General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I wish to speak today about the disgraceful conduct and deceitful actions of this Government and its Ministers. The saddest thing for this Government is that the people of this country are at last beginning to understand what it is about, and that is being reflected in the polls. This Government is now indirectly admitting by its actions, or, in most instances—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Forty-six percent.

It was 46 percent, was it? Well, in the last campaign, which lasted exactly 1 month, Labour lost 13 percent in 4 weeks flat. Next time we will have a longer run at it, and it will lose a darned sight more when the balloon goes up. The Government is now indirectly admitting, by its own action, or, in most instances, by its lack of action, as is the case within the rapidly deteriorating health system, that the continual open-door immigration policy is exacerbating—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who wrote this?

I am able to write my own speech, unlike that dummy over there. He has a whole research unit to write his speeches. Over here we can write our own. This Government has no idea about ordinary New Zealand families.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You can’t read it very well.

Well, I do not read like a dog with a cleft palate, do I? The Government has no idea what the cost of immigration is. It persistently hides behind policies that it says were introduced by previous Governments. Every day Government members rise in the House and blame some other Government. It is about time they stopped blaming someone else. It is time that Helen Clark and her Ministers stopped passing the buck. If they want to go back and blame other Governments, they should go back to the years between 1984 and 1990 when they turned this country upside down, when they had an economic revolution, and when Australia, heading down the same path, grew a third larger in the same space of time, whilst these “loony tune”, political and economic alchemists stuffed New Zealand up.

The worst thing about that party over there in Government is that the deceit starts at the top. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked a simple question: how many people are on hospital waiting lists for elective surgery? Would she answer it? No, she would not. She obfuscated, delayed, and used every device possible to avoid answering the question. Worst of all, when she finally got caught out, she did not give the accurate figure. We know that tens of thousands of New Zealanders have been shifted off the hospital waiting lists, and today my colleague Peter Brown gave a classic example.

What did the Prime Minister do? She got her office to track down the case—real fast. The spin doctors from the Minister of Health’s office got the Prime Minister to get up in the House, and the first thing she did was to tell the House something that was absurdly, patently not true. She said that the case Mr Brown was talking about depended upon a further investigation. Sorry—that investigation occurred 8 weeks ago. So why is Mrs Grimsdell not getting an operation? Because Helen Clark has no heart. She is more obsessed with running around the world, spending money on refugees and illegal immigrants, and trying to get herself a job in the United Nations, for after the next election.

Helen Clark is trying to get herself a job, with our money and with New Zealanders’ sacrifice and agony as the base for it, because she knows that when the next election is over she will have lost. She will be looking for a new job. That is why she spends all her time betraying the interests of New Zealanders. That is why she does not give a damn about the almost 60,000 people who today need an operation in New Zealand, and cannot get one. She does not give a darn about the 12,000 New Zealanders who are waiting for urgent State housing, but cannot get it. But boy can she spend money on the “hug an immigrant” campaign! Can she spend money on a guy like Zaoui, who is over here and has already cost taxpayers more than $100,000, and can she spend money on the fact that we now have hospital boards spending more than $4 million on interpreters! Ten years ago, the Auckland Hospital Board had five interpreters. Do members know how many it has now? It has 285. It had five, but now it has 285. But apparently, of course, it is good because it means we can go to different restaurants.

Smacking one’s child is not physical violence, injury, or abuse, as per article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Violence is described in the Oxford Dictionary as: “The exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect, injuries, destruction, etc.; powerful, untamed, or devastating force; an unjust, unwarranted, or unlawful display of force.” It is something that brings about injury, but in a significant way. Clearly, the definition, in that context, is talking about substantial injury. It is certainly abuse. There is no connection whatsoever between Coral Burrows’ death and section 59 of the Crimes Act. In fact, the mother of Coral Burrows said that Steve Williams, the accused, was a good father figure, from which we take the fact that there was not abuse. We do not yet know the facts that will come out in that situation, but there is not always a connection between the way a person responds to a child and what happens later on.

Physical, violent injury is abuse. A negative intention is quite clearly implied. Child discipline requires a loving attitude. Spanking is not just a right parents have when dealing with their children; nor is it just a necessary tool for training and disciplining children. From my experience as a father of five very well-adjusted children, currently aged 23 years to 11 years—who, as best as I can recall, all received a smacking at some stage in their younger years—I say that smacking is an important part of a child’s early development as an individual and as a potential valued and contributing member of society. The latest Australian statistics show that step-parents and de facto partners, particularly a mother’s male de facto partner, are the most likely to abuse a child; not natural parents. In my view, adults with convictions for violence are far more likely to come from families where no physical discipline took place, than from families where there was appropriate physical discipline provided by loving parents.

