General Debates

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I take it that it is in order for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to come back?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. The member can come to the Chair to discuss that at his convenience.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is interesting that you are making New Zealand First come to the Chair to discuss that, when Mr Cunliffe, who was removed during question time, has freely come back into the Chamber and sat down. I presume that we have the same rules for everybody.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): There is a slight difference in that case, Mr Sowry. The respective whips did come to discuss the matter with the Chair, as Mr Brown is doing now.

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Too many Opposition politicians in this place are blinded by their own self-assessed brilliance. We see their verbal acrobatics daily—not to mention their verbal diarrhoea. We see the antics of Opposition politicians as they elbow-jolt each other off the television screens. We see grandstanding, bullying, and a lot of time-wasting and puffed-up importance, signifying nothing. Any performance in pursuit of a positive poll goes, and one has to ask whether Bill English, Roger Sowry, Murray McCully, Nick Smith, and Winston Peters—who are all regular offenders—have ever stopped to think about what decent, hard-working New Zealanders think of their antics in this House. Have those members ever run the test of what their mothers would think of their behaviour? I think it is time that they did. This time they have gone too far. There is nothing wrong with robust debate and strongly held views, but to attack the people and institutions that this country relies on, for cheap political gain, is about as low as a desperate Opposition politician can go.

Let us look at the list of the victims of those members today—and the victims are piling up day after day. There are the judges, who cannot defend themselves against criticism and self-serving attacks, and public servants who have been accused of collusion with the Government—Department of Labour officials, Immigration Service officials, the State Services Commissioner, the Race Relations Commissioner, the human rights commissioner, the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and now the New Zealand Police.

This country has the best police force in the world. It is corruption-free, fearless, and impartial. It decides whom it will prosecute and whom it will not. Its officers are trained to assess situations and make judgment calls. We rely on their integrity and judgment to uphold the law, to deal fairly with people, and to protect the people of New Zealand. Now the police have become the target for the Opposition’s political games. The attack on Marty Grenfell, the Wellington area controller, by Winston Peters and Murray McCully is nothing short of gutter politics. Mr Grenfell leads a team of men and women here in Wellington who are doing a great job. He is highly respected and a man of integrity, and for him to be smeared by innuendo by a couple of our most seamy politicians is sickening.

Why have Winston Peters and Murray McCully attacked Mr Grenfell? [Interruption]

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek through you an assurance from the Hon Mark Burton, Minister of Defence, that he did not call me a “scumbag” in the tirade he threw across the Chamber.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I can assure the member that I did not call him a “scumbag” in the exchange that neither of us should have been having while my colleague was speaking.

Why are those Opposition politicians attacking Marty Grenfell? It is because he worked on secondment in the Minister of Police’s office for a period of time. If we extrapolate that argument, does it mean that outstanding men like Dick Macdonald, who went on to become a commissioner, Paul Fitzharris, who was an assistant commissioner, or Ted Cox, a district commander in Auckland, were all biased because they worked with National or New Zealand First Ministers of Police? Of course it does not mean that. The arguments have been pathetic, and they are not based on facts.

The second reason those members have attacked Mr Grenfell is that they say he is influenced by the Government, and that he was told by the Government to prosecute Shane Ardern. That is not correct. Mr Grenfell does not take instructions from this Government. It is the police who made the decision to prosecute Mr Ardern. They weighed up the situation; they decided to prosecute Shane Ardern. The police decided not to take any action against Winston Peters when he walked away without paying for a taxi fare. Most people in New Zealand would consider that to be theft. I have no doubt that the police decided to look at the circumstances. They realised Mr Peters was tired and emotional, and when they made their decision they took that into account. It is the police who decide whom they will prosecute; that is certainly not decided by this Parliament.

Now the same people in the House have decided to attack the Speaker of this Parliament. They are accusing him of bias and of influencing the police, as well. Those are all actions of desperate men, and they are all aimed at undermining the integrity of the institutions of this country. Why do those members do that? They do it for the sake of one or two tawdry votes. They do not do it because they believe in it or because there is any integrity in it, but because they think by doing so they may sit on the Government benches one day.

The Minister of Health, in her speech—which I am sure she would not want to be called a tirade; as my colleague says, it was much more of a rant—was right in one thing. The police do decide who they will prosecute, just as the police decided that they would not prosecute the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, over her forgery. That was deemed not necessary to prosecute. Maybe that was because the Prime Minister of New Zealand refused to answer the police’s questions—Mr Ardern, however, did answer the questions put to him. Maybe that is why they stopped before prosecuting her. Maybe it was because the Prime Minister’s very good friend and witness, Mr Chris Carter, would not sign his own statement. Maybe that was why they decided not to prosecute the Prime Minister. We know that when the Prime Minister committed forgery—and we were told by her, first of all, that it was just one painting—the first lot of blame the Prime Minister put on was on the charity that asked her for the painting. She said that it put her under pressure, and that that was why she did the painting. Then it came to light that, in fact, there was more than one painting. There were several paintings that the Prime Minister forged. There were several paintings that she did not paint and to which she put her own name. The police decided to turn a blind eye to that, and the Opposition judges that standard against the standard that is being used now. It is just like the standard that the Prime Minister is using now, when she goes—

💬 David Benson-Pope: The long arm of the law, reaching out from the grave.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask whether you are going to allow a consistent line of interjections from Mr Benson-Pope. It happens every week in this debate. The Speaker sits there every week and lets it occur, and I ask you whether you will, at some point, stop him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the honourable member. It is a point well raised, and I was considering it. I have to say that it is a robust debate and the level of interjection on the previous speaker was just as great, but I will ask the members on my right to take it easy.

