General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. For over 2 years the Prime Minister, the Minister of Corrections, and local MP Nanaia Mahuta have known of the problems occurring in the Waikato and the concerns raised by local Māori as they spent $1.3 million. I want to illustrate how serious those concerns are by reading out a letter I received today: “Kia ora, My name is Irene Kereama-Royal and I currently reside in Hamilton. I am a qualified lawyer and was admitted to the High Court in Auckland as a Barrister and Solicitor in 1995. I am completing my Masters in Environmental Law at the University of Auckland and have previously worked for the Ministry for the Environment as a national senior policy analyst, providing advice to the then Minister for the Environment on national policy for environmental issues which affect Maori, …

In 2002 I was employed by the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust as the Environmental and Treaty Claims Manager. I was responsible, among other things, for undertaking consultation obligations on behalf of the Lands Trust as part of the requirements within the Resource Management Act and resource consent applications. … I was the only employee of the Lands Trust with this responsibility for the entire 2002 year.”

This is how the letter concludes: “In all of my years of working in this area, I have never seen such manipulation of the resource consent process nor had I seen before the blatant corruption for pecuniary gain that went on with some of the Waikato corrections employees. I know of the tribal embarrassment that this situation has caused and while I no longer work for the Lands Trust, I give testimony here to my experiences with this application during the period when consultation should have taken place with Iwi during 2002.”

The chief executive officer and the barrister recommended against a contract being signed, because they believed that it was contractually unsound and against the interests of the trust. Let me explain what happened.

I read again from the letter: “I understood that the contract was to employ several of Waikato’s unemployed people at the time it was signed. This included Hadyn Solomon, Tahi Ngakete, Shane Solomon and Norman Hill. These people moved into empty offices at the Lands Trust and were given Staff status as they had access to Trust cars, laptops, meetings rooms and came to Staff meetings. The new CEO of the Lands Trust was a personal friend and relative of all of these people and they were often seen around the Lands Trust buildings, laughing and talking together. They enjoyed priorities around the Lands Trust office that weren’t accorded to all Lands Trust Staff such as priority over the cars to get to their meetings with the maraes. Environment Waikato Staff came out to have meetings with this group at the Lands Trust. I was never invited to these meetings. I understood through this contract that the Lands Trust received a substantial amount of money. I also understood that the people who were employed by Corrections under this contract were also recipients of other corrections payouts such as Kaumatua fees, writers of the cultural assessment report and Resource Management Act advisors. All of these people benefited financially from the corrections contracts and salaries.

I knew the marae people were extremely opposed to the application and had in no uncertain terms, publicly denounced their distaste of their own people deriving financial rewards from the establishment of a prison in their region. I knew that the opposition against the application from all the affected Waikato maraes was unanimous. Representatives of those maraes spoke with me at every opportunity they had to express their concerns with what they called the consultation corruption of corrections staff. Ngati Naho, Horahora Marae, Taniwha Marae, and Te Kauwhata residents that I spoke to were all frustrated with the entire process, and with the embarrassment they felt over being misrepresented by the corrections staff in their consultation hui. …

I knew personally of the corruption they spoke of because I had experienced it in my position at the Lands Trust and my dealings with those corrections employees.”

That was a fake consultation in a corrupt process, where the support was bought with taxpayers’ money. We learnt yesterday that there were 48 meetings on marae, at a cost of 438,000 taxpayer dollars. Let me describe one of those meetings. At that meeting there were 14 departmental staff and officials, and four members of the public.

Last night on television we saw the soft-sell extremist, Dr Brash, in action, and not just on issues like the Treaty of Waitangi, which he now regards as a historical document of no contemporary relevance at all. In one short interview, he managed to indicate how extremely uncomfortable he is with the position of most New Zealanders on at least four issues. “I am extremely uncomfortable”, is one of his favourite phrases, and when we hear it, be alerted that there is bad news coming for most Kiwis. Throughout the interview he blinked like a kind of narcoleptic owl, in the hope that the significance of what he was saying would get lost as a consequence. Firstly, he said that he was not at all sure Kiwibank was making a major impact, and if that was the case, then yes, we should sell it.

So what is the policy? The policy absolutely is to sell Kiwibank. That is the National Party’s policy. It has not learnt a thing in Opposition. It has not eaten anything of any use during its 4½ years in Opposition. In 2005, National will again run on the policies that got it chucked out in 1999. It is not surprising. Dr Brash said that New Zealand Post should be flogged off. That is what he said when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. Who benefits from flogging off Kiwibank? The Aussie banks. Who loses from flogging off Kiwibank? Ordinary New Zealanders—those who are with the bank, and those whose fees have come down as a consequence of the bank’s operations. The election next year will be about a lot of issues, not just about the one that Dr Brash wants to talk about. One issue will be the sale of State assets.

Secondly, Dr Brash told us what he thought about Iraq. He said: “I feel very uncomfortable with where we are currently.” I do not think he meant our engineers in Basra. I am not sure who the “we” is, when he refers to “we” in relation to Iraq, because the context was whether New Zealand would have gone to war against Iraq. When pushed, he answered that yes, he would have gone to war with Iraq. Why? He did not know why, except that somehow or other, that would have improved relations with the United States. In other words, we would send our young men and women off to war in the hope—no more than that—that by 2010, or 2012, or 2015 we might get three more lamb chops on American tables. It is what is called “one war for all”, as far as Dr Brash is concerned.