Child abuse is based on a hatred; a disregard for children’s needs. Child discipline is based on love and a genuine concern for the welfare of the child. Firstly, children need physical discipline. It is how they learn. If a child reaches out to touch a hot stove, sure we can shout in a loud voice: “No!”, and maybe that will scare the child, and frighten him or her from touching the stove. But ultimately, giving a child a small spank teaches the child that it is far better not to touch something, because the consequences will be far more severe. If a child is going to cross the road, restraining the child by grabbing it is an acceptable way of stopping the child. Shouting at the child may simply be far too late.

Physical discipline provides a sense of security for children. It provides them with safe boundaries and convinces them that boundaries will be provided in their lives, and that those boundaries will be enforced, no matter what they do. All parents who have had young children have gone through what is euphemistically known as the “terrible twos”. Usually, in my experience, it starts at about 18 months of age. It is a period of time when young children tend to be defiant, and tend to decide to put their parents to the test as to who is in charge. It is a case of “Will my parents protect me from hurting myself, no matter how determined I am to do it?”. Any parent of a 2-year-old will know that experience. In my experience, once a parent has conquered that test children are very affectionate. They recognise that they have safe, secure boundaries within which to operate and that they can trust their parents to enforce those boundaries.

I recognise that, for outsiders, children being smacked is an uncomfortable thing to see. Hitting other people does not come naturally. A crying child naturally engenders sympathy. But wilful, petulant children who are determined to win against their parents’ wishes, and who are allowed simply to do that, suffer more harm than if they are given the boundaries they need to survive. It is in both their own interests and society’s long-term interests that that restraint be provided, and the vast majority of parents realise this. In a snapshot poll on Radio Pacific last week, 96 percent of the children polled answered “yes” to the question of whether smacking should be allowed.

The veil is slowly lifting on the arrogance and deceit of this Government. Just at the time when Tony Blair’s credibility is being eroded, the more we see of the inner workings of this Government the more obvious it is that calculated deceit is part of its way of doing business. We have learnt today that New Zealanders cannot trust the Prime Minister of New Zealand with their medical information. [Interruption] Government members do not take it seriously, and that is right because they regard anything as a legitimate political tool. So the Prime Minister just dropped in the New Zealand Parliament confidential, private medical information about an older woman, in order to make some political point.

We also found out that the Government uses public money to contract quite precisely with lobby groups to lobby us. We are quite happy if they do it for free. We do not think they need to be paid. Here we have the Government pretending that these lobby groups are at arm’s length. It puts together a contract made up of taxpayers’ hard-earned money, specifically requiring those lobby groups to lobby members of Parliament. That is a disgrace, and we will certainly hear more of it. The worst of it is that the contract says that the parties can never criticise the Government. That is absolutely outrageous.

The Government has been using deceit as a tool on matters that are much more important. I ask Government members this: when were they told by the United States Government that the United States Government was not prepared to schedule bilateral trade negotiations? When were they told? Because, today, the US Ambassador is reported as having those comments in a speech that he could not actually give. If the Government knew that, it should have told the country. It has spent 4 years trying to curry favour with the US administration, with the odd complete summersault when it insulted that administration, all for the purpose of maintaining official optimism that it could secure a trade agreement with the US. Today, the US Government has officially and finally said that it would not negotiate. That puts the nail in the coffin of 4 years of the Government’s top foreign policy objective.

Here is another question. If that is the case, why is the Government making extensive and expensive commitments of New Zealand troops to Iraq and Afghanistan if it was not to make up for the insults that the Prime Minister gave the US Government earlier this year? I want the Government to explain what it is on about with the US relationship, because it has deceived the New Zealand public. The official view has been that the relationship is all on track and that we are making progress towards a trade negotiation. That trade negotiation has mattered to New Zealand, because the potential for the World Trade Organization round to succeed is not great, and it will not happen in a big hurry. It will certainly not happen in a big hurry if it does happen. This was what the Government was hanging its trade policy on.

I want the Government to tell us whether it knew before today that the US Government has killed any prospect of negotiation. If the Government did know, why did it not tell us; and if it did not, then why is the relationship as bad as that? When will the Government explain to the primary producers and the manufacturers of New Zealand, the backbone of this economy, why those trade negotiations have finally died? When will the Government explain that? It is time this Government was honest about that relationship and stopped pretending it is working, when it is not.

The member mentioned Mr Blair being in some trouble, although I gather he would love Mr Blair’s poll ratings at the present time. Mr Blair is in trouble for going to war in Iraq, not staying away from the war in Iraq as this Government did. Yet again, Mr English tells us that he supported us going to war, but he does not support us going to the peace. He always gets it back to front on every issue in terms of both what is right and what New Zealanders believe.

