week by Mr Peters in one of the more appalling speeches I have heard in this House. I wonder how many of his New Zealand First colleagues would be prepared to go out to the people in the ethnic communities, migrant communities, and refugee communities—many of whom provide important services within their communities—and give that speech to them.

I did not take a point of order during the member’s amusing speech, but I would like now to seek the leave of the House to table the police report on the allegation of forgery against the Prime Minister, from which I quoted during my speech. It is to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and is dated 21 June 2002.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I want to talk about a matter of some constitutional delicacy. It arises from the foreshore and seabed debate that the country is now engaged in. Yesterday I watched two Ministers of the Crown being humiliated. They are going through days of distraction from their real duties. They suffer hours of indignity, as they have to listen to speeches that are variously full of impassioned pleas, nonsense, and thinly disguised insult. Dr Cullen admitted to—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just want to caution the member on my right that there have been far too many interjections.

Dr Cullen was forced to admit that “public domain” was replacing “Crown ownership” because the latter term was “too confrontational with Māori claims to ownership”. Now, of course, the Crown is renouncing ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Why are we in this position in this country? How did that happen to a competent and popular Prime Minister? More important, how do we ensure that this disgrace is not the natural order for Ministers of the Crown?

What has brought Ministers to this situation? There is something other than the logic of their own position, as Chris Trotter points out in today’s Independent. It is overweening judges. On 19 June the Court of Appeal decided to make law, instead of applying it. The Ninety Mile Beach case had stood for 40 years. Sixty years earlier than that, Salmond, our foremost lawyer, and most of this country had believed that the Crown was the source of title since 1840, and that the foreshore was clearly owned by the Crown, unless otherwise alienated. On 19 June, the Court of Appeal made a radical decision. It should simply have told Parliament that it thought the law was mistaken, and invited Parliament to fix the law as soon as it had gone through the sort of process we are going through now. Instead, the Court of Appeal caught the Crown unprepared—shamefully unprepared, but unprepared. Why was it flat-footed? The reason, I believe, is that the “sisterhood” is planning to usurp our constitution. The Supreme Court Bill is planning to give to judges the role of being able to pass law that Parliament would never pass, but the judges jumped the gun. They went ahead before the rest of the “sisterhood’ had said to do so.

The Court of Appeal decision was led by a judge who should not have been on the case. She had, at the very least, an apparent conflict of interest. In Britain, where it is thought that these things matter a bit more and apolitical, unbiased justice is important, the Pinochet case was reversed for much less. A new hearing was ordered there when Lord Hoffman was shown to have links with Amnesty International, which had appeared in the case. Dame Sian Elias should have excused herself from this particular case for the same reasons. Dame Elias has been passionately partisan in treaty matters. Before her appointment she described my scepticism about sanctifying the treaty—if it was widely shared among lawyers—as a cause for her despair about New Zealand’s future. Dame Elias made her enlightened legal name in work for Māori claimants, and much of it was pro bono. Without that work she would have been too inexperienced and too little-known to be appointed to her high office, even with the drive to make the courts more gender-balanced.

This is not to say that a judge is incapable of applying an unbiased judgment to a matter where he or she has represented clients before being appointed as a judge. Barristers are often simply silver-tongued, paid mouthpieces for their clients. But in those cases, Dame Elias was campaigning for her adopted cause; she was not simply a barrister. And it gets worse. In 1985 Dame Elias was the losing counsel in the Manukau iwi case seeking ownership of the bed of Manukau Harbour. The Waitangi Tribunal said it was crystal-clear that the Crown owned it, and tossed the case out. She has now reversed that. Of course, Dame Elias’ presence does not necessarily mean that the court was biased, but it is the appearance of bias that matters. She may have addressed the case with completely impartial judgment, but it is the appearance of impartiality that the House of Lords said matters. Here, where a radical decision was delivered, where the role of Parliament was usurped by unelected judges, where Parliament, which can be subject to the will of the people, was not given the opportunity, the Chief Justice should have disqualified herself.

This case is a classic example of the limitations of our country’s small size, and of the reason that it is so valuable to have a right of appeal outside the smug little group that controls justice in this country. Those judges are convinced that they are virtuous enough to determine race policy, even where the politicians have been too cautious to tread, and these legal breast-beaters have invented doctrines that are legal nonsense in order to cover their tracks.