The Prime Minister, of course, has different rules for herself, as distinct from everybody else. No one else is allowed to question officials, but the Prime Minister blamed the officials when she said, first of all, that she did not say that this country would get into the top half of the OECD. Then when it was proved that she did, she blamed the officials. She blamed the officials when she said that she had no idea how “ancestral landscapes” got into the amendment to the Resource Management Act. Then, of course, when it became clear that it was by her own fair hand that the documentation was signed, she blamed officials. She blamed officials when all the documents were not released for the “corngate” inquiry. When that became an issue, it was nothing to do with her. There was just one document left out, and all of a sudden the officials were blamed.

This Prime Minister blames officials whenever it suits her, but as soon as anyone else dares to raise anything to do with the public service, they are deemed to be great big bullies. I say to the Prime Minister that we want the same standard for the Prime Minister as the rest of New Zealand has to face. The rest of New Zealand would have to front up to the police on an art forgery charge. The rest of New Zealand would have to front up if one of their staff members had his or her hand in the till, as the Prime Minister has had on her staff recently, with no prosecution being carried out. The rest of New Zealand would have to front up for that, but this Prime Minister, who is such a credit to herself and just a victim of her own success, cannot understand how someone who is so successful and popular can even be criticised or questioned. She sees herself as being totally above the law. Any Government that is led by a Prime Minister who sees herself as being above the law is in its dying stages. That is why people like Mr Benson-Pope lie when they tell reporters, as he did yesterday, that they are not going to give an apology—yet he was giving an apology.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member will withdraw and apologise for that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not say that he lied in the House, but that outside the House he certainly did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Those words are not acceptable in this Chamber. Whether they refer to some incident outside the House is totally irrelevant. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw. We know what Mr Benson-Pope does. We know the double-dealing he does.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I asked for a withdrawal and an apology.

I am sorry. I withdraw and apologise. We know what Mr Benson-Pope does. He says one thing to our whips, but it is a different story to the media. Members can make their own judgments on what that is, but we know what that is called.

The Opposition has sunk to new depths over the past couple of weeks. Opposition members have gone even lower than I thought would be possible from that lot. They are now wallowing in the murky territory of gutter politics, bringing into question the integrity of the public service, the police, the judiciary, and, now, the office of the Speaker. Why are Opposition members doing that? It is simply because they have failed to get traction on any issues that they have sought to debate. They cannot attack the Government, so they turn their sights on people who cannot fight back. That is utterly gutless.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have seldom had laid at me the accusation that I am gutless, but the general blanketing of the Opposition in that way is unacceptable, and I think a withdrawal and apology is appropriate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member is quite right.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Lianne Dalziel may well be making a personal observation and reflecting upon herself. If that is the case, I have no objection.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No. I will ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I have been in Parliament for 13 years, and I have never seen anything like this before. It is unprecedented and it cannot go unchallenged. I refer to a letter that Bill English sent to the State Services Commissioner last week. I read it with increasing incredulity at the gall of a so-called honourable member of this House in allowing his signature to accompany such an outrageous attack on the public service. The more I read it, the more I felt as though I was reading an old-style vicious Dominion editorial. Then I figured it must be in “Longhand”, because it was written by Richard Long, not by Bill English. Bill English has put his signature on someone else’s piece of writing. Talk about pathetic! No wonder the Leader of the Opposition is at 7 percent in the polls, and falling—he has to get his chief of staff to write an editorial, then he passes it off as a letter to one of New Zealand’s top public servants. That explains why it is factually wrong in just about every material respect, and drags the public service into the gutter with the Opposition. That letter was written because the State Services Commissioner dared to speak in defence of people who, by convention, cannot defend themselves. The reason they cannot defend themselves is set out in the article—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want clarification as to whether the member is talking about recent cases, or Christine Rankin and Roger Estall—cases that she used to talk about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly that was not a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No—I agree.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I must also, if I may, ask that your attention be drawn to the constant, ceaseless barrage from four members of the Opposition. I do not mind that because I know our member can cope more than adequately with that sort of objection, interjection and cant, but I observe that it is not consistent with the way the Opposition members themselves cannot take being interjected on.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is it on the same issue?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Yes, it is. This is a time-limited debate, and we have had statements by members that speeches should not be broken up by interjections. The point of order raised was not in fact a point of order. I think that you should rule not only that it was not a point of order but also that the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for doing so. This is a robust debate, so let us just get on with it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members for that. It is quite right that the point raised by Hon Roger Sowry was not a point of order. I will not have members breaking up a speech with matters that are not points of order. I take note of what Mr Benson-Pope said, although I do not give it much weight. I thank Hon Richard Prebble for clarifying some matters.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a practical matter. I think we are having some difficulty with some of the speakers in the Chamber—there is not much volume. It would be good to hear the speakers amid the amount of noise that is going backwards and forwards. The debate is robust, and we really cannot hear very well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is a matter of control with the microphones, because of the volume coming from the speakers. If the speakers drop down, those volumes will come up.

The reason the public service cannot defend itself is that it would put it head to head with Opposition politicians, jeopardising its ability to work constructively with those politicians—should they become the Government in the future. Well, that party has no chance of being a Government in the future. What really got Mr English’s chief of staff upset was that it says that they—that is, the chief executives of our public service—should not be used as proxies for ministers in political debate, let alone be subjected to unfounded allegations of grossly improper behaviour. That is what has got them upset. Opposition spokespersons cannot take on Government ministers, so they attack the leaders of the public service instead. They create conspiracy theories, and they attack the public service. It is the refuge of their incompetence; it is the refuge of those who have got no credibility; it is the refuge of a once-proud National Party, now run by the brat pack, which is an embarrassment to all the good decent people who used to be in the National Party.