The other thing I have to say is that I think he is right and has a point. Why we are paying people to lobby the National Party on sensible issues such as with regard to smoking I have no idea, because we will never change the minds of people over there on anything sensible, and not a single cent should go in that direction any further, in my view as Minister of Finance.

This week the Government celebrates a major anniversary for it—a profound part of our success as a Government. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the election of Bill English as the leader of the National Party. When he was elected, Jenny Shipley was at 14 percent in the polls, and when he was first elected he was at 21 percent. He is now down to 7 percent—half of what Jenny Shipley was. When he was elected, the National Party was at 40 percent in the polls; it is now down to 29 percent. This man is sort of like Moses in reverse—he is leading the people out of the Promised Land back into captivity.

Dr Brash starts musing again. For Mr English it is: “To be, or not to be”; for Dr Brash it is: “To ‘ACT’, or not to ‘ACT’ ”. Let us recognise some things about Dr Brash. He is the ACT mole in the National Party. I am told on very reliable information that last week he addressed a Greenslades business function in Christchurch; Chatham House Rules, but sometimes somebody does not understand what they are. Dr Brash mused on what his tax policy is, and he was very specific about his policy. His tax policy is to put GST up to 20 percent to pay for—

💬 Hon Member: Just daft!

It is just daft, the member is quite right. However, it is Dr Brash’s policy to pay for massive tax cuts at the top end of the scale; so people on low incomes will get tax increases so that people on high incomes can get tax decreases. This is the new National Party approach. Dr Brash has made it clear many times that that is his view of what a tax system should be. It should lower taxes for those who are rich—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: When?

He said it last week in Christchurch at a Greenslades function. I challenge Dr Brash to come down to this House and say that he does not believe in a GST increase accompanied by big cuts in the top tax rate; and, of course, he will not. He also gave that wonderful performance at the ACT party conference, and that led to Gerry Brownlee getting just a wee bit upset. If Dr Brash is the mole of ACT in the National Party, then, of course, Mr Brownlee has pretensions to be the Toad of Toad Hall as far as that particular institution is concerned. Mr Brownlee burst out and said: “The ACT party is a smorgasbord party.”

We have to be clear: Mr Brownlee probably knows more about smorgasbords than does any other member of the National Party. So when he said that the ACT party is a smorgasbord party, he is probably right. By that he means that the National Party does not have a clue whether it is Arthur or Martha. Is it trying to cuddle up to the ACT party, is it moving to the right, is it going back to its roots, as they always like to say in the National Party, or is it trying to get into Government? Is it actually trying to get on to this side of the House and be the Government, at which point it has to push the Labour Party out of the centre of politics?

I have to tell members opposite that it is the centre that decides elections. They are not actually decided on the sort of flaky fringe on the right-hand end of politics, the bit where the ACT party is mired at the present time. If a party starts to get its policies written for it by Stephen Franks, then it will soon get down to the point where it will have about the same level of support as the National Party.

Dr Brash says: “With three times the support of ACT we should adopt its policies and this will somehow increase our level of support.” Mr Brownlee says: “Somehow from 20-odd percent we can get enough votes to govern by ourselves.” That is equally ridiculous. So what will National do? Yesterday, it could not even have a caucus if the leader was not there. Even the Labour Party can have caucuses when the Prime Minister is away.

The ACT party had a conference on the foreshore and seabed issue on Saturday. We believe that we should ask experts to come and talk, and that lots of New Zealanders wanted to participate and that these hui should not only be organised by members of Parliament for Māori. The two most experienced lawyers participating at that conference, Paul Cavanagh QC and Marcus Poole, emphatically agreed with a concern I had raised—that is, that the Māori Land Court is not the appropriate body to decide as between Māori and other New Zealanders. Racism is infused into the law under which it operates. That court cannot be committed to justice that treats all New Zealanders equally, because its statute states that it cannot. It is told to discriminate.

For the Government, of course, it is now routine strategy to move political disaster areas to the courts. Firstly, of course, the courts take ages; secondly, people get accustomed to the worst; and, thirdly, they forget which politician sent it there and they blame the judges for the result.

We have been told that this Government wants to send the definition of customary interests and customary property rights to the Māori Land Court, and then we are supposed to be gagged by constitutional convention from questioning or criticising the result, even if it has been coolly engineered to process it through the courts. It may be, and so I have been told, that it could even be punishable as a contempt of court to ask about the motives and the ideologies of the judges who are left to do the dirty work.

Pākehā, of course, have ignored the injustice under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, because until now it has largely been confined to disputes among Māori. The spotlight will now go on to this little black hole in our justice system. These judges cannot be seen to be impartial, how ever well and honestly they try to perform. Firstly, in their ex officio role as Waitangi Tribunal members, they have been clearly partisan. The notorious “holocaust” report is just the most well known example.