Then we learnt about dumping the nuclear-free status. What did Dr Brash say about that? He said: I, frankly, am uncomfortable with where we are currently.” Yet again, he was uncomfortable. He wants the nuclear-free ban repealed. National has a report coming from Wyatt Creech. We know what it will say. We know what National wants to do. We learnt from Dr Brash that, in order to make himself comfortable—apparently the purpose of politics—the rest of us in New Zealand have to be made uncomfortable. That is what he said.

On superannuation, Dr Brash said to be assured that the age of retirement would not be raised for people aged over 50. In other words, for people aged under 50, it would be raised. In that debate he did not touch at all upon the issue of the level of the pension under a National Government, whatever the age of retirement. Remember what the National Government did? National froze the pension for 2 years, and then in 1999 cut the relativity. That is what it did. An awful lot of people will be uncomfortable if National gets the chance to take on the pension in the way it did during the 1990s.

I put a challenge to Dr Brash. He is the new leader of the National Party. I wrote to Mr English and asked whether he would sign up to 65 percent for a married couple at the age of 65. Mr Dunne said yes, Mr Donald said yes, Mr Anderton said yes, and we said yes. Mr Hide said no, because ACT does not believe anybody should get a pension at all. Mr English said: “We won’t tell you, but we won’t sign up.” I ask Dr Brash whether he will sign up to that. It is very easy to do. He might feel uncomfortable doing it, but he can write me a letter. It is not hard. He can write me a letter saying yes, the National Party will sign up to supporting 65 percent at age 65. Will he do it, or will he not? No, he will not.

We know how successful Don Brash has been when we get a nasty speech like that from Dr Michael Cullen. This afternoon I want to comment on the judgment made by the High Court in respect of the contempt of court issue that was delivered in respect of myself this afternoon. I have to say I am bitterly disappointed, and I believe this is a sad day for Parliament and for the role that members of this House have in advocating for their constituents.

I also say it is a sad day for free speech. The comment was made to me that had this happened in the United States or in other countries that have a stronger value for free speech, there would not have been a chance of me being convicted. I worry that this judgment will have a chilling effect on the role MPs play in their communities and also on the role the media play, in that TV3 and Radio New Zealand have also been convicted. It is extraordinary in a free and democratic country that one can be convicted for saying that a boy should be with his mum and dad. It is a victory for political correctness, and it is a defeat for common sense.

I have no regrets about the actions I took last year in support of the family in my Nelson electorate. This conviction that I bear pales into insignificance compared to the loss that has been incurred by that family—the loss of their son. The headlines in the newspaper will grow old, the conviction will fade away, but every day those parents will wake up without their son.

I find it ironic that when I raised this case, three particular issues were of concern to me. The first of those was the way in which ex parte orders are given in the Family Court—unnecessarily, on occasion, and without any time limit on them. I raised the issue of delays, which are causing so much pain for families out there in New Zealand, and I also raised concerns about the level of secrecy in the Family Court. I find it extraordinary that 14 months later, on all those three issues, there is a growing consensus about the need for reform, and I find it particularly ironic that the Principal Family Court Judge who laid the original complaint with the Solicitor-General has conceded at a hearing before the Justice and Electoral Committee that change is needed on all those issues. I feel like I have been shot as the messenger, but I take some comfort from the fact that the message has taken some effect.

There are some very special people whom I wish to thank over the very trying last 9 months. I particularly want to thank my wife, Cyndy; I want to thank my caucus colleagues, who have been undying in their support of me through this period; and I particularly want to thank the people of Nelson, who have also been extremely supportive through these trials and tribulations. I also want to acknowledge the 450 people all over New Zealand who have contributed to my defence costs, and I want to give to them my heartfelt thanks.

I want Parliament to know, and I want the Government to know, that this issue will not go away. The need for reform in the Family Court is absolutely critical in getting families better supported in this country. It is wrong that competent parents should have to fight for custody of their own children. There is an overwhelming need for an opening up of the Family Court. Secret justice, in my view, is dangerous justice.

The last point I want to make is that justice delayed is justice denied. In a commercial law matter, if things are delayed, one can compensate with interest. In the criminal court, if matters are not heard within 18 months, they are thrown out. But how can we compensate for delays in the Family Court—delays of years and years? In this particular case, it was a delay of 3½ years. I will be carefully considering the judgment that the High Court has set down today. I will consider whether I should appeal and I will consider my future as a member of this House. But I say one thing: I will not stop talking about the need for this country to respect and to value families.

On Holmes last night National’s leader refused to stand by Kiwibank when he was asked whether it was really true that a National Government would sell it off. But that is not all he has refused to stand by. He has indicated clearly that he will not stand by the nuclear-free policy. In fact, to a visiting group of United States senators recently, he said that if it were up to him, we would be free of the nuclear policy before lunchtime. If that is the entrée—a dish of weapons of mass destruction—I shudder to think what the main meal will be, but I think we have some idea.

The main meal will include going into military adventures based on lies, like the war in Iraq. It will also mean telling all those under 50 that he has no confidence in the economic performance under National, and that those under 50 will not have a guaranteed superannuation scheme. That is the main meal; let us hope we never get anywhere near it. It is certainly not served by a restaurant that I think New Zealanders want to go to—overseas-owned or New Zealand - owned.

