General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This afternoon I want to highlight the plight of the struggling middle-income family in New Zealand. The people I am talking about are those with a combined or individual household income of around $61,000 a year.

That is not a high level of income, but when one considers a number of other issues one finds that it is becoming even more difficult and parlous for people to live on it. Family support for such a family with one child cuts out when its income exceeds $30,000 per annum, the child tax credits disappear at $33,000 per annum, the family tax credit goes once its income gets beyond $18,300 per annum, the parental tax credit abates from $33,000 per annum, and childcare subsidies go out the window at $32,000. That family on around $61,000 a year—assuming that there is a sole earner—is now in the top tax bracket. Even if the income has not been earned by one partner, at least one of the partners will be in the $38,000 tax bracket. Almost certainly, that family will have a student loan debt to service, which is approximately $3,500 a year on an income of $50,000 per annum.

It is no wonder that, as costs increase and as standards of living are expected to improve, that middle-income family starts to look at the great New Zealand dream and say: “Where to for us? Where are our opportunities? What can be done to redress the imbalance and the struggle that we are now talking about?”. This afternoon I want to put forward some ideas about steps that could be taken to improve the lot of the struggling middle-income family. We are talking, in a general sense, about people who have a household income of, perhaps, a little under $50,000, and rising to as high as $80,000, but principally around that $60,000 to $65,000 mark.

United Future has, for a long time, promoted the concept of income-splitting for tax purposes, and that would be highly beneficial to the archetypal family that I am talking about. If a couple with a combined income of just under $61,000 were able to split their income for tax purposes, they would end up being around $3,000 a year better off, and that would offset many of the costs they incur that I have already described. That is a policy we ought to be looking at, because it is fair. It gets away from a lot of the complexities we see in the current system with abatement rates, tax credits, and all sorts of other transfer payments. It actually allows people to retain much more of their own income for their own benefit.

But that, of itself, is not enough. We need to address the fact that many of these families are the parents of students undergoing tertiary education, and the absurd situation at the moment whereby if a family’s income is above $28,000, students under 25 who are members of that family start to have their entitlement to student allowances abated. Those figures have not shifted since the current student loan scheme was introduced in 1991. We say it is high time for an adjustment in those thresholds, because that is becoming the toll gate on education that members opposite used to speak about. The notion of a 25-year-old being held to an income test on his or her parents’ income is absurd when one considers a number of the other age-limits that apply in so many other areas. We also need to be looking at one other way of reducing those students’ indebtedness—but, more particularly, the burden on their parents—and that would be by some form of bonding or equivalent for years worked after graduation, being years of reduction in the principal of their loan.

There are some other issues we need to address to look after the needs of that particular family. For most people, the largest single investment they make continues to be in their property. For many of them, at a time of rampantly rising house prices, the costs they bear through the rates imposed by their local authorities are becoming oppressive, and we say it is time to cut those, as well.

What I am about to say will shock this House. Every member should be ashamed of what happened. This Government and the last Government have ignored a dreadful scandal. In 1987 three little girls went to the Glenelg Health Camp in Christchurch. They were put in the care of the State. Their parents trusted their children to the care of the State. A State employee sexually abused these little girls, and no Government has ever done anything except sweep this scandal under the carpet.

The Ministry of Health employed a medical officer of health, Dr Diane Espie, to work at the health camp. Without the parents’ permission, and with no other adult present, Dr Espie repeatedly examined these little girls in a way that can only be described as sexual abuse. She inserted swabs into their vaginas. She measured their vaginas with tape measures, not once, not twice, but over and over again. She kept saying to these little girls: “This is what your fathers do to you, isn’t it?”. One little girl says that Dr Espie rubbed her breasts, and when the little girl cried Dr Espie slapped her and said she was having a bad day.