The recent oil and gas report embarked on pure legal invention—a so-called treaty interest in property that Māori claim to have lost wrongly. The Wellington Tenths Trust report addressed the seabed and foreshore issue and invited claimants to come to the tribunal if they did not get the result they wanted from the Court of Appeal. Of course, they have recently been openly drumming up support for their own hearing process on the seabed and foreshore issue, and it is clear that they are not concerned that they are seen to be influencing the political process.

The Māori Land Court need not apply principles of law known in advance. It is told that it must apply tikanga Māori, and as members of the Justice and Electoral Committee heard during the Supreme Court Bill hearings, tikanga Māori does not even treat all Māori alike; it varies from iwi to iwi. So how can that treat all New Zealanders alike?

The judges are not selected on the same criteria as in other courts; they are appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs; and, of course, that Minister says that he is there for Māori. Labour Māori Cabinet Ministers have rejected the normal “conflict of interest” rules and principles, and the Westminster rules and principles against the misuse of power, for preferment of their kin. We have no evidence that these judges are appointed by a Minister who wants them to act in the best interests of all New Zealanders if there is a conflict between Māori and other New Zealanders’ interests.

Very few of these judges have wide experience in the law outside the Māori sphere and things that affect Māori, and some of them have expressed views about property rights and the rule of law that simply make them unsuitable for adjudicating between Māori and other New Zealanders. They tend to be appointed young, and few have much obvious experience of commerce. The court routinely accepts unsworn statements as evidence, and commonly does not cross-examine. It is quite unsuitable for deciding property rights as between Māori claimants and other New Zealanders.

I believe that the Government, indeed, has its own reservations. I do not take that just from the silence of the Ministers and other Māori members present.

What an interesting day this is. We heard from Murray Smith of the United Future party a discussion of what one should do to 2-year olds to keep them in line. Then we celebrated the second anniversary of Bill English coming to the leadership of the National Party. It was a very, very flat speech from Mr English, but he then acted like a 2-year-old at the end of it. He stomped out like a 2-year-old. We could tell that he was unhappy with his performance. We could tell that the rest of the National Party was unhappy with his performance. But one of the things about being a leader is that when one is not happy one has to have the ability to absorb it, take it, and show some leadership—not to stomp around this Chamber like a spoilt child who was not allowed a lolly.

Maybe he has gone to the National Party economic caucus committee. He apparently has not been to one for nearly a year, according to Don Brash. Maybe he has gone to find out why Don Brash is wandering around Christchurch saying that the National Party is going to put GST up to 20 percent and cut the highest tax rate. Why did Don Brash tell a group in Christchurch that the National Party was going to put GST up to 20 percent and cut the top tax rates? Why? Because it is consistent with the views of Richard Prebble. It is absolutely consistent with the views of Rodney Hide—

💬 David Benson-Pope: What about Stephen Franks?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD:—and Stephen Franks; he is making it clear that he is the aspirant leader for ACT. It is absolutely consistent with being the ninth member of ACT in this House, as we all know that Dr Brash is. Will he come down here and deny it?

💬 Simon Power: You used to be good!

I agree with Simon Power that Dr Brash used to be good. But he came in here and he was flattened like a bit of bread under a steamroller. The National Party got to him and he lost whatever potential he had. That is why, now, the National Party is looking to Gerry Brownlee. Is it not sad? Apparently when he canvassed for support it was like one of the candidates for Cabinet in the 1980s and I counted the votes. He canvassed for support a couple of months ago and got only one person supporting him—himself. But is it not interesting that the National Party now is not looking to Mr Power but looking to Gerry Brownlee? Just as we know that Don Brash is the ninth member from ACT, Gerry Brownlee is the 14th member from New Zealand First. He is out with them regularly, having a great time around town sorting out portfolio responsibilities, and trying to do deals about who is sitting in what seat, who is running against whom, and which of his National Party colleagues will be sacrificed.

Given the approach in the last 2 years, and given the way that Bill English—“Wiremu Pākehā”—has destroyed the vote of the National Party, I am not surprised that National Party members are looking for somewhere to go. But I want to know whether Gerry Brownlee gave Phil Heatley’s seat to Brian Donnelly, to give more security to New Zealand First in the longer term. Is that true? It is one of the rumours around.

We know that Brian Donnelly is a much harder worker in Whangarei. I know from the representations I get that Brian Donnelly is a much harder worker in Whangarei than Phil Heatley. But did Gerry Brownlee deal with his seat? What about Shane Ardern? Is it true that Don Brash said: “When we ran in Taranaki – King Country we nearly won it?”. Did Don Brash deal with that seat too?