Bill English’s own reputation as a decent bloke cannot survive the willingness to allow this to go on in his name. Even when National gets a small lift in the polls, Bill English goes down another two points—down to 7 percent, and falling. It is no wonder he reacted badly. He does not care about having to work constructively with public servants, because he will never lead a National Party to Government in this country. Now the attack is on the office of the Speaker. What gutter politics from Roger Sowry, Bill English, and from Winston Peters! They behaved appallingly in this Chamber yesterday. That was the worst thing I have ever seen in this House—an attack on the Speaker in that way. How dare Winston Peters use the tragic circumstances faced by that young man—and our hearts go out to him—to suggest that the Speaker had behaved inappropriately. I fully support the police decision not to prosecute that man. It was their decision. There was no influence from the Speaker, and that was right and proper. The police showed humanity in their decision making. They should be congratulated, not rubbished by the Opposition. The points of order raised by Bill English and Roger Sowry yesterday show that they are willing to drag the constitutional position of the Speaker of this House into their pathetic little attempts to get traction. It is a constitutional outrage.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon we had a pious contribution from Roger Sowry about interjecting when he was speaking. I watched him throughout that speech yelling and screaming across the Chamber. I know he could not take it when was speaking and he took a point of order on it, but if he wants to say that there should not be two standards in here, why does he not practise what he preaches?

Over a number weeks I have raised the fact that members opposite change seats and yell and scream right through speeches. Several times the Speaker has ruled that he will clamp down on this, but that appears not to be happening. In fact, you yourself ruled that this was a robust debate and interjections could carry on, so I intend to carry on. [Interruption]

Quiet during a point of order; otherwise members will be out.

On reflection, I also want to raise in this discussion the point that my colleague Annette King has just raised. Despite the fact that you asked for a withdrawal and apology from Mr Sowry for accusing me of being a liar, he immediately repeated that outrageous statement at the end of his speech. That is totally unacceptable behaviour—clearly from a member who is not in control of himself.

I thank members. I did not hear that statement, but any complaint against it should have been made at the time. I think both sides need to look in the mirror.

I respect the courts; I respect our constitution. I believe the separation of powers is a vital part of it. I believe that the Law Society and the Bar Association, in expressing concern about the points I have been raising, have been upholding their part in our constitution. But I believe our constitution is being eroded without people recognising it. It started a decade and a half ago when, with no guidance, the courts were left to decide what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi meant. There was no room for the court to duck that—they have to make the law mean something, and so they had to invent something called the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

But we have now got to a stage where leaving to the courts things that are too hot to handle politically is a routine strategy. If our courts are deeply embroiled in unresolved political matters, our conventions have to be recast. Politicians—elected representatives—cannot be snookered out of leading political debate. The people must be able to elect and sack someone who takes responsibility for deeply political decisions. Our constitution will not continue to work if the people cannot look and say that there is someone making those decisions that they have a right to get rid of. In a country where there is sovereignty of Parliament for the people, the people should have the right to get rid of those who are making decisions that are politically contentious. The consensus that enabled Labour and National to do that for two decades is going, but the heritage is still there.

I am finding that more people around New Zealand are blaming the courts and Maori for their current unease and worry about the seabed, the foreshore and other issues than are blaming this Parliament and the Government. That is not fair to Maori or to the courts. But for as long as a Government can send those issues to the courts and then hide behind the convention that elected representatives cannot examine the pressures, the influences, the politics, the factions, the beliefs, and the biases that might be brought to bear, then the constitution is being suborned.

For the last 2 weeks we have been trying to find out exactly what task this Government proposes to give the Māori Land Court. The Māori Land Court, we have been told, will be able to do what it will with customary property claims—anything other than grant fee simple title. That is nearly no restriction. That is nearly no prescription. How will New Zealanders trust the Māori Land Court to deal with these matters impartially when it has been set up as an inquisitorial body, primarily to decide disputes between or among Māori? When it is turned into a constitutional body to decide claims between the Crown—for all New Zealanders—and perhaps 15 percent of the population, that is an entirely different matter.

Despite the soothing words of the Court of Appeal about few cases succeeding, the Māori Land Court has already made its views known on this issue at Ohiwa. The counsel in that case, who are now both influential Māori Land Court judges, made their views clear. In the Wellington Tenths Trust decision, the Waitangi Tribunal made its view clear about what should happen with seabed and foreshore claims. At the moment, a division of the Waitangi Tribunal is drumming up opposition to the Government and urging claimants to hurry and get their piece in, so as to influence the issue here. It is acting as a participant in the political game.

When the Māori Land Court does not insist on evidence on oath, does not generally pursue perjury, does not usually allow cross-examination, and accepts as evidence tales that the rest of us—indeed any other court—would never accept, it is not an appropriate body to be deciding constitutional and property issues. Māori Land Court judges are appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs, who sees his role as being an advocate for Māori pumping Māori—in some cases, at the expense of the rest of New Zealand. In comparison with others, Māori Land Court judges are generally young and inexperienced, and are often appointed to give regional, tribal, or even gender balance, and not for their knowledge of property rights.

That is a somewhat different Stephen Franks from the one we heard even last week. That is the closest thing I have seen to a letter saying: “Dear Parliament, I’m sorry for what I said last week. Signed, Stephen Franks.”

There he was, talking about constitutional issues, but last week and the week before, he has been personally attacking judges. There is no future in that. I think Margaret Wilson is right to say that there is nothing wrong with a politician advocating a change to the law—which is what he did just then—but attacking a judge personally, either directly or by implication, risks bringing the judiciary into disrepute. Unfounded attacks on judges are unfair, and not in anyone’s best interests. I say to that member, play the ball, not the person. In my view, even Mr Prebble, who upholds and respects constitutional issues in this Parliament, would have been embarrassed by what that member did last week. Such attacks on individuals in the judiciary will not stop his party languishing around 4 or 5 percent in the polls. There is no future in that.