That was child abuse, but, worse, this doctor convinced the Department of Social Welfare that these girls were being sexually abused by their fathers. The girls were not allowed home to their families until their mothers agreed to separate from their husbands. The police investigated these men and found there was not a shred of evidence that they had sexually abused their daughters. These families have been destroyed. One of the girls, whom I am in contact with now, is a very, very damaged young lady. She was put into foster care. She was abused in foster care. She lived on the streets from the age of 11. Eventually, she found her way back to her father. These people have fought for 17 years for justice, for someone to just stand up and say “I’m sorry.”, and for Dr Espie to be accountable. Nothing has ever been done by any Government, despite letters written by Helen Clark and Phil Goff, letters to Katherine O’Regan and Peter Gresham.

In 1987 the Cartwright inquiry was appalled that vaginal swabs were taken from stillborn female foetuses without parental consent. This situation is worse because no Government has been appalled by it. Why did not any one care about these families? I believe that if Dr Espie was a male doctor, she would have been brought to justice and she might well be in jail now. She might well be innocent, but she needs to be brought to an inquiry, which I have asked this House to instigate. I ask members of this House to imagine for one moment that their children had gone off to a health camp with minor health problems and never come home to their families again, and that they had been sexually examined without parental consent. How would fathers feel being accused of sexually abusing their daughters? How would mothers feel being forced to break up their families so that they can keep their children? The State has enormous power. It has huge powers. It has abused its power in this case, and the State can try to do something to put it right. The State has been so wrong, and I implore the Minister of Justice to act on my letter and my petition to do something for these families.

I want to turn to National Party members at this point, because they have got themselves into a pretty pickle. They have decided to have this whole new policy of everything—it is called “neither confirm, nor deny”. For a long time they languished in insignificance and nobody took any notice of them; then, suddenly, someone is taking notice of them, and they have found it has got an awful lot harder because people are starting to take notice of what they are saying.

In respect of the Holidays Act, only a few months ago Dr Brash promised he would repeal the fourth week’s holiday. The weekend he gave a speech on the Holidays Act, he did not mention repealing the fourth week’s holiday. He was suddenly no longer comfortable with repealing the fourth week’s holiday.

They are now in a total blue funk over nuclear-free status and defence issues. Their problem is simple—they have the love that dare not speak its name, in this respect. We know they want to declare their undying love for the United States. They will go wherever the US will go—no matter what, no matter where, no matter what the price, even if it is Simon Power’s head, the man who is on his way to becoming a cabin boy on a US naval vessel. Dr Brash said: “I have a personal view, and at this point I’m not expressing it.” What is really going on is that they are trying to sing the words of the “Star Spangled Banner” to the tune of “God Defend New Zealand”, and it is not coming out quite right as far as the public is concerned.

Then, enter on the stage Simon Power, or “Nuclear Power” as he is now known to all New Zealanders. “Without reservation”, he said, “we will support our close allies.” Wherever the US goes we go; wherever Britain goes we go; wherever Australia goes we go; and if they go in different directions, we’ll go in different directions as well at the same time! He made the great mistake of National Party politics—he told the truth. He should have learnt by now. He has been there long enough. One should never do that in the National Party.

Who can doubt that what he said is what they all want to say in the National Party. Goodness me, even Dr Lockwood Smith’s smile gets bigger when he sees a picture of a United States political leader—if that is at all possible. We know that Dr Brash said to US congressmen: “If it was up to me, by lunchtime the nuclear-free legislation would go.” He has now complained that he was misreported. Now he is starting to say “I simply do not recall what I said.”—only a few months ago!

Here we have Dr Brash in America, where it is: “Hail to the Chief”, and at home in New Zealand it is: “Hail to the Chiefs”. We know what he thinks, because he said: “I frankly am uncomfortable with where we are currently.” When Dr Brash says that he is uncomfortable, he means that he is opposed to it. That is “Brashspeak” for being opposed to something. We all know what he wants to do. He wants to lift the nuclear-free ban. He wants those American ships in here. He wants to buddy-up so he can brush up on his mid-Pacific accent, and then he can move on and hope to get some kind of free-trade deal in the future.

