General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I have just returned from Canada, where I was able to speak to members of Parliament from many countries around the world on the question of nuclear disarmament. I found there was great admiration for New Zealand under the present Labour-Progressive coalition Government, particularly for our economic policy, our social policies, and, as one would expect, our defence of nuclear disarmament. There were delegates and members of Parliament from many countries present there, including a Republican congressman who is the chair of the bipartisan Congress committee.

What was interesting was that those countries and their members of Parliament were interested in whether New Zealand would still be at the forefront of nuclear disarmament. I was able to tell them that that would be the case as long as there was a Labour-Progressive Coalition Government. I was able to outline to them that many parties in this Parliament—the majority of parties, as I saw it—supported that position. But I stated very clearly that the National Party and ACT, if they formed a Government, would put that policy in danger, and that their policy was to gradually take us back under the nuclear umbrella. I pointed out that other parties that are looking to go into coalition with such right-wing parties—New Zealand First and United Future—would be put on the spot as to where they stood on the nuclear question.

As well as that, I was able to point out that the present Government, the Labour-Progressive Government, is firmly in support of publicly owned industries, and I was able to talk about the success of Kiwibank. Delegates and members of Parliament from other countries were interested in the fact that we had reversed the right-wing economic policies of the previous Government. I pointed out also that that was in danger if ACT and National, with the support of United Future, became the Government, because those three parties have all talked about the sale of New Zealand’s public assets. The delegates had never heard of New Zealand First, but I pointed out that previously New Zealand First had campaigned against the sale of publicly owned assets but then welshed on that when, in 1996, it joined with the National Party in forming a Government that was against the interests of those who had voted for it.

I also pointed out that there was a party in New Zealand that was dividing the New Zealand public, which was New Zealand First, with its constant attacks on immigrants and refugees. Members of Parliament found that disturbing, because they were able to compare that with Pauline Hanson in Australia, Le Pen in France, and with other parties that use immigrants and refugees as scapegoats for their policies.

There was a lot of interest in the fact that New Zealand had taken its stand on the Iraq war on the basis of international law. Delegates from the United States were particularly interested in that, as dead Americans and many Americans with missing limbs and gruesome wounds come home, and as the lies of the Bush administration come more to the fore on the question of Iraq. Delegates from the United States, in particular, noted that in the reconstruction of Iraq, the companies that had contributed to the Bush campaign, particularly companies like Bechtel and other large companies, were getting the lion’s share of the untendered reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

I was able to point out that while the United States has an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent, here in New Zealand we have reached a low of 4.4 percent. I was particularly proud to be able to point to the role of the Progressive leader, Jim Anderton, as Minister for Economic and Regional Development, in reaching that achievement for New Zealand’s economy.

The whole purpose of delivering a world-class economy is to be able to afford to deliver the framework for a work-life balance for all our people, so they can enjoy with their families the fruits of a world-class economy. At the conference the news came through that the Labour Party leader had announced at the Labour Party conference that 4 weeks’ leave was to be part of the Labour Party programme. The Progressive party, which has pushed for that, and first had the support of the Greens and now of the Labour Party for that, knows that it has a parliamentary majority for 4 weeks’ leave. I informed the conference that we had that parliamentary majority, but that it seemed to me that the conservative parties in Parliament—National, ACT, and United Future—would combine to vote against that policy.

As the House meets this afternoon, violence in this country remains at intolerably high levels. Drug-related gang violence is spreading across the country, and young people are committing more and more serious crime. Under Labour, crime is becoming more ruthless and more wanton, yet this Prime Minister says New Zealand is a safer place. Just in the last few days we have seen how desperate this Government is to try to convince New Zealanders it is doing something about the rising tide of violence in this country, and we have seen the absolute failure of this Government to give proper leadership to the Department of Corrections and the prison service in this country.

I want to tell members about the most humiliating back-down by Government officials I have ever seen in my 13 years in Parliament. It occurred this morning, when this Government’s officials admitted that they could supervise a paedophile 24 hours a day, 7 days a week only if the offender agreed to that. At the Law and Order Committee this morning, departmental officials lectured the select committee that Mr Goff’s “toughest law in the world” paedophile bill would allow them to personally supervise serious sex offenders 24 hours a day for up to 10 years. It was only when I came to this House, got the bill, and sat before them that the officials checked and admitted that they had got it wrong, and that Mr Goff’s bill provides no such power whatsoever. Mr Goff’s bill is all about an electronic bracelet that monitors where an offender is, not what he is doing, and officials admitted in the select committee today that no one will be monitored for 10 years. Do members want to know what this great, extended supervision from Mr Goff is? It will start with 2-weekly home visits from a probation officer, and after 2 years it will be a 3-monthly home visit from a probation officer. Is this Minister really saying that a 3-monthly visit from a parole officer would have kept Barry Allan Ryder on the straight and narrow, or stopped Lloyd Alexander McIntosh committing an assault in his own home? It would not have done so. The Goff “get tough” paedophile bill is nothing but a joke.