When I was a young fellow, I used to play rugby, and we always whinged about the ref at half-time when we were losing. We never, never whinged about the ref at half-time when we were winning. The coach used to say: “Stop whingeing about the ref and concentrate on winning the game!” That is exactly my advice to the National Party. Its members’ recent attacks on the Speaker were shameful. They try to hide the fact that there is no leadership, no policy, and no principle in that party. There is nothing in that party, so what do its members try to do? All they try to do is shift attention away from their pathetic performance and on to other people. I say that is outrageous. There was a great painter once—I think her name was Barbara Kruger—who said: “Do nothing, blame everyone, be bitter.” That sums up the National Party in a nutshell. Its members are attacking Parliament, attacking public servants, attacking the police, and attacking the judiciary. Everybody knows that is a smokescreen, a cover-up, for the fact that they have no leadership, no policies, and no principles.

Let me also come to New Zealand First. New Zealand First has been most concerned about who has been prosecuted and who has not. We should probably feel a little sorry for Mr Peters, because he earns so little that he cannot afford his own taxi fare. What a shame! I can tell that member that we will fix that little problem. As Minister of Transport, I will be introducing legislation—certainly, surely, and not too far away—to deal with the offence of taxi-running. Maybe these people are tired and emotional, who knows? Maybe it is late at night, and they hop into a taxi and the hard-working taxi-driver, trying to make a living to bring up the family, asks for the fare and the tired, emotional person says he or she is not going to pay. Well, there will be an opportunity for the police to prosecute that person. I know that New Zealand First, which supports hard-working New Zealanders, will support that legislation. New Zealand First is a law and order party and it will support the offence of taxi-running. I am absolutely certain about that.

Everybody knows what the National Party is up to. Everybody knows that its members are attempting to try to hide the fact that they are making absolutely no headway. “Flat-lining” I think was the word used in the New Zealand Herald article just recently. Then, of course, there are a whole lot of other editorials talking about the National Party’s performance, which is absolutely hopeless. It is dog tucker.

If there are any students of the general debate in this country, they will have noticed today a very significant change in the Labour Party’s usual attack. Normally, Labour members engage themselves in a petty attack on the Opposition and run off with all sorts of spurious arguments about why they will be in Government for ever. Today though, we have seen those same speakers often turning the argument back into a defence of the indefensible Helen Clark—turning this whole debate into a defence of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: What’s your point?

The honourable member John Tamihere concedes that that is exactly what they are about.

The events of the last few days have started to show what will become the hallmarks of this Government—no accountability, and double standards. That will be the mark of the Helen Clark Government when historians look back at it in years to come. Is it not fascinating that my friend Shane Ardern can commit the same act as Bob Tizard did some years ago in driving a tractor up the steps and towards the doors of Parliament House, and at the will of the Prime Minister has a police prosecution brought against him for reckless behaviour? Yet the Prime Minister herself, when faced with “paintergate” and the art fraud imposed upon the community of New Zealand, simply refused to cooperate with the police. Even though the police were able to say that there was a prima facie case for her to be prosecuted, she was able to avoid such a prosecution.

I ask Labour speakers to start considering whether the line in the police’s own comments on that case should apply to Shane Ardern. While the police said that there was a prima facie case for the Prime Minister to be prosecuted, and that the ingredients of the offence had been met, it might have an impact disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct issue or the personal culpability of the parties involved. Why is it that the police can apply that opinion to the Prime Minister, but not to Shane Ardern?

Government members should not start getting sanctimonious about whether the police are being attacked for exercising double standards when, by their own standards, that is clearly at play in this case. In this instance, the police are acting only because the Prime Minister instructed them to do so. It was the Prime Minister who came out and said that Shane Ardern had committed an offence of disorderly behaviour. That was her prosecution, not that of the police.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know why, but the senior Government whip, Mr Benson-Pope, has made statements that are clearly out of order, and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise now. He said: “Produce some facts before you start telling lies.” He knows that he said it, and we need an apology from him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Could the member repeat what he said Mr Benson-Pope said.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The senior Government whip said: “Produce some facts before you start telling lies”. That is out of order and unparliamentary.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask the senior Government whip whether—

💬 David Benson-Pope: My words were: “Produce some evidence before you start telling lies like that.” I withdraw and apologise.

It is a fact that on nationwide television the Prime Minister said that, in her opinion, Mr Ardern had committed an offence of disorderly behaviour. The police then came trumping into Parliament and bailed up Mr Ardern—without the permission of the Speaker, it would seem.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting Mr Brownlee’s speech, but you have just reprimanded Mr Benson-Pope, the senior Government whip, asked him to withdraw and apologise, and he immediately starts a continuous barrage of interruptions and interjections across the Chamber. It is totally unacceptable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. Members should have regard for those who want to listen to the speeches being made in the House. I have no problem hearing Mr Brownlee, but, clearly, those at the back have a problem. I ask that continual barrage types of interjections not go on.

Government members are sensitive to the points I am making, simply because they know that in this case the double standard of Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, is exposed in the rawest way possible. She got off a charge in respect of which the police said there was prima facie evidence for her being convicted of forgery. She then goes around pointing the finger at Shane Ardern, declaring that he has behaved in a disorderly way, and the police came jackbooting into this Parliament, stamping all over the rights of privilege that members of this House have, and what do we get? We have the Speaker saying: “Well, I didn’t know, and I might deal with it some time after Mr Ardern has faced the music at the court.” That is setting up a double standard, and New Zealanders are not stupid. Interestingly, it is on the simple act of driving a tractor up a few steps to Parliament that people will see that the Government has just gone way over the top.