He took a very brave position and said: “I’ll do nothing without a mandate.” In other words, as long as he is in Opposition the nuclear-free legislation will not change, but if he is elected to Government the nuclear-free legislation will change. It is a very brave stance to take, to say: “I’ll do nothing without a mandate.” in a democracy! As for Iraq, last year Dr Brash said: “I think I would have done what President Bush did.” He now feels “very uncomfortable” with where we currently are. It seems to me that he is a man who lives his life in discomfort.

So what is the National Party’s policy on war? “We’ll go to war if the United States asks us to. No hesitation. We’re off.” A year later we will feel “very uncomfortable” about having gone to war! This National Party has peaked too early, indeed. It is very clear that when the horror of Government faces National members, when they have to have a position on something other than bashing Māori, they are not up to the job at all. All they are able to do, on any issue, is feel uncomfortable.

Today the National Party is releasing papers obtained under the Official Information Act in relation to the police decision to prosecute Shane Ardern, member of Parliament. Today the National Party is asking the public and the media to draw their own conclusions about the material on that file. After the incident on the steps of Parliament Buildings, all that Shane Ardern, the member for Taranaki - King Country, wanted was to be treated by the New Zealand justice system as any other New Zealander would be treated. We now know that Mr Ardern was not treated as any other New Zealander would have been treated.

We know, first and foremost, because the judge who sat on the status hearing to the case told us so. He told us that this was a matter that “would normally not trouble this court”. The judge told us: “If it had been anybody else it would have gone no further.” The judge told us that there were “other powers and agendas” at play. That is a strong statement from a judge of the District Court: “other powers and agendas”. So, today, the National Party asks what those “other powers and agendas” were. What does the Minister know about those “other powers and agendas”?

Why is it that Shane Ardern, member of Parliament, was not treated as any other New Zealander would have been treated? We know, because we have now obtained a copy of the prosecution review by Senior Sergeant Brendan Erasmuson. The review makes it clear that the view of the prosecutor’s office was that it was a poor case, that the chances of success were “nearly zero”, and that even if Mr Ardern were convicted he would be discharged under section 106. The report also says that to proceed would make the police look silly. Even worse, in the view of the prosecutor it would make the police look politically partisan. That is what the prosecutor told the police, in writing.

The police prosecution service was established in 1998 to ensure that decisions made about appropriate charging, whether to proceed, and so on, were made by specialists and, above all else, that they were made by independent specialists, independent from investigating police officers. What we know from the documentation that has been released now is that that was not an independent process, because a very senior officer, one Superintendent John Kelly from head office, tried to obstruct the proper operation of the independent police prosecution office. He said, in a memorandum to the police prosecution service: “In relation to this issue there are to be no moves to withdraw this matter.” This was a direct instruction from a superintendent of police, the regional commander at the time, saying to all his police underlings that if they did not do what he said, they could not expect to have a bright and rosy future in the police force in this country. That is what the email, unmistakably, said to any officer beneath who read it. That was the instruction that went out to the police prosecution service.

Notwithstanding that communication, the Police Prosecution Service review is damning. It says that the charging of Mr Ardern is “fraught with difficulties”. It says: “It is probable that following Mr Ardern’s evidence, or the production of his statement, the case would fail once the court had seen the evidence.” It says further: “The chances of this matter resulting in a conviction are nearly zero. Even if the prosecution established a prima facie case, after defence evidence and some days of hearing time a section 106 discharge would almost be a certainty.” Then we have this: “Given the many times when others have not had the sanction of prosecution at protests, with arguably more serious offending, public condemnation of the prosecution would probably take place.”

My Labour coalition colleagues have talked of the disgraceful plans National has to take us into unilaterally declared foreign wars and put us under the nuclear umbrella, which the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want. I want, however, this afternoon to discuss one other issue dear to the hearts of most New Zealanders. I want to talk about retirement income, or the right to retire with dignity and in a degree of comfort.