There is another example of this Government’s underfunding of the police, and of law and order problems in this country, with the headline on the front page of our major newspaper today: “The 15-year-old killed running a drug house” in South Auckland. Here was a 15-year-old, a young man, whose life was snuffed out in a violent, frenzied attack in a drug house he was running. The police knew that drug house was being run, and what were they doing about it? Absolutely nothing! That was because they just do not have the resources in the Counties-Manukau Police District to go and investigate a crime that has been reported to them. This Government is not prepared to put its money where its rhetoric is and to support the New Zealand police in cracking down on the drug-dealing gangs in our community. There is a crisis in South Auckland, where robberies are up by 13 percent, non-cannabis drug offences are up by 30 percent, and car conversions are up by 27 percent—and this Prime Minister says New Zealand is a safer place! Crime under Labour is more random and more violent than before, and this Prime Minister says New Zealand is a safer place.

In the Dominion Post yesterday, we saw another example of the Government’s neglect of the methamphetamine crisis flooding across our country, with the news that Wellington police have to take five cops off the street in order to fund a clandestine drug lab bust here in the capital city of New Zealand. That shows more neglect of crime by that hopeless Government.

Breaking news—today is Wednesday, and so far there has been no leadership challenge in the National Party. At this moment, as far as anyone can tell, the plotters, the plonkers, and the permanently peeved-off members of the National caucus are united, with dagger at the ready, behind their new leader—the new face of the National Party, Dr Don Brash. I could be being a little hasty; there are still 2 working-days left for the National caucus. They may well change their minds, and I am not prepared to put any money on it. But after a shonky ballot, which was then disputed by the new deputy leader of the National Party, to the extent that it left him unwell, Dr Brash moved very quickly with his portmanteau to his limousine and into his new office. It was “Bye-bye Bill, and hello Don.”

In his first speech to the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Dr Brash said that he has a great team—in fact, he emphasised it several times, hoping that that would make it true. I say that the great team looks more like a line-up of unwanted dried arrangements than a winning combination that could lead New Zealand into the future.

Let us have a look at them. Let us start with Mr Sowry. He is bitterly disappointed. He is angry, because he was dumped off the front bench. He was dumped out of the deputy leadership, and not only has he lost to the youngest member of Parliament—with the biggest majority ever held by a member in that seat—but he is now being called a loser in his own party.

Next to him is Mr Ryall. He is absolutely livid, because his progress backwards is nothing short of spectacular. Then we have Dr Lynda Scott. She was desperate to stay on the front bench of the National Party’s line-up. She even went to her local newspaper, the Marlborough Express, the day after the leadership change, and said that “Brash will be better”. That was the headline in the Marlborough Express, a day after the dumping of her close friend Roger Sowry, and the former leader, Bill English. She thought that if she was to cosy up to Dr Brash, he might just leave her sitting on the front bench. She is devastated, and a wounded brat pack is a dangerous brat pack indeed.

Then we have some of those who were always on the fringes, but they have been wounded, as well. Georgina te Heuheu is very disillusioned. She supported Don Brash, but she was bumped back even further than when Bill English bumped her back, because National believe that her views on Māori are irrelevant. Then we have Dr Wayne Mapp, a very serious man, who felt he deserved his front-bench seat. It fitted very nicely around his bottom. He had become very used to that front-bench seat; he has been demoted and demeaned, and is very disgruntled indeed.

Then we have Gerry Brownlee. Gerry Brownlee could not care less, quite frankly, about whether National is coming or going, because he figures that it is all about to fall into his lap. All the pearls will fall into his lap, and Gerry Brownlee will just carry on as Gerry Brownlee does.

The person who I think is the most maligned and disaffected in the National Party must be John Carter. He is loyal, he is hardworking, and he has been long-suffering. He had his integrity questioned by the new deputy leader of the National Party. What an insult that was to John Carter, a man whom I respect. For years he has had to put up with constant coup-plotting, with dysfunctional leadership, with underperformers, and with prima donnas. He did not deserve it.

Before I begin, I will address some of the comments made by Matt Robson, who has apparently been on an overseas trip—I know that, because people are still laughing. Mr Robson had the temerity to challenge New Zealand First on the question of State asset sales. Unlike Mr Robson and his party, New Zealand First puts its principles first. We walked out of the Government over the question of State asset sales.