In case the public was not aware, that was the Minister of Education addressing the New Zealand Parliament. What a pathetic effort by the Minister of Education! He provides no leadership in education, just appalling performance, and it is just as well that he is leaving the Chamber.

Just over a year ago—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just making it clear that members are not allowed to draw attention to members leaving the Chamber. He is actually incorrect. I am here having a discussion with our supporting people, making quality representations in a way that Lockwood Smith never does.

💬 Simon Power: On a number of occasions during his contribution, the Minister made reference to at least two members of our caucus, and their presence or otherwise in this Chamber. We did not interrupt him during his speech, and we would appreciate it if the same rules could apply on the other side.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has made a valid point, and I caution the member for interrupting.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Just over a year ago in this House, I accused the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, of not being upfront with the people of New Zealand over the problems of our prospective free-trade agreement with the United States of America. I did not make that accusation lightly. I took the trouble of going to Washington to obtain thorough briefings on why we were making no progress. Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, Phil Goff, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Jim Sutton, the Minister for Trade Negotiations, have continued to deny that our trade deal with the United States is in crisis. In the case of Helen Clark, it is part of a pattern of calculated deceit, spanning right from forged art works through to “corngate”.

That deception has been publicly exposed today by the United States Ambassador. In his speech notes, he said this: “The United States Government is not prepared to schedule bilateral trade negotiations at this time.” The word “not” is underlined. That is totally consistent with three sets of briefings I have had at high levels in Washington in the last 18 months. I want to know why Helen Clark, Jim Sutton, and Phil Goff continue to deny that. Why have they not been upfront and honest with the people of New Zealand? The ambassador’s speech was couched with full diplomatic courtesy. What does Helen Clark not understand about the words “not prepared to do a trade deal”?

Less than a month ago, Helen Clark said in this Parliament: “New Zealand has a friend in United States trade representative, Bob Zoellick”—not Robert Zoellick—“who has looked to make room for this country”—that is us—“to eventually come into a list for negotiations.” Helen Clark says her Government has always wished Australia well in its negotiations, because “we believe that it opens up a path for New Zealand.” Helen Clark said that in this Parliament, probably just days after Bob Zoellick, whom Helen Clark told this Parliament was a great friend of New Zealand, had called a meeting of the friends of free trade in Cancun. When the World Trade Organization talks were running off the rails, Ambassador Zoellick called a meeting of the friends of free trade.

I want to ask Helen Clark, who told this Parliament that Bob Zoellick was a great friend of New Zealand and was looking to make room for this country to eventually come into a list for trade negotiations, why he did not invite New Zealand to that meeting of the friends of free trade in Cancun. It was clearly a meeting of people that the United States was looking to do trade work with. Helen Clark said in this Parliament that a great friend of New Zealand, Bob Zoellick, was looking to bring us into US trade negotiations, when at the same time—at the World Trade Organization talks in Cancun—New Zealand was left out of a meeting of World Trade Organisation members who are considered friends of free trade that the United States is looking to do trade deals with.

I want to know how Helen Clark ties those two events together. Her misrepresentation of the facts to this Parliament, and what actually happened in Cancun, is part of a pattern of ongoing deceit.

For members who are listening, that was yet another leadership bid from the National Party. One can always tell. That was one of the people who is now a contender for the leadership of the National Party. One can tell from that angry overacting that took place for the last 5 minutes, with that member trying to do better at what Bill English has been trying to capture himself—the constant screaming, the raising of the voice, the sound of false anger and desperation that comes through from one speaker after the other. National Opposition members are just so chronically unhappy and angry all the time.

The worst person at that, of course, is Mr Bill English. I want to take members back to the last session. It must feel like déjá vu—they are back here again. At the last session Bill English was screaming and yelling about the situation in this country. I said at the time that I thought the problem for Mr English was pretty easy to spot. The first was the poll rating. I remind people again how successful Mr Bill English—“Mr Angry” as we call him on this side of the House—has been. When he took over from Jenny Shipley after rolling her too early—and we know that now—he was polling at 5 percent for preferred Prime Minister. Would anybody like to take a stab at what his preferred Prime Minister stake is now? It has risen within the margin of error to 7. With all that work in all that time, with all that screaming, and so on, his poll rating has risen to 7.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What did he peak at?

He peaked at 21, and he has just gone on sliding.

I think that he is angry as well at all the people who keep on picking on him in the National Opposition. I mention Mr Maurice Williamson. Three weeks ago in the House, I said I would be angry, too. As leader of a party, who would not be? Bill English had gone through the painful process of trying to get rid of a man who said he was as exciting as watching paint dry, and even that was an exaggeration. That is a damn good line. Mr Williamson said that he lacked charisma, that he was no leader, that he was hopeless, that he was dead meat, and all those kinds of things. Mr Williamson said the National Opposition was unperforming, it would never be the Government, it was hopeless, it could not poll, and all those things, and still Mr English, as the leader, could not get him fired.