The issue of double standards, of course, also applies to the “corngate” affair, where the Prime Minister goes round saying: “I want this exposed to the public”, but sits in the House today and blocks this House from debating that very issue.

I have been in this House for nearly 10 years, and during that time, and in the past, I have seen policy and legislation introduced that has made me and other members of the House pretty angry. But I have never ever seen such disgraceful behaviour as was exhibited in the House yesterday by Stephen Franks, Winston Peters, and Bill English. I am not alone in feeling such disgust at their behaviour.

New Zealanders know that when a team is playing badly its members should look to themselves and not blame the ref. New Zealanders know that a fair trial has to have the accused person being able to defend himself or herself. New Zealanders also know that when a member of their family is killed they deserve support, because they will understandably be distraught. I think we should debate policy, and not attack people. I particularly believe that we should not attack people whose job means they cannot defend themselves, or whose job means they are not able to defend themselves. That is a very basic request that I propose to this House.

My next point is about the family members of someone who has been killed. I will never forget the smirk on the face of Mr English, as that young man’s response to his family member’s murder was used in this House. I will never forget the smirk on Mr English’s face, as that man’s name was brought into this House. It is not something that has happened in the past, and I certainly hope we can learn from it. A young man who was overcome by grief—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are some things that you cannot allow to go past. That Minister’s coming down to the Chamber and making up someone else’s facial expressions in that way is outrageous, it is wrong, and she knows it. She is making it up. It is like saying that the Prime Minister was sitting there giggling at the same time. That was not the way that either the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister were behaving. The Minister does herself a disservice by that sort of game.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was here yesterday, and I certainly share the Minister’s observations of what happened and the disgust at that behaviour. I have to ask myself though, as members of the House would ask themselves, how Mr Sowry, who sits alongside Mr English, would notice the expression on his face.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not raised this point of order today because this is the Wednesday afternoon debate, but all of the honourable Minister’s speech was out of order. In fact, it was grossly out of order. Members cannot debate a point of order. If members want to raise a matter about a point of order it has to be done at the time. The Minister’s whole debate is about a point of order. I object to it, because she referred to one of my members, who made a purely factual statement. She is now making up things that did not happen, with regard to Stephen Franks’ contribution to the debate. In no way could it be said to be an attack on the Speaker.

I also want to say that if what the Minister is saying is correct, then there was a breach of the Standing Orders. Members cannot attack the Speaker. That has not been so ruled. Her whole speech is out of order, and it is creating disorder. Why does she not do something revolutionary and debate the Government’s policies?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members for raising that issue and for explaining it. Mr Prebble is absolutely right. Members may not refer in their speeches to points of order, or discussions during points of order. I was remiss in allowing that to continue. Members may not do that, and I ask the speaker not to do that.

I remember the lessons the nuns taught us at school—about standards, values, principles, respect for people, and telling the truth. I am around the same age as the current Leader of the Opposition, and we share the same religious upbringing. I am sure he heard those same lessons. It is obvious that he has let down his party. However, in my view he has now gone a lot further than that. He has let down the very basic values that our community believes in—the values that, in obviously more politically convenient times, he espouses as his own.

With Winston Peters, frankly, not a lot surprises me. He is totally lacking in principle. He thrives on insinuation and innuendo, and has no regard at all for the damage he does to people outside this House. Stephen Franks is pretty similar. But for the so-called Leader of the Opposition, Bill English, not just to condone but to agree deliberately to be a key part in attacking public servants and attacking people who are unable to defend themselves, and to use the tragedy of a woman’s murder to drag themselves out of the political mire, is something that I find very difficult to accept.

I guess when one has no policy, no leadership, and no principles one does resort to this sort of behaviour. At 7 percent in the polls, and clearly falling, it is no wonder that Mr English is in the state he is in. He is a coup waiting to happen.

It has to be market day because all the fishwives are in town—and they are all in the debate. I want to express my great concern at events in this House this afternoon and yesterday. I want to express disappointment that we are no wiser now than we were yesterday about a non-prosecution for vandalism in the grounds of Parliament. The facts given to me by Danny Alkema, the person Labour members purport to defend, are as follows: firstly, he committed vandalism with his trail bike on 21 May on Parliament’s lawns; secondly, he gave himself up to the police, confessed, and was being processed; thirdly, there was—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With reference to your earlier ruling—as raised in the point of order by the Hon Roger Sowry—that I was not able to refer to the issues raised in the point of order yesterday, I wonder whether there is any relationship between that ruling and the fact that Winston Peters is quite clearly talking about exactly the same issue?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, he is not.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Peters has not once made reference to a point of order; he has said that he wants to know answers to some questions. Having heard from Government members all afternoon on this matter, I have to say that it is really very unparliamentary for them not to allow Mr Peters to be able, at least, to reply to the points that the Minister and her colleagues have made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members for raising that issue. It is a very difficult area, but I agree that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was not in any way referring to points of order in the same way—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It is exactly the same!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No it was not. It was quite distinct, and I ask Mr Peters to continue.

Danny Alkema—the person Ruth Dyson purported to defend, as did the other female members of the Labour Party—told me that he committed vandalism on 21 May, that he gave himself up to the police and confessed, that he was being processed by the police, and that there was, right then and there, contact between the police and the Speaker. Danny Alkema was told exactly that, there and then, by the police, and he was then told to be on his way with a warning. That all happened on the same day and within a space of 2 hours.

Today we have been given a different version of events. This different version is as follows: firstly, there was no contact between the police and the Speaker’s office; secondly, it can be inferred that the police misadvised Mr Alkema about the Speaker’s views; and thirdly, the Speaker was involved not by phone but at a meeting later on. So we have two different versions of events, and it puts me in mind of that old saying: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive.”