💬 David Benson-Pope: The Government left you.

Labour members can laugh, but one of the reasons the Labour Party went out in 1990 was that furry-headed people like the one from Dunedin, who is shouting out, sold out their birthright, and happily supported the party regardless of it. Then he had the effrontery to say that New Zealand First would be put on the spot on the question of nuclear ships. This party, before its formation, changed National’s view on nuclear ships coming to this country. We take the credit for it. I was there. For Mr Robson to come into the House and make those statements tells us what a deceitful, duplicitous person he is. He knows the facts full well. He is incapable of repeating them.

The last thing I want to say to him, and to his “NewLabour, Alliance, Jim Anderton party”, and the other names of the Progressive Coalition party, is that his party is over, gone, finished. We started a party after them, got into Government before them, and we will be back again when they are all gone. Today was a great day in New Zealand politics. New Zealand First announced that it would hand back real power to the people of this country, by introducing binding citizens initiated referenda.

💬 Government Member: Ha, ha!

Labour members laugh. They laugh now, but they will be crying later. New Zealand First has just announced the end of the political careers of 21 people in the House. We will put democracy back where it belongs—with the people, not with the old parties and their political puppets. We will be very fair about reducing Parliament by 21 MPs. We do not care whether they come from Labour, National, the Greens, or United Future, but 21 of them will go.

I know that turkeys do not vote for an early Christmas. I know that turkeys do not like Christmas. But I have bad news for the Labour Party. A stack of its members will go, first of all at the election, and secondly, by way of reducing Parliament to 99 members, and not the 120 that we have now.

ACT and the Progressive Coalition are doing it to themselves. By the end of this Parliament, ACT and the Progressive Coalition will be able to hold a meeting in a phone box. Binding citizens initiated referenda mean that when the people vote to reduce Parliament to 99 MPs, we reduce Parliament to 99 MPs—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. People came out in 1999 and said they wanted Parliament reduced. Helen Clark said: “Run away. I am going to be in charge now, I will do what I like.” New Zealand First says that we will do that, and it is a non-negotiable element in our policy. When people vote for tougher sentences for offending, and for more emphasis on the rights of victims, that is what the New Zealand people will get.

Only 7 years since the introduction of MMP, first National and now Labour have pervertedly brought us back to the first-past-the-post system. They cannot bear the thought of all the people having a say in the running of New Zealand. Democracy in this country is a disgrace. All the tough decisions are made secretly, out of sight of the people. The back-benchers of the Labour Party are a bunch of cannon fodder merchants. They do what they are told.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: They blew your men away.

I know what will happen to them. Those members can shout now, but I can tell them that I have been here a long time, and I will be here a long time after they have gone—make sure of that. New Zealanders are losing their country, their identity, their culture, and their self-respect. This is government by stealth, government by sham, government by spin doctor, and government by greed. It has all been taken away by a Government besotted with its own self-importance and self-indulgence, led by the politically correct Prime Minister, who struts around the world stage like a puffed-up Antipodean chambermaid. There she was in the Afghan desert, looking like some sort of desert-dwelling beekeeper, out to see our troops. Today she was asked why she cannot give $17,000 of the State’s money to a decent New Zealander who suffered agony and put his life on the line, and she will not move a muscle. She tosses money around like an eight-armed octopus to every fad and weirdo group in the country, but for decent, ordinary New Zealanders—nothing. Not even a cent. Let me warn Labour that its day of reckoning is coming.

I am so glad I gave up smoking nearly 10 years ago, otherwise I too might sound like the sort of rather hoarse Pauline Hanson from whom we just heard. This has been a remarkable recent period in New Zealand politics, because what still passes for the main Opposition party has changed its entire front row 20 minutes into the game, put all its substitutes into the game, and pulled off its star performers of the first 20 minutes. When “Honest Bill”—the Hon Bill English—was leader, National’s strategy was clear. It was the traditional strategy of the National Party—sit tight, do nothing, upset as few people as possible, and wait for voters to get bored with the Government they had last elected, and put National in again for its turn.

National gave up a quarter of the way into the game—into the life of the Labour-led coalition Government—and it has a new recruit. He has a completely different strategy. No longer will National contest the centre ground, the mainstream of New Zealand politics, with the Labour Party. National has abandoned the centre. It wants to tackle the extreme right. Its leader wants to embrace ACT, as a snake embraces a rabbit, and digest it to make it one, to stop the remorseless slicing away of the salami on its right-hand end that has been happening to the National Party recently.

So National has a new set of policies. It is interesting, because we can anticipate the slogans it will use at the next election: “Vote National. Sentence the unemployed to community service.” Don Brash wants to make local government the employer of last resort so that anybody who does not have a job can turn up at the local post office at 8 o’clock in the morning, and say: “Look, I would like to work today.”, and the local government body would be obliged to give that person some kind of work.