Mr Williamson is now on the Paul Keating comeback trail. I have always said that Mr Williamson went to the lowest seat because he followed what Paul Keating had told him—that he should go to the back, but he could still come forward. After the next election, Maurice Williamson—a good communicator, a popular guy in his own seat, a good-looking man, slimmed down, looking fit, with lots of speeches coming in—is another contender. Bill English is looking at that and saying that not only can he not get rid of him, but 3 weeks later he is back in the House.

Murray McCully is a contender. Murray McCully, the senior strategist in the National Party, has been at the ACT conference, forging links in a way that one would expect leaders to do. He has been building up a coalition with the ACT people, and sort of doing all the rounds in the way that one would expect might happen between coalition partners. Everyone is cosy, but Bill English did not know about that. He did not approve of it, he did not agree with the speech, because he did not read it, and he had to try to recover from that.

But as if that were not bad enough, the person described by Michael Laws as the “old man in a hurry”—the person who also seems to have a charisma problem, Mr Don Brash, who, I guess, Bill English would have given up as having leadership aspirations—went to a later ACT conference and said that the National Opposition was hopeless. He said it was unspectacular, it was not performing, and that it would never be the Government unless it did certain things that agreed with him. What did Bill English say? Bill English did not actually know that Don Brash was going. He did not know what the speech was going to say.

We are back on the leadership trail, and I have news. Even Tony Ryall is now looking for leadership changes. As he was waiting for his soy latte—his favourite drink—Mr Ryall was recently overheard saying to the person behind the counter that he did not want his soy latte today because he was off oestrogen and on the trail of testosterone. When we hear a National Opposition speaker who is supposed to be aligned with the brat pack, and very close to Mr English, saying that he does not want to be on oestrogen anymore, because he is trying to get more testosterone into his diet, we know it is all over.

When I came to the House this afternoon for question time, I had in my hand something I had picked up from my in-tray out of interest. I did not intend to raise the issue at all, but then I heard the Prime Minister, in an answer to a question from my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, guarantee that people waiting for elective surgery would not wait more than 6 months. I knew that to be untrue, and untrue in the specific case of Mrs Grimsdell.

Mrs Grimsdell is in her early 70s and lives in Auckland, in the Prime Minister’s electorate. She has been waiting for years for a hip operation. In early May this year, out of desperation, her husband contacted my office. Up until that time she had dealt with the Hon Annette King and the Prime Minister’s electorate office. She went for pre-surgery assessment on 12 August, with a view to having surgery on 28 August. She passed most of the pre-surgery assessment, but a diligent doctor—I commend that doctor, and have no doubt that the Grimsdells do, too—picked up what has been termed a slight heart murmur. Since that time, Mrs Grimsdell has been cleared of that heart murmur, but there has been no contact whatsoever. She was told, there and then, that she had been cleared, and they are sitting there waiting, and Mrs Grimsdell is in agony. It is some weeks now since she has been cleared. For the Prime Minister to come down, as she did, and say that Mrs Grimsdell is waiting because she is currently subject to a slight heart murmur is not true. The Minister shakes her head, I think in agreement with me?

💬 Hon Annette King: No.

Oh, she disagrees.

💬 Hon Annette King: I disagree, and I will table it in a moment.

Okay, I welcome that news. My understanding—and I have checked subsequently—is that she has been cleared of a heart murmur by the technician who examined her, and she is still waiting. [Interruption] Mr Benson-Pope should take a breath and listen. This is about a New Zealander whom we should be caring for. It is somewhat ironic that within 30 to 40 minutes of me raising the question in the House, the Grimsdells got a telephone call from an official in the health industry. I do not know what that official said—I am not privy to the phone call, and I have not had a report on it—but I gather that the Grimsdells have found it to be quite encouraging.

💬 Jim Peters: She was lucky.

She appears to be lucky.

💬 Hon Annette King: A bit of honest work.

Is the member accusing me of lying?

💬 Hon Annette King: I was talking to someone over here. Just carry on with your speech.

They live in the Prime Minister’s electorate. They have knocked on the door of the Prime Minister’s electorate office, I understand, on several occasions. Nothing at all has happened as a result of that. They clearly came to New Zealand First because they knew that if anybody could fix it, we could. Within 30 minutes of me putting a question in the House, we are getting some action.

💬 Hon Annette King: No, the member is not. He is just talking rubbish.

I say to members sitting over there, who have smugly dismissed this as some sort of confidence trick on behalf of the Grimsdells— [Interruption] “Crank” I think the Minister said. [Interruption] Does Mr Benson-Pope think that the Grimsdells are living in the gutter? Does he think that waiting 2½ years is not long enough? I say that is far too long. It is far too long, when the Prime Minister comes down here and tells us that the Government will guarantee a 6-month maximum.

