Financial Review Debate — Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (continued)

It was really quite amusing to listen to the debate, in my office, and to find that we have two older parties responsible for the debacle on the Treaty of Waitangi and the industry and the mess since 1984, in particular, claiming on the one hand to be innocent of it, where National is concerned, and to be constructive, where the Labour Party is concerned. I cannot stand by as a former National Party member, having warned them, when I was in that caucus until 1992, about exactly the kinds of mistakes they were about and making, to have them come along here and paint themselves as pure as the driven snow on this issue. Who gave Doug Graham a knighthood?

💬 Ron Mark: National.

And why?

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Because he supported them.

That is right. The Gerry Brownlee thesis that he puts out over the radio, and the National Party caucus thesis, is: “Oh, we have a new leader now. So it all is OK. We can exonerate ourselves from the absolute and total mess that we helped to construct.” I am sorry, it does not work that way. In any respectable Western democracy, policy is about the record—the voting record, the political record—and they will not get away with the kind of display that thus far they have been allowed by the New Zealand media to get away with. Who started Aotearoa Television?

💬 Ron Mark: The National Party.

The National Party. Who put all the money behind it? The National Party. Who passed the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, so critical to this issue right now, in 1993? Why, the National Party! Everywhere we look it has its fingerprints and DNA all over it. But where is the great debater? We know that the Holmes show does not start until 7 o’clock. One can still catch a plane and easily make the Holmes show. So where has he been since question time today? The excuse National Party members gave is—I am not saying he is not here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. We have had several points of order on this, this afternoon. The member knows well that he cannot refer to the absence of members.

Oh no, but I am not saying that. I am asking when we will hear him in this debate. I am not saying he is not here. I am asking when will we hear the great debater, this new messiah, on these great issues, that he speaks to the Rotary clubs about, but apparently this old institution that goes back hundreds of years, which we are blessed to be members of, cannot hear his wisdom? The Holmes show, we know, is not prepared to force him to debate against me tonight—because I made the offer. I did. I said: “Well, if the Prime Minister is too busy, I am certainly not. I will be there and will talk to you about his track record.” But the Holmes show said “No”. The Holmes show has been involved in collusion with the National Party twice this year.

💬 Rt Hon Helen Clark: That’s right.

Oh yes. On the issue of the meal at the Kermadec I had a phone call that night from one Brent Fraser researching for the Holmes show. But he had made a mistake, and he hit the wrong button. He thought he was talking to David Carter, and he launched into a tirade about how well they were doing—he and David Carter. The only thing was, he made the phone call to the wrong man—me. I listened to all this, and I said: “I’m sorry Brent, you have rung the wrong man, and I am coming for you.” We now know that when Don Brash claimed to have cancelled all of his appointments, yesterday, so that he could take part in the Holmes debate, he knew there would be no debate. Still, out goes his press statement, and the gullible media of this country fall for it. If Don Brash were so keen to debate, he would be debating in this Chamber right now. But he wins all his fights by 100 yards. He cannot run fast enough.

Let me tell members this: one cannot see him for dust and small pebbles. The Holmes show will not save him, because there is a thing called leadership in politics and I have never seen a Western leader last any degree of time if he or she cannot front in Parliament at the debates and cannot do the stump, as they say in old-fashioned parlance. One cannot be by the media made a silk purse if one is a sow’s ear. They can carry on showing their ignorance, but it will not be a successful strategy—and there is no way Richard Long could keep this up. I mean he will have lost whatever hair he has on his head now.

Mr Brownlee, you have had—[Interruption] I was just going to remind Mr Brownlee that a member can only call twice in this debate, and he has spoken twice.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to give one extra speech to Don Brash if he wishes to stand and take it now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot seek leave for another member. The member knows that perfectly well.

This is the time for the Prime Minister to account. She was asked three simple questions by Dr Nick Smith, which were repeated by Gerry Brownlee. Did she get up and answer them? No. She simply refuses to answer the simplest of all possible questions. Will there be Crown title? It is a pretty easy thing to say “yes” or “no” to. When will the legislation be introduced—soon, next week, tomorrow, next year, next month? One would at least think that Government members could answer that. Indeed, why will the Prime Minister not appear on the Holmes show? She is here only because she knows that Dr Brash is on the Holmes show.