Here is another slogan: “Vote National and work till you’re 70.” Don Brash believes that 4 percent economic growth requires major changes in the terms on which New Zealand superannuation is provided, including an increase in the age of eligibility. It is disgraceful. Another slogan will be: “Vote National. Mortgage your home to jump the queue at the public hospital.” I quote the good Dr Brash: “If you offer to supply something for free, the demand for it will be enormous, and if you don’t use price to limit that demand you will soon be unable to meet the demand and will be faced with long queues. The problem area of health care”, the good doctor says, “can be solved through the price mechanism.” Well, if one has to pay enough to get on the waiting list, then I guess the waiting list will get shorter. That is what National plans.

On education, Dr Brash says: “We might well be better off to look carefully at other models, where the Government funds education but where most schools are privately owned and operated. For my part,” he says, “I don’t care who owns the schools.” Well, I say to Dr Brash, most New Zealanders do care who owns the schools.

All of us, last Sunday, attended church services for the 85th remembrance of Armistice Day, and all of us, I think, would have given pause for thought at 11 a.m. yesterday to remember the huge sacrifice that the two generations preceding us gave so we might enjoy our freedom. I think it is fair to say that all of us—every party in this Parliament—want the best for our veterans, and we have a struggle, all of us, to provide a good pension. I want to share with the House the story of one veteran, Mr Ross Lynneberg, who signed up and was mobilised in 1940, served several months in the Pacific with the Royal New Zealand Navy, then, through our New Zealand Government, was transferred with three other New Zealanders to the Royal Navy and headed to Hong Kong. His timing was bad. They arrived in Hong Kong on 7 December Hong Kong time, and the next day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. The Japanese then proceeded to attack Hong Kong, and Hong Kong fell on 25 December 1941. The men who were rounded up included Mr Ross Lynneberg, and they were held for 9 months in Hong Kong in intolerable conditions. Several men died every day, each and every day.

At the end of those 9 months, 1,816 men were lined up and loaded on to a freighter, the Lisbon Maru, bound for Japan. They were stowed in three holds. The conditions were tough, and there was not enough room for all of them to lie down at once. There were no markings on the Lisbon Maru, and the submarine, USS Grouper, torpedoed her fatally. The Japanese locked the holds so the men could not get out. They off-loaded the 700-odd Japanese soldiers, left a skeleton guard and the crew, and attempted a tow. The ship started to sink. Men were dying in the holds from the heat, the fetid conditions, and the diseases. They managed to escape by means of a secreted kitchen knife, and were shot as they reached the top. They jumped into the sea, where they were also shot, and attempted to reach the patrol boats. The patrol boats, their screws, were used to cut them up in the water. Eventually, the Japanese changed the policy, because when some lucky men were rescued by Chinese fishermen, they realised the game was up.

Mr Lynneberg was among those who were put on a patrol boat. Some of them died from hypothermia that night. When a roll-call of the 1,816 men was taken in Shanghai, only 970 answered their names. It was a death ship. Mr Lynneberg survived. He was taken through to Japan, where he spent 3 months in what was laughingly called a hospital. A lorry load of men a day would be brought there; at the same time a lorry load of corpses would be taken out. Mr Lynneberg survived and spent something like 3 years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. He returned to New Zealand on 27 November at 4 p.m. He started work in a John Newton and Sons soap factory at 8 o’clock the next morning, and worked his entire life.

He discovered in 1997 that he had not been paid. He wrote to Mark Burton, complaining about it. Mark Burton said that there was nothing he could do. Mr Lynneberg wrote to me, and I wrote to the Prime Minister in March 2002. In September Mark Burton admitted that Mr Lynneberg had been short-changed by an amount in the order £283/10/0. In today’s terms that is $17,500. He said: “I have finished all options. There is nothing we can do.” I plead with this Government to show some compassion. I know that Helen Clark cares. I know that each and every member of this Government cares. Every member of Parliament must feel for Ross Lynneberg and his generation for what they went through. We recognise that Mr Lynneberg has been short-changed. It may be that it is the British who owe the money, but let the New Zealand Government pick up the tab, and then let the Government get it off the English Government. It is not charity; it is the money he is owed.

Over the last couple of months and weeks this Parliament has witnessed some incredible activities that give us an insight into the modus operandi of the ACT party. I want to look at its form. First, there was Richard Prebble and the Pipitea Street fiasco, which involved an electorate office owned by Mr Prebble’s trust and used by him. Secondly, Mr Prebble’s own electorate staff, who were supposed to be doing constituent work, were doing political work. There is a word for that, but I will not use it.