Dr Brash has indicated that he personally cannot see the value of Kiwibank, but that his caucus has not made a decision. I think it has. He said: “I regard the banking sector in New Zealand as very, very competitive. I’m not at all sure the Kiwibank is making a major impact on that, and if that’s the case, we should sell it.” That is what he said last night. They are not the words one would expect from a straight talker; they are the weasel words we got from Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson in the 1980s and 1990s as they sold off everything from Telecom and Air New Zealand to the Bank of New Zealand and all the other strategic assets. That sell-off is back on the menu under Don Brash.

We are being asked to believe that the former central bank governor, who registered Kiwibank as a bank, is not sure what he would do about the problem of Kiwibank. It is a problem for National because Kiwibank is so much more successful than envisaged in the business plan. It is a problem because it is owned by all New Zealanders—not just a select bunch of foreign investors. It is a big problem for National because it wants to sell the bank to Australian financiers—and I have nothing against Australians—despite the bank’s tremendous success in the regions, where it is a lifeline to communities that were ignored and abandoned by the big Australian banks until Kiwibank’s arrival. The quarter of a million New Zealanders who rushed to join Kiwibank deserve a straight answer to a simple question put to the National leader: will he sell? Yes, he will.

Late last year the Opposition feigned to be up in arms about the sale of the National Bank to one of the four Australian banks that dominate our banking system. It was an outrage, they said, that our banking system was now totally dominated by banks from Australia, and they demanded Government action. They were right to say at the time that no other developed country has so much of its financial system owned off shore, and so much of its banking system exposed to the fate of the financial system of one foreign nation. Yet National members expect everyone to believe they do not know what they will do about Kiwibank because they have not yet thought about it. If National is serious about leading the country, it had better start thinking about issues that confront Governments every minute and every second of the day.

I do not particularly want to be unkind, but Dr Brash would have to have lost all his senses to believe that Kiwibank has not improved competition in the banking system. It is now a perceived electoral gain for National to disenfranchise Māori by abolishing the MMP system and Māori electorate seats. As a similar example of its narrow ideology, National is putting ahead of reason the issue of the sale of Kiwibank, and further asset sales. That is the beginning.

The reality is that Kiwibank has had overwhelming support from the public. It has 220,000 customers, close to a billion dollars worth of home loans, and 290 branches around the country. It is well ahead of target. Consumer magazine rated Kiwibank the clear best choice for mortgage holders last year. Before Kiwibank, New Zealanders were disillusioned with the banking system because it closed down branches and raised their fees. Now the opposite occurs. Foreign-owned banks were taking millions of dollars in banking profits out of the country every year. Kiwibank has kept its money in New Zealand, for New Zealanders. The excellent competition provided to New Zealand by Kiwibank benefits everybody—not just Kiwibank customers. It benefits all bank customers, who receive lower fees and improved services, and it benefits New Zealanders, who are keen to see a bank that acts in their interests.

I challenge Don Brash to debate the benefits of Kiwibank with our Progressive party if he likes, in public either in a church—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Who?

It is known as “Jim’s Bank”; it is not known as “Gerry’s Bank”—I can tell the member that. We can debate in a church, a mosque, a temple, or a secular hall—wherever Don Brash feels comfortable. Jim Anderton will debate “Don’s Bank” versus Kiwibank, and we will see whether “Don’s Bank” or “Jim’s Bank” is the winner.

Kiwibank has made a huge positive impact for all banking customers, and Dr Brash’s assertions are simply unsupportable. National’s agenda is to sell Kiwibank. It is not even a secret agenda now; it is an open agenda. National’s agenda is also to have us back under the nuclear umbrella.

I rise today to speak on the Department of Corrections once again. I have to ask: how long will it take? When will this Minister get it? When will he understand that his department is out of control and needs a thorough going-over from top to bottom? When will the Minister take a calm, quiet look at the debacle now unfolding with the scenario at Waikato’s prison, which has been so carefully dissected by Rodney Hide? When will he look at the exorbitant budget blowout at the prison at Ngawha, or at the appalling antics of the emergency response unit and the shonky in-house cover-up that went on for years, which a series of incompetent Ministers failed to see through?

Looking at the Corrections Bill and hearing about the Department of Corrections’ much-vaunted integrated offender management system, we once again see examples of more shonky advice. We are increasingly hearing allegations of corruption and the wasting of public money. In this case I believe that the advice given to the Minister to essentially incorporate the integrated offender management system into clauses 49 to 51 of the legislation is going to expose the Crown and the taxpaying public to legal action by offenders who are released from prison and who then, unfortunately, because they were not given an integrated offender management plan and were not rehabilitated, found themselves in the unfortunate position of reoffending. The world’s heart will go out to them—yeah, right.

Regretfully, unless this Minister gets a hold on his department and pulls garbage like this out of his bill, we will see victims of crimes that are committed by offenders whose integrated offender management plan failed them suing the Government, as well. This Minister had better get off his horse and have a look at what is down the back end of it, because there is a pile of it there. Everybody in the country can see what is going on inside the Department of Corrections, but he does nothing. His name will go alongside other Ministers before him who likewise did nothing, such as, Mark Gosche, Margaret Wilson, Matt Robson, and Paul East. All these Ministers sat with their hands over their eyes and gave answers to members in this House that everything was OK in the Department of Corrections. It is not, it was not, and if he does not do something about it the payer will again be the taxpayer.

This Minister needs to know that the evidence and information that I have increasingly says that the integrated offender management system has not been implemented, and that the figures and facts the Minister is receiving are not actual. There are prisoners being released today who never had an integrated offender management plan prepared for them and, in the case of one man who bashed an immigrant to death in Latimer Square and who has just been released from jail, who never had a Straight Thinking course or a course to deal with his anger management.