My speech today is about honesty in politics, particularly with regard to National’s maladies. By that I do not mean melodies of the musical kind; I mean maladies of the disease and sickness kind. Talented people have been dismissed from the National Party. Why, for example, was an MP as talented and decent as Belinda Vernon relegated so far down the list that she is no longer here in the House? She should have been on National’s front bench. Let us look at the talent, or lack of it, on National’s current front bench. What did Belinda Vernon do wrong? Did she back the wrong leader, perhaps? If we look at National’s front bench we see two out of the seven members have been here one parliamentary term, and yet they have leapfrogged well over the heads of many of the other National members.

Let us look at some honest comments. There are some honest comments from National people. Let us look at John Upton, Pakuranga’s deputy chair of the National Party. He says that there is an 80 percent dissatisfaction with National by the party’s financial members, the quality of the National Party’s message could be compromised, and the front-bench members of the party would be crazy to ignore the fact that in the eyes of the public they still have not got their act together. I think that is a pretty honest comment from a National Party person. He has certainly been very honest and forthright about the way that the party has treated Maurice Williamson.

Let us look at the honesty in the way that National has treated people. We can look at things like Mr English’s treatment of the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Clerk when he made, in his own words—“a very bad error of judgment that lasted about 2 minutes—absolutely no defence of that. I could not offer any.” That is Mr English’s comment about his own conduct when he made threatening comments towards the Deputy Speaker and the Clerk a few years ago in this House. What about Mr Brownlee, who strong armed a National Party member who was being thrown out of a conference, and later had to settle, I think, at $8,500 in a civil case against him? What about Nick Smith over the years, and his court cases—November 1992, October 1996, November 2000, December 2000, 2002, and 2003? One or two of them he has won, but many of them have been right off the rails.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has alleged that I have been in court in 1992, in 1996—I have never, never, appeared in a court hearing. I would ask the member to desist from spreading untruths.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. If the member has taken offence, which I understand he has, would the member please withdraw?

I withdraw if the member has taken offence. But I did not say that he had been in court. I said those were cases that were often dealt with in the courts. But let us look at the allegations used. [Interruption] I will move on from that. Perhaps I should just table the list.

We have seen a number of occasions when National really is in some trouble. We have some issues where National will never let the truth or the facts get in the way of a good story. Let us look at the way that Mr English and the National Party have reacted to different situations around the country. For instance, we can look at the so-called “flatulence tax”, and the honesty in that debate. Who signed the Kyoto Protocol? Was it the previous National Government? Why has that not been in the media, and where is National’s level of honesty on that issue? I ask Dr Smith this: who stated that emissions should be part of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations? Was it a Labour Government? Oh no, it was the previous National Government. Where is the honesty in that? Why was that not said by National members out on the front steps of Parliament, when they had all the farmers out there? Why have National members not been honest with their own constituency? Why have they not fronted up to their own constituency and said that was the position that they had advocated for? They wanted the emissions from animals to be included, and now, even though farmers have an exemption until 2012, when other industries have to pay carbon taxes years sooner than that, why do we still have the nonsense, cant, and absolutely misleading comments from National Party members? Why are their own people, the farmers who support them, so confused about this whole issue that they write National Party research note letters and put them in the media?

I am rather tired of the dishonesty in this House. There is a real difference between an experienced member of Parliament deliberately breaking the law and the position that I found myself in. I find the National Party’s continual raising of that, as though I had deliberately broken the law, to be something that is less than honest or desirable. I have been absolutely honest—in stark contrast with the farming members of the National Party, who have not been out there on the hustings, telling their own constituents what the real position is and why the National Government of the day insisted on emissions from animals being included in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!

I invite that member to go back to his chair and to look at the previous National Government’s own Cabinet minutes. The National Party cannot have it both ways. It claims to represent the farming community, and yet it is absolutely dishonest with farmers. I know that the levy per animal—not a tax on emissions, but a levy per animal—is deeply unpopular with farmers. But at least it is a straightforward and an honest solution.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member quoted from a list that he said he had here. I ask that he table that document, concerning Dr Smith.

If it is an official document, he can table it. Would the member like to clarify the situation?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I do not think the member can—

💬 LINDSAY TISCH: The member offered to table it, and I am now asking him to table it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member care to table the document?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think another member can request me to table a document that is not an official document. I simply read a list of occasions in the House.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: The member said he would table it.