I seek leave to table an email received today from the chief executive of the Counties Manukau District Health Board, regarding Mrs Grimsdell, which states: “We are currently awaiting the result of that assessment before proceeding with surgery. Once we have received the cardiology report, the anaesthetist will again see Mrs Grimsdell to assess her for surgery.”

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

Birthday parties and anniversaries are often given names—like silver, gold, diamond, and so on. A first birthday, I understand, is called a paper birthday, and a second birthday is called a cotton birthday or a cotton anniversary. Well, Bill English has just survived his cotton anniversary, and only by his tiny cotton socks. In fact, his performance reminds me of a cotton ball. There is absolutely no substance to his performance. We can poke fingers through his argument, and the only thing he is useful for is cleaning out waste products. So to Bill English it must feel a bit like having a birthday party when nobody wants to come, but is forced to come along.

We have to ask: “Can anything go right for that man? Does he have to lose everything?” I ask members to have a look at a photograph in yesterday’s Dominion Post, showing Bill English done up in his rugby blacks, and the headline: “Parliament’s rugby loss a bad omen for the real thing”. It certainly is, because Bill English’s loss is a real omen for where he is heading in the leadership of the National Party. Members should have a look at what has happened in the 2 years since Bill English has been the leader of that party.

He has no profile. People say: “Bill who? Who are you talking about?”. He has no popularity. His popular support is very interesting. In October 2001 there was 21 percent support for Bill English. What is it today? Seven percent! Two-thirds of his popular support has gone down the gurgler—14 percentage points down the gurgler. He is so insecure he could not even allow a caucus to be held when he was in Australia playing rugby. Why not? He was scared they might roll him while he was not there, so they all had to go off and have their lattes around Wellington rather than meet and talk about policy, because dear old Bill English was not there to hold the caucus meeting.

What else has he done? He has managed to split his own party into two, and the National Party is rapidly heading towards being three factions. Faction one is made up of Bill English and all his little acolytes—the angry middle-aged men, the Roger Sowry and Lynda Scott combination, Nick Smith, and Tony Ryall. These make up the angry middle-aged people of one faction. Then the second faction is Don Brash and Murray McCully. They are the ones who are busy cosying up to the ACT party. They like the late-night tipples with the ACT party; they are philosophical soul mates. Now we have the third faction, which is led by Gerry Brownlee. Gerry who? Gerry and the Who—I have to say—desperately seeking a supporter. He is so excited about his aspiration that his bubble is fit to burst. His chest pokes out, and he is strutting around the corridors. I saw him this morning. He has never been happier. He believes he is on the way up, but does not quite know who will be with him, at this stage.

What does all this mean to the once-proud National Party? In one word, it is credibility, but—zilch, zero—it has none! It has absolutely no credibility at all. In September 2001 it had 40 percent popular support. It got rid of Jenny Shipley—she was no good—and put in Bill English. What is its popular support now? It is 29 percent. [Interruption] Well, maybe I am being generous. Maybe it is 26 percent. Jenny Shipley was a giant compared with Bill English, in more ways than one.

Why do National Party members have no credibility? It is because they are timid and mouse-like in their approach. They take the “walking on eggs” approach to everything. They are lions at question time and they are wimps when it comes to policy. Bill English always bails out after he has made his speech. He does not like to hear the truth. He bails out.

National members are wimps, and that is why they have no credibility. They change their position on a puff of political wind. Let us have a look at one issue—one that really amused me. They were for pharmacy deregulation, then they were against pharmacy deregulation, then they were for pharmacy deregulation—all in the space of 3 short years.

I want to start my comments by agreeing entirely with the Prime Minister. She is a victim of her own success, without a doubt. Unfortunately, her success, the success of the New Zealand Prime Minister, is one of deceit, double standards, half-truths, and spin. She has been totally successful in hoodwinking the public of New Zealand—but not for much longer.

I want to talk about an event that took place here on 4 September, affecting myself, and to draw a comparison with what I am talking about here. Somebody in a high place in this House—I cannot mention him because it would break the Standing Orders—said that on that day, through driving a tractor up a few steps of Parliament, I may have broken the law. I want to send the strongest possible message to anybody else who may contemplate doing such a heinous thing that he or she will be arrested and taken away straight away. I want to send that message. Then I got two apologies in the House from that senior person—one personally, and one when I was not present.

The second event, which took place soon afterwards, was that the acting Leader of the House came out and said the MP concerned was reckless and stupid, and that if it had been anybody else he or she would have been arrested on the spot and taken away. That is what that man said. Further, he made a whole range of comments that I do not intend to respond to, because only a fool would respond to them. Only a fool would respond to such an ignoramus, who proved his ignorance of what he was talking about in the statement he made. I do not intend to waste any more time on that.