I ask Mr Speaker whether he can tell me why Danny Alkema’s police file was pulled from the Lower Hutt Police Station last night and brought back to the Wellington office? Can he tell me that? Why was that man’s file pulled last night, after question time in the House, from the Lower Hutt Police Station and brought back to the Wellington station? Is that a case of political interference in matters of the police, or what? Who authorised it? I say that it is time to come clean. What role did the Minister of Police have in that occurrence last night?

Was Inspector Marty Grenfell involved—yes or no? He was at the meeting on 21 May and he was there at all relevant points of time when Danny Alkema was told that the Speaker’s office had been in contact. After question time yesterday and through last night, who spent the hours working on damage control to be ready for today’s question time? The two versions just do not agree. The difference should be cleared up now.

We want the police records on this matter tabled in this House. The Speaker gave us an assurance yesterday that this matter would be decided by the House. Instead, we were swamped by procedural issues, generalised facts, and a veneer of humanitarian behaviour duplicated in Labour members’ speeches today. They claim their actions—[Interruption] Yes, they originate from their desire to be humanitarian. Danny Alkema is my informant. He wants this action. He wants to know what happened.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am listening with interest to the member’s speech, but I need your assistance. It seems to me that he is, indeed, referring to a matter that was the subject of earlier points of order both yesterday and today and is seeking to prosecute the matter of the Speaker’s judgment—the judgment of the Chair—in a way that calls into disrepute, in my view, the statements made by the Speaker earlier today, and he even outlined a process that any member of this House can take should they wish to question the judgment of the Speaker’s Chair.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member.

The reality is that I am talking about Danny Alkema’s files. I am talking about them being pulled last night. None of that has been a matter of a point of order, today or yesterday. That member knows that full well, and then he says that he wants your help. Well, frankly, he is incapable of using it. Can I get back to the debate?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Members know that they must not challenge any Speaker’s explanation or ruling. There is a proper course by which they can do that, and members are all aware of it. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was in no way referring to points of order, in my view. He was simply expanding on an issue that he has raised before. He was getting close, perhaps, to criticising or objecting to Speaker’s decisions, but I do not think he quite got there.

Is it not a coincidence? Labour members came to the House today with every speaker pleading the correctness of the Speaker’s decision, where humanitarian actions and Danny Alkema were concerned. Now can that be a coincidence? Is this pure serendipity? Is this sort of accidental, or what? After the Speaker’s statement, I think that it is all there. He claims a different time and different events, and makes no acknowledgment of a direct phone call. We want the police log of the telephone accounts in respect of that day. We want the telephone account log. We want the police log of that interview with Danny Alkema. That is what we want. We do not want it somewhere else—some other place in the country—we want it on the floor of this Parliament. Let me tell that member who claims to be the Minister of Defence that we will not rest until we get it—because the facts do not support one thing I have heard today.

There is an underlying attribute that bonds most Kiwis—the principle of fairness, of giving a bloke a fair go. Out in the heartland of New Zealand if someone rorts this attribute Kiwis can sense it, smell it, and taste it. Well, over the last 3 weeks it has been rorted all right. Opposition members, led by Messrs English, Sowry, Smith, Peters, and Franks have rorted it. They have breached the sacred bond with all New Zealanders—and this is how it works. The Government has no problem with scrutiny, no problem with debate, and no problem with criticism, but the Speaker, Jonathan Hunt, day in and day out, has had not only his rulings challenged but his essence and mana—and that is a fact.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member must not bring the Speaker into the debate.

There is one other point that I wanted to make about that. When one challenges and questions people’s integrity and credibility, when one challenges their essence and their mana, that is not fair, because those people have their hands tied behind their back and they are sitting on the ground. But people like the member for Tauranga jump in off the fence. That member waited for 2 weeks, had his finger in the air, listened to Radio Pacific, had a think about it, then jumped off the fence and put the boot in. That is what he did. That is how low and crass the leader of New Zealand First is. Those party members in the House with him right now are a bunch of bunnies.

I grew up in west Auckland under the shadow of that great bloke—the list MP for my area, Jonathan Hunt. He might not be perfect, but one thing he has always exhibited, day in and day out and when I was a young kid growing up, is that he has always been straight, always been honest, always had integrity, and always had credibility. Then chumps come into this House and question that. It is a disgrace. It is outrageous! For 2 weeks Winston Peters sat on the fence and waited for a bloke to be down, and then he jumped in. That is the measure of it. That is the crass, low measure of the member for Tauranga.

Enough of the member for Tauranga, anyway, and the Māori boys he has with him, because no one knows who they are. They never go out to the constituencies and they never do anything. They just sit on the fence. They will not contest the Māori seats, but all of a sudden they have some Māori seats. They do not have any policy, or anything else.

I will conclude by speaking of one other matter, and that is the political career of the legend—in his own mind—from the ACT party, Stephen Franks. I had cause to look at his website. He often describes himself as a “former top lawyer”. We know all about the “former”, but I do not know about the “top”. Where are his fingerprints on any legal treatise? Where are his fingerprints on any commercial case of any substance in this country? Where are they? [Interruption] They are not. I will tell members where they are, though. This is what he says: “It hasn’t been thought yet”—[Interruption] Unlike the people on the other side of the House, we do not take pecuniary gain, like Richard Prebble. I am not paid by external agents to be here, as Richard Prebble is. I am here—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I think I can anticipate the point of order.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a grossly disorderly accusation to put across the House that a member is being paid by external agents to be in the House. I demand that the matter be withdrawn and apologised for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Prebble. Mr Tamihere—

I withdraw and apologise, especially to the honourable Richard Prebble.