The danger is that when people like this get back out on the street and reoffend, who will they blame? Under the legislation it is the responsibility of the Department of Corrections to put in place corrective plans to help them overcome their problems. The problem with that is this little weasely clause that says “resources providing”. The resources will never be always available, and it clearly opens up the litigious path.

I have tabled in the House today an opinion from Chapman Tripp and it clearly signals that there is a problem. The question I ask the Minister is, when will he start taking sane, sensible advice, analysing what we in the Opposition are saying, and accepting it, and stop listening to some of those people in his own department who gave us the debacle at Ngawha and at Waikato? There is good advice tabled in the House for him, and I am signalling here today that New Zealand First will be watching this integrated offender management system. The lottery-number figures that I am hearing for its implementation should be a serious cause for concern to the Minister. It is to me. He need only speak to his union members around this country who are card-carrying members of the Labour Party—good competent prison officers—and hear what they have to say. It is there. He should listen and take some action.

It is not too often in this country that we get as clear a revelation as we had on a television programme last night, when the leader of the National Party was questioned on a range of issues and disclosed viewpoints that most New Zealanders did not know about. They did not know that the Leader of the Opposition had a needs-based foreign policy, or that a needs-based foreign policy on Iraq was one where he felt the need to cuddle up to those nations that chose to invade—a “guns-for-butter” foreign policy. We must make no mistake about it; if we push the smartly dressed, mild-mannered, softly spoken man a little further we reveal warmongering. That is what happened. He was questioned about Iraq and he said: “I guess in hindsight it is easy to see what might have been done differently. We are not yet through this Iraq situation”—I thank Dr Don Brash for the revelation—“It looks more and more messy by the month.”

What amazing prescience this man has! He said: “I feel very uncomfortable about where we currently are.” And then the presenter said: “Yes, but would you have gone in with John Howard? That’s the question.” He said: “I think the answer to that is yes.” This guy, notwithstanding 12 months of experience with Iraq, and whether or not we got that decision right, would still say that he would have gone in. That is remarkable.

He has a needs-based nuclear policy. The needs-based nuclear policy in this case is to cuddle up, shall we say, to the nuclear military complex. He says: “I’m uncomfortable with where we are currently.” What can that be code for? No nuclear ships or nuclear weapons are allowed in this country. We have been nuclear-free for well over a decade—very close to two decades, but, just the same, the Leader of the Opposition says that he is uncomfortable with where we are currently.

Then the long-awaited report, which was due to arrive in the middle of March, and now nearing the end of March it still has not apparently arrived, is going to be how the National Party sorts it out. I say: “Be very careful.” This country does not want nuclear weapons, it does not want to be part of the nuclear military complex, but if there is a needs-based nuclear policy, to get alongside the nuclear military complex, then it seems the National Party is again going to contemplate that. We have a needs-based asset sales policy. In this case the need is to put State assets up on the block for the mates, just like in the 1990s—that is, “If it’s there, hock it off.”

Remarkably, Dr Brash seems unaware that in just 2 years 200,000 new Kiwibank accounts have been opened. That is 400 new accounts for each working-day. So 200,000 people have chosen to shift to another bank. It is not easy to do that, yet he is going to hock it off. Does he not understand that people have gone over to Kiwibank in order to put pressure on the foreign-owned banks, in order to put competitive pressure on the system, and to ensure that they can access the good services of that bank, and know that it is New Zealand - owned? That is why 400 people have joined that bank each working-day for the last 2 years. Dr Brash is going to sell it.

He has a needs-based superannuation policy, and on television last night he got lucky. A questioner came in and said: “I’m 56, my spouse is 51, are we safe?”. Dr Brash said: “Yes.” Had they been 46 and 41 he would have said: “I’m uncomfortable with the current settings for superannuation policy. We have a needs-based superannuation policy”. The need in this instance is to cut taxes. But one cannot cut taxes without cutting superannuation. So the needs-based superannuation policy will be OK for a 51-year-old or a 56-year-old, or for me aged 53. I say to those aged 41, 43, 46: “Don’t put a ring around that.” Anyone under 50 is in trouble.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Wrong.

The deputy leader of the National Party now disagrees. Would he like to talk with his leader and sort out their differences, because they are singing different songs.

I want to—[Interruption] When are we going to start, Madam Speaker? I am not starting, with that nonsense. I will start again.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

No, it is not a point of order. I am going to speak. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. There has been considerable interruption. The member will start his speech.

I want to start my comments this afternoon by recording my admiration for Dr Nick Smith—

💬 Government Members: Ah! [Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be silence during points of order.

I ask that the first comments in my speech this afternoon be heard in silence.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member is entitled to ask for that. Please continue.

Am I starting again, or do I take a penalty for the disruption that has been caused by the Labour Party?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How much time off my speaking slot has the Labour Party cost me this afternoon?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has not cost the member anything. [Interruption] Order! The member has asked to be heard in silence.

And it is now my time that you are taking, Madam Speaker. Is Mr Mallard to be allowed to stay, or should he go?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have called for order. Please continue. This is the general debate.