Then came the ultimate event in it all: the leader of the “sisterhood” went on national television in her post-Cabinet press conference, and said that she thought the member’s actions were disorderly.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Whom are we talking about, Mr Ardern?

We are talking about the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that she thought the member’s actions were disorderly. Here is the first coincidence: within a few hours of that, I received a call from the police. Within 2 days I was charged with disorderly behaviour. That was a total coincidence, of course! Where is the double standard? The double standard is that I totally cooperated with the police, answered all their questions, and then was charged. Three senior members of the House suggested that I should be charged, and I have been. Where is the further coincidence? Here is another absolute coincidence: the member of the police who came down with the charges happened to work, just coincidently, in the office of the Minister of Police for 2 years, prior to holding the position he holds now. That is a further total coincidence.

Here is where it gets worse; here is where it really gets bad. A member of the Alkema family contacted my office in Te Kuiti and talked about the Danny Alkema case. They talked to me about it, and pleaded with me to bring it to the House and highlight the double standards. They also contacted the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and he brought it to the House instantly and exposed it. What did we get then? Another member of the “sisterhood”, Ms Dyson, came into the House, put on the cat-like vitriolic face that only she can, and accused both Winston Peters and the Hon Bill English of engaging in the lowest of politics that one can get into. I think she said that the Hon Bill English was a disgrace to his Catholic upbringing. She accused him of breaking his religious background—that is what she did. If it came down to a choice between the Hon Bill English and Ms Dyson as to someone who has upheld Christian principles, then I know whom the public would choose. That person is not unfamiliar with late-night roadside interviews by the police, either.

Then what happened? As if that was not bad enough, the situation got worse. Two days later, the Hon Steve Maharey—talking about the “sisterhood”—after having lived a life of blameless excellence, went to the Sunday Star-Times, talked about the Coral Burrows murder, and blamed it on section 59 of the Crimes Act. It does not get worse than that. It is a double standard.

I say to Mr Ardern that there is an old Confucius saying: “When in hole, stop digging.” The majority of New Zealanders only heard of Mr Ardern for the very first time when he broke the law—enough said.

I want to comment on what Mr English said in the House this afternoon with regard to the health matters that were discussed, and to remind the people on the Opposition side of the House—sanctimonious in their amnesia—that Mr McKeown, who sadly has since passed away, took Mrs Shipley to the Privacy Commissioner because she revealed too much information for his and his family’s liking. The Privacy Commissioner said that Mrs Shipley had gone too far, but also acknowledged that when people give a member of Parliament the right to speak about them in Parliament, they have to accept that they are waiving the right to keep everything else about their health matters private. Mr English would have known that. He is a former Minister of Health—a useless Minister of Health, and an equally useless leader of the National Party.

National Party members have an appalling lack of memory, and they are a complete waste of space. They are such a waste of space that because their leader was out of the country yesterday, they could not hold a caucus. They could not even get organised enough to hold a caucus. Even in Labour’s dark days politically, it still managed to organise a caucus. When the leader of our party was out of the country we could still get ourselves organised, as we can now. I suspect that National members were too busy plotting and scheming this morning to attend select committee meetings. There was a gaping hole on the other side of the table at a number of select committee meetings this morning. The National members were away plotting and scheming. There is a coup just sitting on the horizon, and they all know it. It is not “bill and coo” but is “bye-bye Bill”, because the coup is going after Bill English.

I have to confess that I thought Mr English would be a threat to the Labour Party. I thought in the early days that he would be a bit of a threat to us, but I was absolutely wrong. National is a boutique party. It has failed to recognise that the demographic group it is targeting is too small for National ever to become the Government. I say to Mr English that it is simple maths. The people he is targeting are too small a group. The closer National gets to ACT, the more it scares ordinary, middle New Zealanders. New Zealanders are not extremists. They want middle-of-the-road policies that reflect their desires and aspirations in life. The extreme policies of ACT scare the majority of New Zealanders witless. I say to National that the closer it gets to ACT, the more it scares its core group of supporters.

National is now so desperate that it is resurrecting failed ideas, and is resorting to prejudice and bigotry. Every time the words “culture” and “spirituality” are mentioned in the House, National members positively salivate. They lose control of themselves, and resort to saying things they should be ashamed of. The average New Zealander is ashamed to hear such things from a once-proud National Party, and even its own candidates have expressed that view in the past. Greg White, who was ranked No. 30 on the party list, said that the sorts of racist comments National members were making made him feel ashamed.

National is a party that is going nowhere. It needs to lift its game. New Zealand needs a good Opposition, but we are wasting our time looking over there at National for one.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.