These questions can be expanded on. Will there be unreserved Crown ownership? We hear the Prime Minister say these are complicated issues, but she cannot tell them how they are complicated, or why she abandoned “public domain”. Apparently, it is going to Crown ownership, but when asked the direct question: “Will there be Crown ownership?”, she does not answer it. Also, she does not answer this question: “Will that Crown ownership be shared with Māori customary title?” Margaret Wilson said: “Everyone knows in this country that there is Māori customary title from one end of the country to the other.” Why can the Prime Minister not get up and say whether that is true? The Government’s only refuge is: “Wait and see.”

How long will we have to wait to find out what that is, and will it be true that that customary title amounts to co-management? That is what the Hon Parekura Horomia thinks. He thinks—and presumably the Māori votes in the Labour caucus have been obtained on this basis—that there will be co-management. I say to the Prime Minister that she has the opportunity right now to answer those questions. The Prime Minister is sitting in the chair; she needs to take the call and answer those questions. Will there be Crown ownership? When will the legislation be introduced? Will that Crown ownership be shared with Māori customary title? Will it amount to co-management? That is what the nation wants to hear.

If the Prime Minister is wondering why poll ratings for the Labour Party are declining, it is because the Government has not been able to answer those questions. One would think that when the Prime Minister is sitting in the chair, she would take the call and answer those questions. Even if she does not take the call, one would at least think that she would appear in front of at least a million television viewers tonight and answer those simple questions. We on this side of the Chamber say to the Prime Minister that she should go to the Holmes show tonight, debate the issues, and talk to the citizens of New Zealand. They deserve answers. A million people will be watching Holmes tonight, and the Prime Minister has the choice of whether to appear.

As the deputy leader of the National Party has quite rightly said, those million citizens—those million voters—will be watching Don Brash tonight, and there will be an empty chair. That empty chair will have the words “Prime Minister” on it. She is the absent person who is not willing to debate, and who will not get up even in this debate and answer the simple, straightforward questions: will there be Crown ownership, will it be shared with Māori, will Māori have co-management of the entire estate, and when will the legislation be introduced? Those issues are surely straightforward and able to be answered. After all, if the Government can say that this legislation will be introduced pretty soon, it must know the answers right now. Surely, this is the opportunity to answer them.

It is all very well for Mr Winston Peters to go on about people speaking, but he himself is proving to be in a—

It is all very well for Winston Peters to go on about it, because he would be the only member of this Parliament, excepting my colleagues, who has a clean record on this issue. I am the only one.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Absolute nonsense.

No, we will not have that doctor from the academic circles of Auckland University come now and tell us his policy is different. That will not wash. We know what that party’s record is. If one looks at the Hansard, the parliamentary debates, and the legislation, it is all there. Today, 73 percent of New Zealand wants a debate on this issue. Back in Orewa on 23 January this year, Dr Brash said he wanted a debate, giving the identical speech, on the same platform, that Jim Bolger made on 27 January 1990.

💬 Ron Mark: Orewa 2.

Orewa Mark 2. Dr Mapp says that it is ancient history. Oh, I see. So the past is of no consequence, particularly if it has an “h” word all over it! In Orewa, Dr Brash said he had been asking questions about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and could not get an answer. Well, my challenge to the media is for them to do some work. They should show me his questions—show me one.

💬 Ron Mark: Not one.

Not one. But he made the claim, anyway. Oh, no! He reminds me of Chauncey Gardiner in that movie Being There. For a while he was very popular. He became the President’s adviser by making statements like: “If you plant it, Mr President, and you water it, it will grow.” For a while he got away with it, until people realised that it was a whole lot of nothingness—like saying: “I’m going to fix up the treaty.”

That is what I have demanded—so has my party, and we do something about it in our party. We are for one franchise. There is the evidence. Where is that party’s evidence? Those members say they are for one franchise, but where is the evidence that they mean to do anything about it? It is all talk. As John Wayne would say: “It’s one thing to walk out of a saloon and steal a man’s horse, but it is a entirely something else to try to keep on it all the way out of town.” That is what will happen. They will not get away with it.