In 1991 I was the sole member of the independent progressive party in this Parliament at the time, NewLabour. I went to a seminar sponsored by the then National Government and addressed by Treasury. In 1991, members may recall, we had a National Government with Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson—an ideological ally of the current National leader. Let me tell the House this afternoon what Treasury was considering for retirement income when its political master was Ruth Richardson, so the House can know what Treasury would be doing if Don Brash were ever in charge of the show around here.

In June 1991, Treasury was writing reports to the Minister of Finance of the day, Ruth Richardson, looking at the fiscal savings that could be made by raising the age of eligibility to national superannuation to 75 years. [Interruption] That is right. National was looking at raising the age of superannuation to 75 years of age. That would be a fiscal saving because most people—Pākehā males, Māori females, and Māori males—would never live long enough to collect it. I remember saying that to Treasury people, and they just smiled—what a good idea! It is a policy that would steal the right to retire in dignity. It would be an attack on the system of values that is absolutely fundamental to the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders.

In 1991 Treasury examined the option of raising the age of superannuation entitlement to 75 to be introduced finally by April 2000. So by now, if Dr Brash and others had had their way, we would have a retirement age of 75 as we speak. Government officials do not do these studies out of academic interest. They do them because their political masters consider them worthy of examination. I have the briefing papers with me to the then Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson, and to the Minister of Social Welfare at the time, and I intend to table them in the House.

Recently there was an Official Information Act request to Treasury, because I had said I was opposed to Treasury’s proposal in 1991 under the then National Government, to the retirement age being lifted to 72. The Business Roundtable took an Official Information Act request thinking that I was exaggerating what I had said. Well, I was under-exaggerating. It was actually 75. My recollection was that it was 72. I would not have dreamt of saying to anybody that it was 75, because I would not have thought that anyone would be silly enough to put “75”, but they were. When I read the papers, I found I had actually understated it—it was 75, not 72.

It is interesting that the Business Roundtable sought an Official Information Act request. The request was sent to the Business Roundtable last week, and I have not heard a word. Basically the Business Roundtable thought I was exaggerating—72 could not possibly be true, but no, it was 75! I am glad the Business Roundtable actually asked, because I had forgotten how bad it really was.

National will not only be on the back foot regarding unilaterally declared foreign wars, nuclear umbrellas, and Kiwibank during next year’s election, it will have to explain why it does not accept the commitment of most Kiwis to a policy to deliver retirement with dignity in our own country. National will have to explain why Don Brash said this to the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference: “New Zealand will need to gradually raise the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand super, reflecting the gradual increase in life expectancy and improved health among the elderly.” So as we improve the health of the elderly, and they live longer, we are going to make sure they do not get superannuation, because we are going to lift the age of entitlement! That was Dr Brash when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. He has said similar things recently. He has not changed his view. The campaign will be fought on issues such as that, and I look forward to it. Make our day!

At question time today the Associate Minister for Biosecurity confirmed that the Government has no policy on the pulling out of genetically engineered crops. Well, I think she did—I could not really understand what she was saying. Maybe she did not confirm that the Government does have a policy. When I asked her whether it was going to pull out the crops, she said: “Oh no, that would be a breach of our zero tolerance policy.” When I said: “OK, you do pull them up.”, she said: “No, we’re not going to pull them up because we haven’t got a policy for compensating farmers.” She used to be indecisive, but now she is not so sure.

I think it is really extraordinary that the Government does not have a policy on something as important as this. It is making it up as it goes along. It is trying to make the policy fit the facts, post factum—after it has happened. I thought policies were supposed to be a set of principles.

“Corngate” occurred in 2000. The cover-up was exposed in 2002. It is simply not good enough to get to this time, and the Government still does not have a policy, much less a plan of action. What the Government must do, and soon, is legislate for strict liability for GE companies that contaminate other crops. We need to be able to sue laboratories that misreport results so that we do not have the taxpayer propping up corporates all the time. We do not need the New Zealand taxpayer paying for the negligence of overseas corporates.