I begin my comments this afternoon by expressing my admiration for Dr Nick Smith and for the way in which he has shown himself to be a courageous politician—[Interruption]—a politician driven by conviction—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just ask for one law for all. We have been asked to be quiet. Surely the National Party has to be, as well. [Interruption] If a speech is to be heard in silence, it must be heard in silence from both sides of the House, not just one. [Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did give a warning about points of order being heard in silence. The member was called for a point of order, but Mr Brownlee continued to speak while that point of order was being heard. I give him one final warning.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have not yet ruled on my point of order, which was whether the ruling on the member’s speech being heard in silence applied to National Party MPs or only to members of the Government.

💬 John Carter: I suspect that Trevor Mallard may be referring to me. As the senior Opposition whip I interjected by saying: “Hear, hear!”. If we are going to be as silly, pathetic, and stupid as that on these sorts of matters, then I have to say the Government is really in serious disarray. The interjection was nothing more than giving support to the member by a “Hear, hear!”. Surely to goodness we are not going to become as petty and stupid as that over it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The rules on this issue have been quite clear over a period of time—that is, that speeches are either heard in silence, or not. If that member is allowed to say “Hear, hear!”, then members on the Government side of the House could equally say: “Tripe!” or “Rubbish!”, which would be a more accurate reflection on the member’s comments.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member does have a point. The member did ask to be heard in silence, so therefore there should be silence. Please continue, Mr Brownlee.

Madam Speaker, do I still have my 5-minute slot, or am I now part-way into it? Has the Labour Party been successful?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is part-way into his speech. Please continue.

I want to record my admiration for Dr Nick Smith and for the way in which he went into bat for his constituents, and then faced up to the consequence of doing so. He is a politician who is courageous, compassionate, and driven by conviction, and he has the full support of the National Party behind him. It is a great sadness to us that there appears to be quite an unholy linking between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in this matter.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That concludes the part of my speech that I wished to have heard in silence.

💬 Hon Margaret Wilson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that there has been no contact at all between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General on this matter—and the member knows that. [Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: While I was hearing the member’s point of order, Mr Brownlee interrupted. I had earlier given him a final warning about silence during points of order. He interrupted the member after his final warning. He will now leave the Chamber. [Interruption] The member will withdraw and apologise.

I cannot. I have been asked to leave the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Concerning the point of order raised by the Hon Margaret Wilson, I rule that that was a debatable point.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure you heard, as all members heard, that you were abused by the deputy leader of the National Party as he left the Chamber, after you had ruled he should leave. I submit to you that he should be recalled to the Chamber to apologise for the abuse he gave as he left.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As Mr Brownlee left the Chamber he made a comment about an action that he intends to take, and it is his right to take that action. He is entitled to lay down a notice of motion if he wishes to, and the House will deal with it in one way or another. That is for the House to decide. It is certainly not in any way to be considered as a threat, or, as has been suggested, as an issue or a statement the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for.

It was quite clear that it was a threat. The precedent in this area—I think it concerned Winston Peters, but I cannot remember exactly which member it was—in the past was that the member was named. That is the standard procedure for threatening a Speaker once the member concerned has been asked to leave the Chamber. Although the approach you take is, of course, your decision, I submit to you that that is the appropriate approach.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Minister for his comments. When the member returns to the Chamber he will be asked whether he made a disparaging remark to the Speaker.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a fresh point of order, arising not in relation to the matter we have just discussed but from the circumstances we have just dealt with. With regard to Margaret Wilson’s statement, you ruled that it was not a point of order. Having ruled that, you then evicted Gerry Brownlee on the basis that he interjected during a point of order, when it was not a point of order. We now have a very serious situation that—

The member will please be seated. That is absolutely irrelevant. The Minister called for a point of order. The rule is very clear that there is to be silence during points of order, but that is when Mr Brownlee spoke. Therefore, your point is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order? I have ruled on that matter.

Yes, you have. I now seek a point of clarification. How do we get through the issue, then, of members raising points of order that are not points of order? We get ourselves into all sorts of difficulties. Indeed, I think it is a matter we may well have to deal with at the Standing Orders Committee. We are starting to see a practice of members raising points of order that have no substance, and in this particular case you ruled that the point of order had no substance and was a debating point. The Minister has been here in the House long enough to know that it was a debating point and should not have been raised. The consequence of doing that is that it tends to incite people to make comments, even though you quite correctly ruled—and it has been ruled on many times—that members should not interject during points of order. Nevertheless, raising such points of order tends to incite people to make comments, because they know themselves that the matters being raised are not points of order. We have a difficulty. I accept that you will rule in one way, but I believe that it may be a matter you may want to consider and refer to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member again that I ruled that the Attorney-General did not raise a valid point of order. However, Mr Brownlee interrupted her while she was raising it. That is the point, and he had been previously warned.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on that point of order. Is this a new point of order?

Yes, it is. I have asked you to consider whether, given that we now have points of order being raised quite repeatedly in this House—quite often, and more than is necessary, on points that members know are not points of order—there is a matter that needs to be brought to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee. I wonder whether you could give a view on that, or go away and give a view on it. I think there is an issue arising from that, and if you are not prepared to raise it, then maybe I will raise it myself with the Standing Orders Committee, in my capacity as a member of the House.

I think the member does have a point, although I have experienced a remedy that is available to the Speaker if the Speaker thinks that a point of order has been made in a way that is not appropriate. If the Speaker thinks that the person has pushed it too far, the Speaker has on occasion required members to apologise, and in extreme cases has required members to leave the Chamber. I have some experience in this area, and it is my submission that the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings already take care of this area if a Speaker wants to use them.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member is aware that many points of orders that are raised are not points of order. I also point out that any member can raise that matter with the Standing Orders Committee.