I will consider that. But that member, as a member of the Opposition, does not have the right to ask me to table anything. If I choose to seek leave, I will.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the member is quoting from a document, then he is required to table it. He said he was quoting from a document. He had the document in his hand, and he said he was prepared to table it. I ask that he do exactly what he indicated he was going to do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, that is normally done only if the document is an official one. However, the member has assured the House—and all members here are honourable; their word is their bond—that the document is not an official one. Therefore, he is not required to table it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The piece of information the Minister has relates to my personal affairs. Under the Privacy Act, and under the Standing Orders of the House, any official papers can be required to be tabled. Either the Minister is now saying the information is incorrect, and he does not have the courage to table it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is out of order. The member is a long-standing member of Parliament, and he knows he cannot doubt another member’s courage. The member will apologise for that.

I withdraw that statement. But this is an important issue.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member has not apologised yet.

I will apologise if that will fix the problem. I simply say that Mr Harry Duynhoven, in his speech, made certain statements about my personal affairs that were incorrect. He said he had a piece of paper to back them up, and that he would table it. My colleagues heard that. I think he should act on his word; otherwise, the House should reflect on why he is not prepared to do so.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 117 relates to personal reflections. My colleague Dr Smith has taken exception to the comments made by the Minister during his speech, and Standing Order 117 relates to personal reflections against a member. My colleague took exception to what was being said. Mr Duynhoven did indicate he would table a document. I asked that he table the document, as he suggested in his speech he would willingly do.

I have now reviewed the document. It is, in fact, research unit notes. It lists the abuse of the court processes by Nick Smith, and there is no problem with it being tabled.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether this might not be worth a considered ruling, because when a member says that he or she has a document and is prepared to table it, in effect it is a double verification. It is a form of statement that makes it very hard to challenge what that member is saying. It is an attempt to give it absolute veracity. I ask that you consider, when a member does that and then fails to follow through, whether that member is either deliberately misleading the House or is reflecting on the character of another member in a way that is deliberately designed to leave an impression of absolute veracity that cannot then be tested. In other words, it is beyond the scope of the normal situation where a member cannot be forced to table something. When a member has offered to table under these circumstances, we may need a ruling stating that it will be unparliamentary not to follow through; otherwise, we are left in the position whereby someone is essentially claiming absolute veracity, and then cannot be challenged on that.

I wanted to make the point that a number of members have stated that the Hon Harry Duynhoven said he would table that paper. I thought he said that he would “consider” tabling the paper.

I table the document. [Interruption] No, I do not have to seek leave. I am a Minister.

Document not tabled.

Watching the face of the Minister of Education during that last diatribe from the junior Minister Mr Duynhoven was indeed revealing. It was clear on his face, and on the faces of other members opposite, that they were reflecting on the fact that they had kept this place in urgency to pass the “Save Harry” legislation. The look on the face of the Minister of Education said it all. That expression said: “We got it wrong. We made a mistake.” The embarrassment on the face of the Minister of Education was absolutely visible to all of those who looked.

As a hard-working local constituency member of Parliament who frequently listens to the views of people in my electorate, I know that there are many people out there who look at the happenings in Wellington, scratch their heads, and wonder what planet this place is on, and, in particular, what planet this Government is on. I know that, when I return to my electorate tomorrow night, I will again be meeting bewildered people who wonder just how some of this stuff happens. I know already, from the telephone calls that I have had as the news bulletins have carried the news that my colleague Shane Ardern is to face a police prosecution, that there are people out there who are scratching their heads in amazement, and some of them are downright angry. What they say to me is that they cannot understand how the police can find time to carry out an instantaneous investigation into this very serious offence—driving a tractor—when they, who are burgled, who are assaulted, and who have serious crimes committed on their doorsteps, not only cannot get an investigation from the police but in many cases cannot even get a response from the police. They look at the stupid action on the part of the police, in preferring those charges against Mr Ardern, and ask just what planet these people are on.

Who was the idiot in the police who made up his mind to prefer such charges? Who was the idiot who decided to waste court time? Who was the idiot who decided to waste police time that should have been spent looking after the safety and well-being of ordinary, law-abiding New Zealanders? I have a message for the Commissioner of Police. He should get a grip. There are people out there, people represented by me and by others in the House, who know that there are serious criminal offences being committed on their doorsteps, who have their cars interfered with and their homes invaded, and where are the police when they want them? Yet the police have time to carry out a very speedy investigation into someone who has committed the serious offence of driving a tractor, and to make a decision, within a few hours, that it is serious enough to warrant prosecution. The people in my electorate will shake their heads in amazement.