Why does the National Party not attempt for the first time for a long time to put the country first? The mass majority of New Zealanders want a debate. In fact, the National Party’s so-called voters in this last poll were split 50:50 in favour of a debate. The amusing thing was that the polls showed that just above half of the respondents—and barely that—supported Don Brash as the leader. Curious that. Could people be supporting Gerry Brownlee? I do not know. Could they be supporting Nick Smith? I do not know. But it is really quite alarming for National when it tries to reconcile that figure.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Irrelevance.

I will tell Dr Mapp what is relevant about it. How about we put the National Party’s record and my party’s record on the line? National members know what the consequence will be, do they not? They will be exposed for things called hypocrisy and cant, and they will not get away with it. I asked who passed the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.

💬 Darren Hughes: National did.

Of course it did. Do National members want to own up to it? No. Here they are hurling abuse at the Labour Party, and that would be right were it not for the fact that they have—and had—the identical policy. When we asked today what National’s policy was now, they did not have one.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Yes, we have.

No, they have not. I heard Mr Brownlee say on 3ZB that the Waitangi Tribunal had no legal standing, and I thought that was alarming. He does not even understand that—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: How big is the audience though, if he is listening?

I was on the show. I thought it was alarming that the leadership of the National Party did not understand such a simple thing as that—it is not voluntary for the Government to follow the State-owned enterprise legislation on the Treaty of Waitangi and the tribunal—it is mandatory. If that is not a legal standing, then what is? That is the kind of thing National is getting away with.

My challenge to the New Zealand media is to stop pack-hunting and getting excited, and to think long-term about how ridiculous it will look on election night 2005 when we say to them: “Sorry boys and girls, we told you so—again.”, and to get out of our face, because we do not want to tell them what will happen tomorrow.

This Prime Minister scuttled down from her office, high above in the Beehive, to broadcast to five listeners, when the Leader of the Opposition will be talking to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders tonight. The Prime Minister of New Zealand is in the Chamber only because Dr Brash is not participating in this debate. As Mrs Rich said, this is a momentous day in Parliament, because for the first time in memory the Prime Minister did not use a set-piece, written speech in a debate.

I think the Prime Minister is not on the Holmes show tonight because she fears the phone-in from the public. The Prime Minister will not debate Dr Brash on television, but she was happy to pick up the phone and demand to be put on air with Don Brash and Linda Clark 2 weeks ago. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 56/1. They might like to have a look at them. Interjections are to be rare and reasonable. If members wish to make a speech, they can do so next time.

The Prime Minister may fear the phone-in on the Holmes show, but she did not fear debating Don Brash when she rang up Radio New Zealand’s Linda Clark show and demanded to put on air. Instead, this Prime Minister came down to the Chamber and appeared so forlorn about what has happened with Television New Zealand. This Prime Minister is so contrived that she is the only person I know who can cry out of one eye.

I ask the Government to answer three questions. I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore in this country, unreserved and unfettered by any restrictions or other titles—yes or no? I ask when the legislation will come before Parliament, and when will we get the opportunity to debate it? Thirdly, when will the Prime Minister debate Dr Brash on public television? She was happy to debate Dr Brash on Linda Clark’s show. She was happy to pick up the phone and demand to be put through to that show, though it was not a debate—but when will she be prepared to debate Don Brash on the Holmes show?

When will she come to rural New Zealand and debate the great comment that she never supported the closure of rural schools? How stupid does the Prime Minister think the people of New Zealand are, that she can say she never supported the closure of rural schools? Does anybody in New Zealand accept that from the Prime Minister? No. Does anybody in New Zealand seriously believe that the Prime Minister was never consulted about the closure of rural schools? No one accepts that.

So this Prime Minister came down to the Chamber and asked when the Leader of the Opposition would debate—knowing that the Leader of the Opposition would not be participating in this debate. That was when she came down. She then tried to say that fronting up to Parliament in a debate—and for the first time in some years not using a set-piece speech from which she could read—somehow indicated that she was providing leadership for this country.

She has had opportunity after opportunity in this debate to answer simple questions about the most burning issue of her term in Parliament. She has the opportunity to bring this country—which is riven by division because of the Government’s separatist policies—together, and she chooses not to. She could start this country down the road to a better future if she would tell New Zealanders when unfettered, unreserved, and unattached Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore will happen.