One of the interesting developments in recent months in New Zealand politics has been the disappearance of the ACT party. While most voters in this country clearly consider that a highly desirable state of affairs, I would like to dwell on the reason for it. It is because most people did not support ACT, because of its extremism, and the extraordinary extremism of its policies. So why has the ACT party disappeared in the current environment? It is because the leader of the National Party is regarded by the ACT party, and voters, as the ninth ACT MP. ACT has proudly made that very boast.

The ACT party has lost its position of extremism because those policies of extremism have been taken over by what was once a middle-of-the-road party, the National Party. People are now starting to realise as Dr Brash’s exposes his underbelly that he cannot hide his extremist agenda. Clearly, the sale of Kiwibank and other assets such as Radio New Zealand and TVNZ are on the agenda, were this country to ever be unfortunate enough to have National in power again. The sending of our young men and women—troops—to Iraq is on the agenda. And clearly that cosying up to the Americans that seems so important to Dr Brash—the internal imperatives for that have not been revealed to the rest of us—is very much the way that that party wishes to proceed.

Clearly, the dumping of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, a status so overwhelmingly supported by voters in this country, is on the National Party’s agenda. While we know what Dr Brash has said about superannuation, last night he said: “If you’re 50 it might be all right, but if you’re 49 you’re in trouble, and if you’re 29, then you don’t need to worry, because no Government I will be involved in will change superannuation for you.” I do not think that Dr Brash is likely to be involved in any Government in the near future at all, and certainly not in 35 years’ time.

What do we have in contrast? We have a Labour Party in Government that with its Progressive supporters, and support from United Future and the Greens, is working with New Zealanders for good outcomes for people in this country—not a party like the National Party that if it ever were to return to power would repeat the attacks that it previously mounted on the most vulnerable: the young, the old, and the sick.

What are we on about? We are on about opportunity for all. We are working with New Zealanders. We are lifting their literacy, and thousands more students have benefited. We are also lifting standards, and we have doubled the number of resource teachers in literacy since 1998-99. We are a Government that is focused on growth and innovation. Everyone in this country knows that our industry training strategy is working. We are making the effort to ensure that this country has the skilled workforce that it needs for the future of all New Zealanders. There is huge growth in training. Record numbers of people are participating in industry training. We are getting young people into trades, and we are building those crucial links between schools and the workplace. Unemployment is at a 16-year low.

Under Dr Brash we would have gone to war in Iraq. What did he say? He said: “I think I would have done what President Bush did. We are still in the middle of the Iraq situation. We may not know for 5 years whether this invasion was a good idea.” At the moment Dr Brash thinks that it probably was, but it is not finished yet.

Well, Dr Brash needs to have a look at the views of the community in New Zealand on such interventions, and he will once again change his policy because he knows what people in this country want. We have a proud record and we will not send our young men and women to the war for the sake of a few extra chops or steaks on American dinner tables. Dr Brash would. He and his morally corrupt colleagues believe in a swap of guns for butter, and never mind the morality. Is it not so ironic that the young men and women he would so happily commit to conflict are so overwhelmingly over-representing the Māori community?

I would like to finish with a quote from Brian Easton, the economist, who said recently: “Look, it depends on your political perspective. If you think the main aim in life is to reduce taxes on the rich and to reduce spending on the poor, there is some logic in the Brash position. If you take the traditional New Zealand position that by spending money on the young and the sick we can enhance the performance of the economy, then a National Party position makes no sense.”

I have no particular regard for Dr Nick Smith, but I am very concerned at the implications of the decision handed down by the court today. One of the great virtues of New Zealand democracy has been the historic right of members of Parliament to speak fearlessly, without fear of being limited in their statements, when the interests of their constituents are concerned. I believe that the court judgment today has the potential to alter that situation quite radically. Whatever our political view of Dr Smith’s actions, or his future, I believe that it behoves all of us to consider very carefully the implications for our democracy and our freedom—the privileges that the Speaker claims on our behalf at the start of each session—in the light of today’s judgment.

The issue I want to address in the time available to me this afternoon is one I first raised—ironically, in my first speech after leaving the Labour caucus in October 1994—when I spoke to the Wellington South Rotary Club about the need for constitutional reform in New Zealand. In that speech I outlined a programme by which, in my view, the New Zealand constitution, the Treaty of Waitangi, the relationship between the two, and our future, could be considered. I proposed in that speech the bringing together of a public information programme to invite New Zealanders to state their views, leading then to the establishment of a royal commission where the distillation of those views could be thoroughly and professionally considered, and ultimately any decisions arising therefrom could be put before New Zealand voters in a referendum.

On many occasions in the intervening 10 years I have repeated that call, often in a vacuum, and frequently to very unlistening audiences. In fact, in the wake of last year’s debate about the Supreme Court, I made a number of speeches along those lines, and they fell on deaf ears for many in this House, from the Prime Minister downwards. But in recent weeks I have been encouraged by the extent to which this has now proven to be an idea whose time has come. In the light of all the controversy that surrounds Dr Brash’s speech one of the clear messages coming from New Zealanders is that we do not want to continue wallowing in a tide of mutual abuse. We actually want to start to move through and deal with some of these issues that go to the core of our identity as New Zealanders and certainly reflect very strongly upon the future shape and direction of our nation.