Then we come to Rodney Hide. That is the man who attended the well-known, shonky Investors International conference in Fiji.

💬 Rodney Hide: Same old speech.

I know he does not like me reminding him of it. The conference was run by a convicted US fraudster, the chief executive officer and owner, Rudolph van Lin, who attended the conference with Mr Hide. Yet to this day, 4 years later, Mr Hide refuses to answer some simple questions—questions about who paid his air fares, who paid his accommodation, who assisted him to get there, and who invited him. To this day he will not say how he got involved with the organisation. I have asked him how it is that he came back and was told it was a shonky conference, a scam conference, but then did nothing to assist the hundreds of Kiwis who lost millions of dollars. The great scam-buster did nothing.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member is chairing a Finance and Expenditure Committee that for 2½ years has been sitting on an investigation, and he is doing nothing. The idea that he will stand up here, not spare my name, and not do his job is a disgrace.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

While we are on that point, Mr Hide is the member of Parliament—and he is right there as a member of a current fraud inquiry live before the Finance and Expenditure Committee—who bitterly opposed the committee’s inquiry into a scam. He did nothing when he came back from the conference. He was told that the conference was a scam and a shonky deal. He did not do anything to assist the Serious Fraud Office, the police, or the Securities Commission. In this House I tabled an affidavit from a family who lost in excess of $400 million because they invested—

💬 Rodney Hide: $400 million?

—$400,000—because they heard so-called people of credibility, like him, speaking at a conference. Subsequently, when Investors International did over hundreds of Kiwis, what did the member do? Did he go out and help those people? Oh no! He sent the boys around—he sent the lawyers in. That is the mark of that person. Even now we know that at that conference everyone except Mr Hide got paid. We know Dave Henderson, his best mate, got paid. We know that Dolf de Roos, his other best mate, got paid. But of course Mr Hide—as he said—did not get paid.

Then we come to Donna Awatere Huata—the sort of female version of Michael Jackson; the makeover queen in this Parliament. But one cannot actually make over the dubious activities she is now charged with. She is a disgrace in this Parliament, but she is not the only one. The ACT party is a disgrace because it was the party that selected her twice. Even though she had received Pipi Foundation money previously, they subsequently selected her twice. She should resign from Parliament but she will not do it because, as with all ACT members, it is the dollar she would lose that is most important to her.

Then we come to Alister Taylor, who is, we are told, accused of not publishing and supplying books to good people who paid in advance, on both sides of the Tasman. We know he has a labyrinth of companies. We know he changed company names from Who’s Who New Zealand in 1990 to New Zealand Who’s Who Aotearoa Ltd in September 1991, which metamorphosed into Roger Jamieson Ltd on 30 June 1997. Then, the day after that happened, he set up another company on 1 July 1997 called New Zealand’s Who’s Who Publications Ltd. My question is: why all the similar names? Why set up all those companies?

Then we have another so-called company. In this year’s invitation for the New Zealand Who’s Who Aotearoa, an invitation was received in the name of New Zealand Who’s Who Publications 2004 Ltd—except when one checks with the companies office and the companies register, the company does not exist. Is that misleading? Is that against the Fair Trading Act or the Companies Act? Should there be an inquiry? Of course, we know that Ms Coddington is the ACT spokesperson in respect of the Fair Trading Act and the Companies Act. I believe that is a disgrace. The gang of four—Richard Prebble, Donna Awatere-Huata, Deborah Coddington, and Rodney Hide—are on 4 percent.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear that Mr Clayton Cosgrove has not finished his speech. There will not be anyone from this side of the House who will oppose his seeking leave to add another 5 minutes to his time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

It is good to be back where we belong.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that that leave be put again, please.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, leave has been put. I have called Mr Donald, and he is already into his speech.

Dr Michael Cullen tried to pull a giant confidence trick on Monday. His so-called first principles review of the Overseas Investment Act is all about selling off the business and the building, while claiming to protect the facade. Dr Cullen’s review has everything to do with chasing after that elusive free-trade deal with Washington, and very little to do with keeping rural land affordable, making sure our high country is accessible to our trampers and fishers, protecting vulnerable rural communities from the wholesale conversion of farms into forestry, and preserving the Kiwi dream of one day being able to own a bach at the beach.

Let us make no mistake about this: the Green Party does want greater protection from overseas ownership for iconic sites of historical, cultural, or environmental interest. We agree with Dr Cullen’s concerns that overseas trophy hunters are buying up our backcountry and our beachfronts in order to create hideaways down under. But the fact is that what Dr Cullen wants to do is not a patch on what the Finance and Expenditure Committee recommended a couple of years ago—a series of recommendations that the Green Party proposed and that were adopted by a majority on the committee, particularly the Labour members of that committee. If I get a chance, I would like to return to those recommendations later.