I have a statement from Mr Franks’ latest speech, in which he says: “A chummy little political elite has controlled our justice system for 20 years. I know, because I was one.” His record makes it clear that he was at the centre of it. He goes on to say: “They have given much of the dirty work to the judges.”

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a completely false accusation. I did not make those statement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is a matter for debate.

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He is misleading the House, and deliberately so.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a debate where the ACT party has had its contribution. For a Minister to claim to the House that he is quoting from a member, when he is not, is pretty close to a breach of privilege. He should be warned he should not be saying to the House that a member made a statement, if he cannot authenticate it.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to be a recurring theme. If the member believes there has been a breach of privilege, proper procedures are laid down and they are not by way of point of order. The member concerned should lay a breach of privilege claim.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a matter of concern, during the last two points of orders taken by Stephen Franks and Richard Prebble, John Tamihere remained on his feet. Normally, the Speaker calls a person, recognises him or her on a point of order, and the person who may have had his or her speech interrupted sits down. It is very disorderly when the Speaker does not rise giving the point of order, and when the person who has the call stays on his or her feet and keeps interrupting the point of order. That has just happened twice in a row, and it will be very disorderly if you permit that to continue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising those issues. I hope the Minister will take note of the concerns those members have. During points of order there is to be no talk, no interjections, and no one standing up, except the person talking to the point of order.

Between 1991 and 1995 Mr Stephen Franks was lucky enough, through political patronage, to achieve a number of appointments to Government committees. By his own acknowledgment, he oversaw the legal restructuring of a number of matters, from Crown health enterprises through to the Electricity Industry Reform Act. If I were worth my salt, there would have to be an action in negligence for the type of advice that organisations got from that bloke. Under no circumstances would anyone in his or her right mind acknowledge that advice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call the next member, some concern was raised during the last member’s speech about references to the Speaker. I did not take them as references, in the context of what we had been talking about. I see no harm in members’ saying something good about the Speaker and praising him, and that is what the member was doing.

Everywhere I go in New Zealand these days I am asked the same question: “Why is the Labour Government pigheadedly ignoring public opinion on such a significant issue as the lifting of the moratorium—an issue that will shape the destiny of New Zealand for the next few decades, and perhaps for ever—and dismissing the risks that lifting it will pose to the future of our nation, in such a cavalier way?”. Why is the party that ushered in a nuclear-free New Zealand, and helped us forge an independent identity in the world, taking us down a path where we will lose for ever our GE-free status and reputation as a source of clean, pure products?

That was the theme of the rally held outside Parliament yesterday. One speaker, Jim Kebble, a former New Zealand Labour Council member, puzzled out loud about why the Government was ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of people by lifting the moratorium. Clearly, it was not doing so for trade reasons, because there are no market or trading opportunities for any GE crops. Nor is it doing so to preserve our environment. If cross-contamination in the vast prairies of Canada cannot be avoided, there is no way we will avoid it here. He said that if the Government was going to go against the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders on such a significant issue, and risk our trade, our environment, and our future in the process, there would need to be some clearly articulated principle for doing so. However, the question is: what is the principle? And, if there is a principle here, why have the people of New Zealand never been told what it is? If the Government is not making a stand on a matter of principle, what is the reason for its stand?

Most people who puzzle over the Government’s motives in lifting the moratorium eventually conclude that there can be only one explanation, and that is pressure from the American Government and various multinational corporations. If we cast our mind back to the highly publicised time when Helen Clark met George Bush in the White House, we can speculate that George Bush said to Helen Clark something to the effect: “If you want a free-trade deal with us, you must lift the moratorium, or you can kiss goodbye to a free-trade deal.” If that is the explanation, and there seems to be no other one, the Government is risking our export markets, our environment, and our independence, to appease a foreign power. I believe that this underlying threat to our sovereignty is the reason, I suspect, that the disquiet and concern about lifting the moratorium has spread to the Labour Party rank and file.

I issue a plea to the Labour Government not to repeat the mistakes of the past, not to ignore the views of the people it was elected to represent, or indeed, its own members, and not to put the interests of a foreign power and a handful of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of New Zealanders.

Finally, it is extraordinary that in the face of nationwide concern and disquiet about the lifting of the moratorium all our Prime Minister has done is attack Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons. Today, three Ministers in this debate went on and on about how we should not attack people, their mana, or their credibility—the previous speaker said that—and that we should play the ball and not the person. Why then does their Prime Minister not heed her advice? Why has she “played the ball”, as the previous speaker said, rather than the game?

Personality attacks like this are always the resort of those who have no arguments to muster to defend their stance. It is curious that we have had a cowering silence from Labour Party members about the moratorium, and have heard no arguments why they are in favour of it. We have heard none. Instead, we have heard personal attacks from the Prime Minister, with no attempt to debate the issues or answer the questions that New Zealanders around the country are asking. Far from cowering in the face of these attacks, I can assure the House that the Green Party sees them as an admission of defeat by the Government. We challenge the Labour Party rank and file, the Labour members here today, and the Labour Ministers to come up with some argument, some explanation, some reason, or some matter of principle, as to why they are defying public opinion in this way.

In reply to my friend from the Green Party as to why there has been no discussion on policy recently about the lifting of the GM moratorium, I say that she should read the royal commission report on genetic modification. When members ask why the Government is ignoring the wishes of so many people, I say let them read the royal commission report. When a political party becomes a pressure group it loses its credibility. The more it becomes a pressure group, the more sidelined it becomes in the process.