It would be wonderful if the Prime Minister would take this opportunity today to tell New Zealanders what she has so far avoided telling them, which is whether the legislation that she proposes to introduce will put the seabed and foreshore in Crown ownership. Why will the Prime Minister not just stand up in this debating chamber and tell New Zealanders whether her Government will introduce legislation that will guarantee that the Crown has ownership of the seabed and foreshore? I say to the Prime Minister that that is pretty simple; it is not asking too much. For a Prime Minister who spent 4 years swanning around the country, telling everybody that she is the most modest Prime Minister she knows, that she is a victim of her own success, that she is in control of everything, that she makes the hard decisions, and that she fronts up when no one else will, why will she not do it today? Where is she today on these issues? Let us hear from the Prime Minister, who came out of a press conference and said: “Bring it on, I am ready for the debate.” Let her stand in the Chamber today and tell us, quite simply, what her Government’s policy is on the seabed and foreshore issue.

I say to the Prime Minister that it is not as if this issue has just snuck up on her. This issue has been exercising New Zealanders’ minds for over 6 months, and the Prime Minister has done nothing other than poll. She has polled on the issue every week for 6 months, and she cannot get an answer. It requires a leadership decision—and she will not give it. This is a Prime Minister who is driven totally by the polls. That was so when she was Minister of Housing. She was a Minister who, as David Lange once said, was tinder-dry and poll-driven. What the polls said was what made her roll Mike Moore, in the end. Before that, the polls told her to be involved in the rolling of Geoffrey Palmer. Now, the polls will not tell her what to do on the seabed and foreshore issue, so she is doing nothing. She shows no leadership at all. I say to the Prime Minister that New Zealand wants some leadership, rather than her spinning herself into some sort of cocoon so that she cannot move at all.

I also say to her today that we want to know when we will be seeing this legislation. Why will she not stand up in the Chamber—even if she cannot say she can guarantee that the seabed and foreshore will be in Crown ownership—and say there will be legislation—

💬 Jill Pettis: At least the Prime Minister is in the Chamber.

The senior Government whip rasps away that at least the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that although the member is making a rather robust speech, I would like to hear what he has to say.

The senior Government whip rasps away that at least the Prime Minister is here. I say to the senior Government whip that we have gone back and checked, and this Prime Minister has spoken less in the House than any previous New Zealand Prime Minister. Such is her arrogance, such is her importance, that she does not have to bother with mere drudgery; such is her importance that she does not have to come down and speak in Parliament. In fact, people on our side of the Chamber have done the research, and Mike Moore spoke more in 3 months as Prime Minister than that Prime Minister has done in 4½ years. That is the difference between the last two Labour Prime Ministers.

💬 Darren Hughes: Rubbish.

The junior Government whip says that is rubbish. I ask how many times the Prime Minister has spoken on legislation in the House since the last election.

💬 Mark Peck: Lots and lots and lots and lots.

How many? Give me a number.

💬 Darren Hughes: More than Mike Moore.

I tell the junior Government whip that the Prime Minister has spoken once, on a Security Intelligence Service bill, a bill that no one else can speak about—apart from Keith Locke. The Prime Minister has spoken once on legislation since the last election.

I also want to know why we do not have a timetable from this Prime Minister on the seabed and foreshore legislation. This Prime Minister has more staff than any previous Prime Minister. Gone is the exercise of “We are going to be a frugal Government.” She has more staff and a bigger executive than any Prime Minister of this country has ever had. Most Labour members are reliant upon her for grace and favour in this Chamber—Mr Peck excluded, and we can understand that. But, that aside, this Prime Minister has more advisers in her department, yet she says nothing and does nothing. She graces us with her presence here today, and I wonder whether she—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I wonder whether the Prime Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that Mr Sowry is making a hard-hitting speech, and some interjections can be expected, but not so many as to drown out the member speaking. The Chair will not allow a member to be drowned out.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister will grace us with her views today, or whether she will take the opportunity to front up to the leader of the National Party, Don Brash, and debate with him. Why is she so terrified of debating with Don Brash? Why is she so worried about that? Why is she in such a frenzy that she sees conspiracy theories, with Television New Zealand reporters and junior press secretaries all scheming to put her up against Don Brash, and with her whole political career being ruined by such a debate? What is she so afraid of? Why does she not simply front up in the chair, in front of the rest of New Zealand, and debate the issues with the Leader of the Opposition? Why is she so worried about it? She has time to paint pictures for charity and to do all sorts of other good deeds. She has time to travel the world—looking for her next job—but she will not front up for 20 minutes on Television New Zealand and debate with the Leader of the Opposition.