This review is a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen to mask the Government’s real agenda, which is as plain as day in the first page of Dr Cullen’s release. That agenda is all about lifting the restrictions on overseas investors, so that they can gobble up New Zealand companies. That is what it is all about, because Dr Cullen wants to remove consideration of such purchases from oversight by the Overseas Investment Commission. Dr Cullen states in his release that he is committed to maintaining a liberal investment regime. Therefore, it is no surprise that this review is being led by Treasury. The fox is guarding the chickens, and we know what will happen to them.

I ask this House whether it is a coincidence that one of the major demands from our trading partners during the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations was to scrap the Overseas Investment Commission, allowing foreign firms and individuals unrestricted access to New Zealand property and businesses? Is it a coincidence that one of the very first US free-trade deal demands on Australia was to reduce or eliminate restrictions on overseas investment in Australia? Does that not send the signal that that will be one of the US’s bottom-line demands in any negotiations with New Zealand? I do not see what the Americans’ problem actually is. Our Overseas Investment Commission has turned down just on 2 percent of overseas investment applications over the last 5 years; it is already totally ineffective at keeping foreign hands off our silverware. That is all the more reason for tightening the rules on foreign investment, not for allowing a free-for-all.

Yesterday Mr Sutton claimed that New Zealand could, if it wishes, tighten the conditions surrounding the purchase of land by overseas people in New Zealand. I have news for Mr Sutton: he has actually been caught by his own GATS commitments. It would be a breach of our GATS commitments if we decided that certain iconic urban sites could not be sold to foreign investors without Overseas Investment Commission approval, if we decided to reduce the level at which the Overseas Investment Commission’s approval is required to below $10 million or 25 percent of overseas ownership, or if we chose to change the overall structure of the Overseas Investment Act in a way that made it more restrictive than the current Act in any way whatsoever. Notwithstanding what previous Governments have locked New Zealand into under the GATS we want foreign investors to be brought under control, because they do not come here to help us.

I seek leave of the House for a further 1-minute contribution from Mr Cosgrove, so he can complete his comments.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.

In the words of Donna Awatere Huata, the ACT party quite rightly stood by Owen Jennings when he was taken to court and found guilty of defamation. It stood by him while he launched and lost his appeal. It stood by Rodney Hide when it was alleged that his support for a Fiji investment conference had cost investors their life-savings. It also stood by Muriel Newman when she and her husband were accused of misusing a boatbuilding permit by building a house. That was in a press release by Donna Awatere Huata.

There is a sniff and a whiff in this Parliament, from that party, that Don Brash is claimed to be its ninth member. The ACT party is supposed to try to represent the battlers. I say to members that we should listen to Queenslander Trish Clutterbuck, aged 61, who according to the Sunday Star-Times “sent away $173.81 to Australian Roll of Honour to have her husband Ben included in National Honours and Awards,’’ and then said “she was ‘amazed’ that his partner was an MP. How she ever got into Parliament without this being dug up, it’s absolutely astounding. I’m absolutely amazed to find that she’s an MP. I can’t imagine her lasting very long.”

ACT dumped Owen Jennings and another member of Parliament, as well, in order to bring a couple of people higher up on its list. Dr Don Brash, while you last as the leader of the National Party Opposition, do you honestly, in your heart of hearts—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will address the Chair.

I ask Dr Brash whether, in his heart of hearts, he honestly wants that lot as his key coalition partner. I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters, can you honestly contemplate ever—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is warned for a second time that he must not speak in the second person. His time is ebbing away. The member should carry on.

I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters whether he wants that lot to be in a future centre-right Government. That is what I would say to Dr Brash and the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Quite frankly, I think this country is sick and tired of ACT having the gall and the temerity to lecture to us about being the perk-busters and the great high moral guardian, taking the high moral ground and being the watchdog of the public. If a watchdog is needed, it should be one appointed to oversee the activities of the ACT party. I think it is very, very rich that ACT members have suddenly discovered their morality. They have suddenly discovered that, for now, Donna Awatere Huata no longer suits their purpose. The reality is that in 2001, when they named Donna Awatere Huata to go back on their list, they knew the deal. Yet she was still reappointed to the ACT list. Now it all comes out. In the grubby gaze and glare of publicity, the ACT members run like scaredy-cats—like the scared hares that they are.

I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a document containing the name New Zealand Who’s Who Publications 2004 Ltd—a company that does not exist.