What is scandalous about what we have heard in Parliament in the last 7 days is the diatribe delivered in the House last Wednesday by ACT member Stephen Franks. What is scandalous is that he was either deliberately misquoting the law to score a shabby political point against a sitting-duck target, or the ACT party’s so-called justice spokesman is unable to read the law. For example, there is no comparison between the judgment of the Chief Justice in the foreshore case and the position of Lord Hoffman 10 years ago in the House of Lords in the Pinochet case. The Chief Justice was one of five unanimous judges, and you have not given one reason as to why her judgment was faulty. In denigrating the Chief Justice you denigrate the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Gault, and you denigrate senior justices of the Court of Appeal without a skerrick of argument. However, in the Pinochet case, Lord Hoffman was one of three in a majority out of five.

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are being called into this debate more often than is usually attributable just to inexperience.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that I may be inexperienced but I am not incompetent in law.

The point of the Pinochet case is that Lord Hoffman had connections that were obscure and not known to the other side. The Chief Justice in this country is well known for advocacy. The lawyers acting for the Marlborough Sounds parties in the foreshore case know of her history, and not one of them took objection to her sitting on the case. The Crown lawyers know of the Chief Justice’s advocacy, and not one of them took objection to the case. The ACT spokesman Stephen Franks has known for years of the Chief Justice’s advocacy, and it took him 14 months to consider that there may be bias. One must ask why that is.

There is a legal term called “champerty”. Champerty is when a party tries to influence court proceedings for some purpose beneficial to themselves. What a coincidence. When this great arguer of legal principle in the select committee loses arguments about the Supreme Court Bill, he goes public with an attack on the Chief Justice on the same day the bill is released. He does not address the issues by attacking her judgment, or by recognising that the principles behind her judgment were a recognition of the international law of indigenous people when they are subject to settlement by consent—nothing radical like that. No, instead he comes out and links it to the Supreme Court.

What is his motive? It is surely to encourage the lawyers for the Marlborough Sounds case and put public pressure on them to take the case to the Privy Council, thereby raising for the first time the question of bias, which in the public mind has now been set at large. The only purpose for that can be to slow down the Supreme Court Bill and achieve by a side wind what that brilliant legal mind could not achieve by his advocacy at the select committee. Stephen Franks ignored the experience of senior judges who explained matters in detail to him, in response to his, I must say, rather timid questioning of the leaders of the bar—the leaders of the judiciary. Not once did he confront Lord Cooke. Not once did he tackle Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. Instead we had timid questions and reminders of when he used to work at Chapman Tripp, as they may have also. We had no lion’s roaring at the select committee, we had meek and mild “count me in too, sir” questioning. But, of course, his arguments failed because of lack of logic, force, and support, which is reflected in the 5 percent support that his party has. It is a nice coincidence with the support given to the Leader of the Opposition, which is about 7 percent. He has personally attacked the judiciary.

That tells us not just about the lack of ability of that self-described legal leader to read case law, but it also tells us another thing. It tells us that the Leader of the Opposition has forsaken his responsibility to stand up as a Queen’s representative. Mr Bill English, by his silence in this House, has condoned the attack on the Chief Justice and the attack on our Court of Appeal, and he has undermined in the public mind confidence in our judiciary.

We see in the general debate today a significant shift in the Government’s position, and scatological speeches from Government members. We also see a sea change in public attitudes towards the Government, and the opinion polls are responding with diminished support for the Government. That is little wonder because pragmatism has yielded to principled decision-making, and spin is triumphing over substance. I am reminded of the comments made by the Rt Hon Helen Clark at an election campaign rally in November 1999. She said: “If we elect Labour to Government, then my commitment is that we will deliver a Government people can trust. It will be open; it will be accountable.”

So let us look at the record of this Government in year 4, at the outset. It was a time when new partnerships were to be forged, so let us look at those so-called partnerships. The partnership with local government is in tatters. The Local Government Act, with its much-vaunted claims of the power of general competence, was said to promise increased powers for local government. In fact, those powers have been stripped away by consultation and accountability obligations that more closely circumscribe local government action.

The partnership with business has collapsed. It was a partnership built on rhetoric by the Government and no substance. It has been unmasked by the failure of the Government to commit to the outcomes of the Knowledge Wave conferences; of broken promises not to raise taxes; by abandonment of the economic growth goals. The partnership with Māori is in serious trouble. Let us leave aside the conundrum as to who is a Māori and how it is possible to have partnerships with a particular ethnic group. The Government continues to dither on the resolution of the problem of the foreshore and the seabed. We see in vivid action, do we not, the consultation hui that flounder with point-blank rejection of the Government’s proposals.

I would also say that our relationships around the world are under significant stress. The collapse of the discussions at Cancun has seen the United States move away from world trade solutions to bilateral agreements, and New Zealand is very poorly placed, as a result of foolish attacks by the Prime Minister on the United States, to stand any real chance in the queue for preference.

So what about our relationships with Asia, and particularly China? They have been damaged by failed marketing attempts by the Government in respect of English language teaching. That is small wonder, really, when we have Chinese teachers teaching Chinese students English and we also have, in Auckland, Indian teachers teaching Chinese students English. It is a very significant event in Auckland, because 20 percent of the tenancy in the Auckland central business district is occupied by language schools. In China there is media coverage on New Zealand that is wholly adverse to our interests.

So the Government fiddles, in the tradition, I would suggest, of the Roman emperor Nero, while New Zealand burns. But we also see a display of sickening double standards. We see for the first time a direct challenge to the independence of the police authorities in recent events that have occurred in this House. It is wholly unacceptable for the police to enter Parliament to interrogate an MP. We have an expectation—we in National, we in Opposition—that the Government will take a strong stand in respect of those issues that touch the Speaker’s office and the integrity of that office. They are issues that are not going to go away. We see an inconstancy in police position-taking, which is truly worrying. It is simply an incomprehensible outcome that there should be one standard for Mr Tizard and another standard for Mr Ardern.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.