Why not? I suspect it is because she has met her match. This is a Prime Minister who is used to people opening doors, driving her everywhere, and kowtowing to her, and suddenly she has found someone who will stand up to her. The Labour caucus does not stand up to her—oh no—and finally she has found someone who stands up to her. So what does she do? She does what she does best—she hides. This is a Prime Minister who is so bold in a situation she controls, but is absolutely determined not to go into one she does not.

What an Opposition in disarray we have seen this afternoon! What a National Party in disarray! All 11 speeches that it is entitled to in this debate have been wasted in trying to defend a leader who cannot foot it in Parliament. I feel sorry for those timid little National back-benchers who sat all morning getting their speeches on other subjects ready. We were told they wanted to debate social development, they wanted to debate education, they wanted to debate Māori affairs issues, they wanted to debate the labour portfolio, and they wanted to debate the agriculture portfolio, but they have used all their calls trying to defend a leader who cannot foot it in Parliament. We have a lot of reviews yet to go in this financial review debate. We will have the pleasure of hearing another five speeches from the Greens on these subjects, three speeches from United Future, four from New Zealand First, one from the Progressives, and four from ACT, because the National Party has nothing to say about social development, nothing to say about education, nothing to say about the Māori affairs reviews, and nothing to say about labour or agriculture. It does not have its priorities right.

What a panic the chief Opposition whip was in when he came to the Chamber and saw that National members had blown the game plan! They had thrown their speeches away, and what a panic there was over there on the Opposition benches! There will be one winner of that debate on television tonight, and it will be The Simpsons. At least they are genuinely funny and not a sad joke. And Homer will beat Don Brash any day of the week—Homer will win tonight. What a poor, sad, bitter and twisted little crowd those members were today!

All I can say is that we have a Government in this country that sets out to uphold the rights of all New Zealanders, and when we are presented with a complex issue, like the Court of Appeal decision on the foreshore and seabed, we do not set out to have a winner-takes-all approach. We set out to ensure that all New Zealanders can have their rights upheld. I have not yet heard a convincing speech from the National Party that it intends to have customary rights recognised at all. Yet, as the leader of New Zealand First would remind us if he were able to take another call, the fisheries legislation that the National Government introduced in the 1990s provided for customary fishing rights. If National members recognise one set of customary rights, why do they stop there? Why do they say it applies only to fish? Why do they not say it applies to other areas in the marine area? They have been very silent. All they have ever moaned about in this Chamber is who has the fee simple title. They do not want to concede today the rights they conceded early in the 1990s.

This Government has set out, with the support and interest of other parties, to see how two peoples’ rights can be reconciled and upheld. I say again that it is part of the birthright of every New Zealander to know that those special places—the foreshore and seabed—are there for New Zealanders to access when they want to access them. That is the absolute bottom line. I look forward to that legislation coming into the House.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: When?

It will come when it is ready, and it will meet the needs of New Zealanders to have those special areas available for all of us for all times. But it will also recognise that Māori have customary rights in this area—as National itself recognised more than a decade ago, but which it finds convenient not to recognise at this time. Today we have seen a National Party in disarray, a strategy blown, and a leader who cannot front—it is a hopeless outfit.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not common for these debates to be given a score, but tonight I think it is fair to say that this one was 49-39. Well done, National!

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not a point of order. I say to members that I will not tolerate frivolous points of order or interjections that are designed to break up a speech. That is out of order.

The Committee being the master of its own destiny, I seek leave for this debate on the financial review of the Prime Minister’s office to be extended by one speech, to enable Don Brash to make a speech—if anybody can find him.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is a member of long standing, and he knows full well that he cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else.

Report noted.

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services

Ministry of Social Development