Therefore those calls that I have been making, solely and alone for the last decade, suddenly become relevant, and I am absolutely delighted at the progress that that is taking. This is the right time for New Zealanders to begin to consider their constitutional future. This is the right time to consider where our instrumentalities, such as the Treaty of Waitangi, lie in relation to that, and how they should be moved forward in today’s context. This is the right time to start to focus upon the shape of the country as we want it, 10, 15, or 20 years from now, and start the process of making those big decisions that will lead to that.

At the core of all these issues is, in my view, a frustration among contemporary New Zealanders about our sense of national identity. Massive change of an economic and social nature of the last two decades has left many people feeling uncertain about what it is to be a New Zealander today, and many of us feeling that those hitherto traditional anchors in our community have been cast adrift. What we need in terms of some national cohesion, some sense of direction, and some sense of purpose that all of us who live in these isles ought to possess, is a clear and coherent debate about our future and how we achieve it. The processes now being considered, of an education programme to bring New Zealanders together in a national conversation about our future, to be followed by a royal commission or its equivalent, then leading ultimately, perhaps, to any major decisions being the subject of a national referendum are, I think, timely, and certainly a mark of our emerging national maturity. New Zealanders are remarkably “can-do” people. We do not wallow in the mire of introspection, bitterness, and debate unnecessarily. We like to get on, take action, move to solutions, and then implement them. The process that I believe we are now on the verge of embarking upon will give us that capacity. It is long overdue and very welcome.

Today I want to talk about Mr Brash, the banker, not a politician held in high regard. A contemporary politician fronts the House, has the hard debate in the House, not on the Holmes show, and has rigour behind policy. This is a man who is intent on selling the family silver. Where I come from, the silver tarnishes when it is exposed to the air. Mr Brash’s extreme and still-hidden agenda will also tarnish over time as fair-minded New Zealanders chew the fat over the rhetoric and the lack of substance in policy that is emerging from the real mean agenda of the Opposition.

We have heard about the selling off of Kiwibank—200,000 New Zealanders will object to that. As well, National will flick off Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand—a perfect venue and medium for us to tell our story and proudly talk about who we are as New Zealanders. He will send troops to Iraq—we have already heard about the agendas changing in the United States and Australia as people rise up to see that real agenda for what it is. He will dump our proud New Zealand nuclear-free status—it will be gone before lunchtime, he has already told a visiting delegation to New Zealand.

There is a threat of no superannuation for those under 50. My kids are facing huge student debts from a mean Opposition that brought in the student loan scheme in the 1990s. They cannot save for their superannuation; they have hardly even hit the threshold of having any savings in their bank while they pay off their interest from the mean policies of the 1990s.

Do not bank on generosity and inclusion with National. It will sell off the assets. Do not bank on peace; it will go to war. Do not bank on democracy in district health boards; National knows best. It will privatise the easy bits, take away community elected members, and force district health board mergers on our communities. We will become progressively less secure. Opportunities will be reduced, social mobility for the less privileged will be harder, and social solidarity will be eroded.

The agenda is mean, race-based, and divisive. It is elitist and favours the privileged with tax cuts for the rich. It takes us where average, fair-minded New Zealanders never ever want to return to, and they need to be reminded again and again that that is where they will go if they listen to the Opposition.

We want opportunity for all. We are focusing on literacy. We are lifting the standards for all New Zealanders. We have doubled resources in schools. We have got over 35,000 kids now starting to learn how to read and to write. Teachers are now getting access to professional development such as never before, and the Minister opened a programme in my community—Te Korowai Whakaora—last week, where we are looking at kids aged 9 to 11 who are about to opt out of the school system. Those are the sorts of programmes this Government supports.

We have record numbers in industry training. Last Friday I met middle-aged men who told me: “I’m learning. I am undertaking a skill. I am having a wonderful time.” Why did the Opposition ever drop apprenticeships in 1992? We have 450 people in apprenticeships in Rotorua, and they are absolutely loving it. We are building links between schools and the workplaces. We have five local colleges in the Gateway programme, and those kids will never leave school without knowing what skill sets they need to put into their basket of knowledge to be able to secure a job in the future. We are putting over $25 million every year into apprenticeships. We are pouring it in, and that will build a better society for us all in New Zealand.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the passing of Noel Pachoud in my community. He was a stalwart Labour pacifist and a humble man. Noel, I could not be at your funeral; you inspire us as a Labour Party to continue in our work to make New Zealand a fair place for all New Zealanders.

A headline in yesterday’s Dominion Post said: “Get used to wild weather”. The article quoted climate expert Jim Salinger as saying that we should expect more extreme weather events similar to last month’s severe storms. The effect of those storms has been catastrophic for many lower North Island farmers. While I applaud the Government’s initiative in helping farmers recover from the immediate trauma of the floods, I say that it is also time to look at preventing future floods of that magnitude. So what can we do to mitigate the effects of large future storms that apparently will come?

The recent floods had two main destructive elements, as I see it. The first was the floodwaters themselves, which swept away livestock, houses, cars, and fences. The second effect was the silt burden that was deposited on top of the pasture. What I propose is a partial solution to both of those problems, and that is to look at sustainable land-use patterns. What farmers have previously thought of as being sustainable land-use may no longer be sustainable, because of the changeable weather patterns. One of the lessons we learnt from Cyclone Bola, for instance, was that mature indigenous forests, and pine plantations of less than 8 years old, reduced landslips to less than one-sixteenth of those occurring on pasture.