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

The second is a certificate of incorporation, showing various other companies with extremely similar names set up by Mr Alister Taylor.

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

During last year’s election I found myself on a couple of occasions telling journalists and others that I had developed a deep hatred for the doctrine of political correctness. When I was asked why that was so, I replied that political correctness is, in reality, a form of mind control. We human beings cannot control what people think, although, God knows, over the ages many people have tried to do that. But we can do the next-best thing, which is to circumscribe, through political correctness, exactly what they can or cannot say. I have long been able to see, therefore, that political correctness is an insidious and a dangerous doctrine. That is instinctive for me, because of my belief that freedom of thought and speech is an inalienable human right. I believe that human freedom and democracy flow from free, full, and rational debate.

I was personally unaware, however, until I recently read an article on it, that the expression “political correctness” was first used and fashioned by Vladimir Lenin in May 1921. Lenin was obsessed with party ideology, orthodoxy, and control. That included party mindedness, and even party truth. In other words, the truth and the only truth was whatever Lenin decided it should be. Chairman Mao of China took political correctness to a wholly different level. He insisted that speech had to follow correct formulations, and he had an absolute belief in the power of the word to change the world. If members think I am exaggerating, let me give them a direct quote from Chairman Mao: “Not having the correct political orientation is like not having a soul.” We all know the results of that kind of thinking. It reached its peak through Red Guard terror and the great proletariat revolutions, which some estimate may have cost as many as 50 million Chinese their lives.

Let us, therefore, make no mistake. Political correctness is both a pernicious and fundamentally evil doctrine, and one that, sadly, is alive and well in New Zealand, particularly, I have noticed—and I say this in a non-judgmental sense—in some parties of the left. We are told, for example, in the face of distressing figures concerning the growing number of fatherless families and sole parent families in New Zealand, that we should rejoice in the diversity of the family. I am sorry, but I for one am not prepared to rejoice in the fact that children are growing up in poverty, without fathers in the home, and in distressing situations, simply because I am only too aware of the reality of the suffering that many people in those kinds of situations undergo. Therefore, it riles me that I am told that somehow I should ignore reality, that I should ignore the concrete circumstances in which human beings live, and somehow form a view that that is OK because it represents diversity. I say no, it is not OK.

On this day, when the Families Commission Bill is to be reported back, I say that all of us should put away political correctness. We should put away a certain blindness to the reality of simple human suffering. We need, both as human beings and as MPs, to act with compassion for children, and in particular for those who are in unfortunate situations. Our compassion should lead us to a further determination to improve the lot of New Zealand families—something that we are expressing today in seeing the Families Commission Bill reported back to this Parliament. We must never let ourselves be intimidated by the label “politically incorrect” from being strong advocates for the rebuilding of family life and strong interpersonal relationships at every level, if we are to have a strong New Zealand society.

I see the family as being akin, in a way, to the cells of a body. We cannot have a healthy body if many of our cells are sick. We cannot have, and will never have in reality, a healthy nation if many of the cells in our nation, our families, are sick and broken. There is a linkage between those two things. We must be prepared to rationally, compassionately, and realistically face up to the situation we have in this country and begin, through this bill, to build a better future.

Martin Gallagher MP is confirmation that New Zealand really is the land of unlimited opportunity. I say to Clayton Cosgrove that the last time I heard an outburst like that was when I was standing behind one of the bulls on the farm—and it was fresher. I want to allay some of Mr Robson’s fears, also, about Kiwibank. What a joke that bank is! It is an indictment on Jim Anderton that he was ever associated with it. Michael Cullen knows Kiwibank is a dog. It will not be sold, because nobody will buy it. Its book is appalling, and the large banks do not want it. It will not be given away, so I tell Mr Robson not to fret.

I would now like to turn my attention, in a little more detail, to the Department of Corrections, and in particular to the performance of Paul Swain.

💬 Simon Power: A good idea.

I think it is a good idea; yes, I do. Mr Swain is new in the role of Minister, so I think he can be forgiven for falling into the classic trap of believing everything he is told by his advisers. We can put that down to his limited managerial experience. Last week the Minister was asked a patsy question, which read like this: “How has the Department of Corrections, under the leadership of the current chief executive, performed over the last 5 years?”. We got back the usual wishy-washy nonsense, but the Minister omitted some key points. We will call that selective memory loss. He did not mention staff turnover in the psychological services or at headquarters. When averaged out, staff turnover is about 22.5 percent. That is indicative of a sick organisation—one that has appalling staff morale, lacks direction, and suffers from a crisis of confidence. This morning I had the opportunity to ask the chief executive officer why staff turnover was so high. I asked him to tell me whether the organisation did exit interviews. He looked at me, said no, and asked what they were. Exit interviews are pretty standard management tools, but he still had no idea what they were. All that I really got was a shake of his shoulders.