It is part of a wider trend that I have seen in the police force in recent years. The police have simply lost the plot. In my electorate, there are people whose businesses are about to be closed down because they are in the dangerous business of selling gift baskets. The gift baskets happen to have liquor in them, and the police have appropriated funds solemnly given to them by this Parliament to challenge the decision of the Liquor Licensing Authority, to try to ensure that the Liquor Licensing Authority’s decision to license dangerous gift-basket purveyors is overturned. I have people who cannot renew the licences for their businesses, but the police—who cannot attend to serious burglaries or assaults—have time to take expensive court cases to overturn law-abiding decisions on liquor-licensing provisions.

I also say, as the Minister of State Services is in the House, that they shake their heads in wonderment that we have—

On Monday, 18 August the Government released its proposals on the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. That night Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, was on the Holmes show. I happened, for once in my life, to see that show. During it, she announced to the nation over the television that the Government’s proposal was to put the foreshore and seabed into the public domain, on the basis that no one would own it. Paul Holmes then asked her the question: “Why on earth are you doing that? Why don’t you just do the straightforward thing and put the ownership of those assets in the Crown?”. I found the Prime Minister’s response to that question extremely interesting. She said that if she were to do that, she would be unnecessarily inflaming division in this country, because the Māori people would regard ownership being placed in the Crown as a win for the Crown and a loss for Māori—or words to that effect.

That was an entirely new thought to me, as a New Zealander. When the Prime Minister said those words, for me—and for a lot of other New Zealanders as well, because I heard them the next day on the radio—she introduced a whole new thought into this debate that had not been there previously. I have been reflecting on that, and I have come to see that, from a Māori perspective, there are two parties to the treaty. One of those parties is Māori, and the other one is referred to as the Crown. Therefore, if the Crown were to assume ownership of the foreshore and seabed, then, naturally enough, as Māori do not see themselves as part of the Crown—in fact, they are the other party to the treaty—from their point of view it would be, as it were, a triumph for the Crown and they would experience a corresponding loss. That was a new perspective for me, and it made me start to think and to wonder about why we use the name “the Crown”. Why do we, in this country, have a system that allocates a whole lot of things to “the Crown”?

That really raised some questions in my mind. But when I look at the Government’s proposed solution, which is to have no one own it but to put it in the public domain, I find that it is not very satisfying, either. Really deep down in my gut, I say “No”. The foreshore and the seabed belong to all of us as citizens of this country. I grew up on the beach in Tasman Bay. I accessed that beach daily. There was nothing between the beach and our property except the Queen’s Chain. It is part of my inheritance, too, to walk on to that beach, and I feel like I own it as much as any other New Zealander does.

I want to suggest today that we look creatively at a possible way forward in this situation. I have come to this reflection, which I would like to share with the House. I wonder whether the foreshore and the seabed could be put under a title that would have in it these words: “We, the people of New Zealand, as guardians in perpetuity for both ourselves and future generations …”. I have used the word “guardians” because I realise that to Māori the philosophy of kaitiaki is very important and implies guardianship. Indeed, those words could be put on the newly issued title in both English and Māori, to make it very, very clear that this particular title was held by “We, the people of New Zealand”. I think that would give this whole debate a very, very different perspective. I would be very interested in due course to hear a Māori response to the point I am making, because that title would definitely include us—“We, the people of New Zealand,”—very, very clearly in the name on the title to that land. It would be held in perpetuity, and we would be guardians of the land for all time and for all future generations of New Zealanders, without distinction on the basis of race, creed, arrival time in New Zealand, or any other criteria—the land would be for all of us. It really adopts the system that has been developed in the United States, where “We, the people” has resonance with every citizen of that country. I think that, if we look to the future, we could start to take on board a “We, the people” concept for New Zealand.

The difference would be this. “The Crown”, as far as I can figure out, is just a legal fiction. It certainly does not mean the reigning sovereign of New Zealand. She does not personally own the foreshore and the seabed of this country. So what is this entity that we have christened “the Crown”? Is it not time to think of a new name and a new way of expressing the reality that we are all New Zealanders together? Within that, I would strongly say that any customary rights of Māori in terms of use of the foreshore and the seabed that are eventually determined by the—

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.