In the lower North Island, 60 percent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council area is hill country, and 50 percent of the region is susceptible to erosion. Some 400,000 hectares are susceptible to severe erosion. Although land clearance is now rarely done, only 10 percent of the Manawatu region is native bush, and 9 percent is plantation forestry. Clearly, what the Government and regional councils must do is encourage the planting of trees, particularly in the headwaters of streams and along riparian margins. In fact, it should be within the powers of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council to require the reforestation of those areas.

If farmers are concerned about the cost of such an activity, it is worth their bearing in mind that in 1992 when there were also big floods, repairing and plantings at that time reduced the cost of repairs to fences and tracks from $76 a hectare to just $28 a hectare. The main point of reforestation is to prevent erosion and hence sedimentation over pastures during floods. But another value of reforestation, especially in the headwaters of streams, is to physically slow down the speed of runoff during rainfall. This has the effect of helping rainwater seep gradually into the soil and lessen the amount of water running off into streams. Obviously, if the soil is already saturated, all excess water will run off anyway, and it will have a less significant impact on major floods, but it should have a mitigating effect on the frequency of minor flooding events.

A large number of trees and shrubs are suitable for planting in headwaters and riparian margins. I will not mention all of them, but a lot of native species, eucalypts, wattles, and quite a number of exotic softwoods and hardwoods, are suitable. I encourage the Government to fund the reforestation of critical areas of the lower North Island. This can be done by funding individual farmers to change their land-use patterns. The Government needs to support these farmers and foresters in the same way it is doing now for pastoral farmers—in other words, by paying 90 percent of the cost of re-establishment. At the moment they are doing it for pasture; I am suggesting they do so for reforestation.

I agree that this is not an urgent priority right now. That certainly lies with getting farmers back up to speed in terms of their productivity. They need to repair fences, get their livestock producing again, repair their houses, and so on. But I do think that now is the time for the Government to start putting in place the insurance policy of selective reforestation. It will not solve the entire problem, but it will mitigate the effects of future storms, and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the weather experts say that we have to get used to wild weather.

One of the questions I have been asking myself recently is “Why has ACT’s poll rating collapsed to 1 or 2 percent?”. It is down from 3 or 4 times that amount and is now 25 percent of what it was. ACT has shrunk to having a mere 1 percent or 2 percent in the popularity ratings among the general public. Why is that? It is because people know that Dr Brash is ACT. When they hear Dr Brash speak, they should think of Rodney Hide and Richard Prebble—Dr Brash means ACT. This is a mean and divisive picture—Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide. Dr Brash means ACT, and that is why ACT’s vote has collapsed to 1 percent.

Dr Brash talks about one standard of citizenship for all. Well, does he mean building one fair and inclusive nation? I ask you! The kind and inclusive faces of Dr Brash and Mr Hide! Who are they trying to kid? A leopard does not change its spots, and neither has Dr Brash done so. “One standard of citizenship” is his jingle, but let us put a few more realistic suffixes on that. One standard of citizenship is tax cuts for the rich but no superannuation for those who are currently under 50. One standard of citizenship means the privatisation of publicly owned assets. We already knew that Dr Brash would flog off New Zealand Post. He would sell off Television New Zealand. He would sell off Radio New Zealand. He would finish off what Max Bradford started, flogging off the electricity assets. He would sell Air New Zealand.

But in the last day we have heard something extra. He would also sell Kiwibank. That successful business that was started up by New Zealand Post has more than 200,000 customers. One standard of citizenship means “Flog off State assets.” One standard of citizenship—but abolish or freeze the minimum wage, and abolish the pre-funding of superannuation to make it less likely that future Governments can fund superannuation payments to the elderly. That is Dr Brash’s agenda. It is no wonder he does not debate anything in this Parliament. It is no wonder he fails to talk about policy. He knows and we know that his policies would bring misery to millions.

He would sell out New Zealand’s assets, but what else would he sell out on? He would sell out our foreign policy—that is what. What does that mean? He would take his lead from President Bush. As far as our nuclear-free ships policy is concerned, he has already said that it would be “gone before lunchtime”. It would be gone before lunchtime if he gets his way. Who did he say that to? He did not have the courage to say that in this Parliament—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That phrase is out of order and it will be withdrawn.

I withdraw and apologise. He did not say that to this Parliament. No—he did not even say it on television and to the audience there. Who did he say that to? He said that to a visiting United States delegation. He said that the nuclear-free ships policy would be gone before lunchtime. Cosying up to the US would typify his response on foreign policy.

What about the biggie since we have been in Parliament this triennium? I have been here for 18 months, the same time as Dr Brash. The big issue since I have been here was whether we should go to war against Iraq, and whether we should send our young women and men to be killed or put at risk in Iraq in an unjustified war that was not backed by a United Nations mandate. What does Dr Brash say about that? He is unequivocal, as the National Party was then unequivocal, and as ACT was unequivocal—because National means ACT. What did they say? They said that the Government should send New Zealand troops to Iraq.

Even with the wisdom of hindsight, that most wonderful of gifts that people sometimes try to use, he still says that the National Government should have, and would have, backed the United States in the war against Iraq. Dr Brash believes, and always will, in the righteousness of his own austere and selfish ideology. ACT’s vote has collapsed, because National means ACT—that is, one standard of citizenship, tax cuts for the rich, flog off publicly owned assets, and finish off what Max Bradford already started.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.