The Minister did not mention certain statistics when he reported on the performance of the department over the last 5 years. The department has investigated 151 prison employees in the past 12 months for breaches of its rules. That really sounds like a department that is cooking on gas! Nor did the Minister mention the emergency response unit, better known as the “goon squad”. The appalling activities of that unit are subject to an inquiry, and I commend the Minister for that. At least that is progress. However, there has been a systematic cover-up of the unit’s performance over the last few years, and despite the scurry of secret management meetings in Christchurch motels the truth will come out. I would say that right at the moment some of the senior managers in the department are feeling rather nervous.

The Minister is now turning his attention to getting rid of the department’s only shining star. The central remand prison in Auckland is privately managed, and it costs less to keep prisoners there than in the State-run prisons—in fact, tens of thousands of dollars less. That prison is run more efficiently, has a better environment physically and emotionally, and has better rehabilitation programmes for prisoners than the State-run prisons. Prisoners are treated with more dignity and respect, turnover is exceedingly low, and morale is extremely high. However, the Minister now wants to terminate the contract to run that prison, and one must ask why that is. The answer is that the union powerhouse of the Labour Government, which is the Government in drag, wants to terminate the contract because that prison is an embarrassment to the unions. The union said their members were demanding action, so the Minister is caving in despite the fact that there is daylight between the performance of the two organisations.

I ask the Minister why he does not demonstrate some courage and do the right thing. He should stand up and be a man, instead of being led around by the nose by his union mates, or he should resign, for goodness’ sake!

The divide between this side of the House and the Tory side of the House in Opposition could not be bigger if we tried. I do not think I have seen quite such a huge gap.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a very insightful piece that appeared in the New Zealand Herald recently. Peter McCardle, a former Tory MP, then a New Zealand First MP, and now the head of the ACT research unit, who tells his political masters what they want to hear, said: “… I do suspect most of the secretaries spend a lot of time filing their nails and reading the Woman’s Weekly, but this is only to be expected, isn’t it?” That epitomises the arrogance of the so-called ruling class—the born to rule. It epitomises members of that class; they have such a dismal and mean-spirited view of ordinary New Zealanders. They are people with celluloid souls. They are churlish and anti-worker.

It was also very insightful to learn that Mr Stephen Franks had asked how people would describe an ACT person. I will help Mr Franks and ACT. I would describe ACT members as self-absorbed, self-centred, self-regarding, self-seeking, self-serving, self-righteous, smug, and arrogant.

They are little different from the new leader of the National Party, Don Brash. Don Brash is anti-worker, anti-person, and anti-everything that the Labour Party stands for. He has such a dismal, mean view of New Zealanders and is so removed from them that he said he wants people to line up for the dole at 8 a.m. outside a post office. I tell Mr Brash that post offices have gone.

Even though he made that mistake—which he has readily acknowledged—he has now said he will attack people’s holidays. I am really proud to be part of a Labour Government that says ordinary working New Zealanders should get 4 weeks’ annual leave. These are the people who have built New Zealand. These are the people who go to work to type letters for that pompous, stuffed up, arrogant person, Mr Peter McCardle. They also go home, look after their kids, feed their families, and do all those other things that we expect them to do. These are the people who look after the next generation, and they are helping to create the next generation—which Mr McCardle thinks so dismally of. These are the people who turn up every day at the freezing works and cut thousands of throats and render down thousands of stomachs. These are the people who do all the hard work in this country, and without them this country would have nothing. Without these hard-working New Zealanders, Mr Peter McCardle and his like would be simply pieces of trash blowing in the wind.

These hard-working New Zealanders deserve a decent holiday. Labour will provide them with 4 weeks’ holiday. Don Brash said he would take it off them. Mr Brash wants a holiday: he wants every worker’s holiday! But he wants more than that. He wants to cut minimum pay rates so that wages fall as low as he thinks they should do. He wants to cut benefits, to put lifetime limits on benefits. He wants to push up the time at which people are eligible for superannuation, and, no doubt, cut superannuation.

He is the same person who, like the ACT party members, says out of the other side of his mouth that New Zealand has a drain of skills and all our good people are leaving to go overseas. They are doing that because National cut wages and conditions in this country with the Employment Contracts Act. National Party members went to the country and said: “We will not cut penalty rates.”, but they did, and drove wages down. Thousands of New Zealanders went overseas and worked in Australia. We now have a building boom in New Zealand and we cannot get the resources for it.

New Zealand would be a dim and dismal place if Don Brash ever got his hands on the Treasury benches. In my view that is impossible.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.