When Biogenetic Services—the company that did the testing—was certified in 2002 it passed its tests. When it was certified in 2004 it failed its tests. I want to know what happened in the meantime. Did the tests change? Did the certification change? Did we ask the right questions in 2002? Has the laboratory changed? Have its processes changed? I do not know, and I am sure the Minister does not know.

The Minister seems to be quite comfortable with the idea that there will be contamination of crops. But what she does not seem to appreciate is that crops are living, reproducing things. So if one has a contamination, as Larry Baldock said, of half a rugby field this year, it will grow, reproduce, and get bigger—that is surprising. So in the future the contamination will be much bigger. How does one keep a low contamination rate if the contamination keeps getting bigger? Nobody has ever answered that question satisfactorily.

The fundamental question in all of this is: why is the Government continuing to prop up this failed technology, when it is clearly in full-scale retreat around the world? Let me give members several examples from just the last few weeks. Yesterday Monsanto, that great white hope for genetic engineering, withdrew its genetically engineered wheat from commercialisation because of overwhelming resistance from consumers and farmers. Last week New Zealand’s Life Sciences Network, which was established to promote genetic engineering in this country, was disbanded. To read from its own press release, it was disbanded “because it does not have enough subscribers.”

Last month Western Australia banned the growing of all GE crops “to preserve its markets.” The American state of Vermont, the good old USA, the home of genetic engineering, passed legislation making biotechnology corporates liable for any problems arising from the use of GE technology, and thereby effectively banned the growing of GE crops in that state. That is what is happening in the rest of the world. Far from being at the forefront of this technology, it looks as though we will be left high and dry when the tide goes out and, believe me, the tide is going out very quickly at the moment.

There are a number of issues that we need to get our heads around before we embrace GE in this country. I have said them before, but they are worth repeating. The main one for everybody, but for farmers in particular, is economics. Ours is a market-driven economy. It is incumbent on us to provide what the market demands. The market signals in this case are crystal-clear.

I seek leave to table briefing notes to the former Minister of Finance and Minister of Social Welfare in 1991 about raising the age of entitlement to superannuation to 75.

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

What a week of undignified gaffs it has been for the National Party! We had the defence spokesperson revealing the shameful abandonment of the control of our forces. That is what awaits the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force—nothing less. And, of course, we had the regular flip-flops of the National Party leader. I want to tell National members that being in Government is about making decisions. They are often difficult decisions, and often they have to be based on imperfect information. I tell Dr Brash that unlike the wonderful, rarefied, hermetically sealed world that he has occupied for almost his entire adult life, in Government one does not actually get a report about the end result of critical events before one makes the decisions. That is why our defence deployments have to be made on the basis of a firm policy that is based on sound principles. When a policy position is taken, one cannot take it in secret.

Let us look at the facts of that event. On 1 May, the senior front-bench spokesperson on defence for National delivered a planned and substantial speech to a regional party conference. In that speech Mr Power uttered the now infamous words: “Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia, United States, and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” It was not a throwaway line. On the contrary, it was a cornerstone tenet of the speech and, as every member in this House knows, very much in keeping with the sorts of sentiments often uttered by senior National Party members in this House. I have no doubt that Lockwood Smith, when he gets up to speak, as I am sure he will—he is the only one left—will say something similar.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

I withdraw. Let us be clear about matters. Mr Power was so confident of the position he had taken in the speech that he not only had it placed immediately on the party’s official website but even issued the thing in its entirety as a press statement. That is why Dr Brash, in my view, was so upset with Mr Power. It was another embarrassment for National. It was like Dr Brash before him, when Dr Brash refused to come clean to New Zealanders on his extremist nuclear power policy but quite happy to make sycophantic noises behind closed doors, saying that when he became the Prime Minister, it would be gone by lunchtime. This was another extremist National Party position on defence, revealed by its spokesperson on defence, Mr Power, to the people of New Zealand.

Mind you, Dr Brash was equally flip-flopping. He was just as gung-ho a few weeks ago in relation to Iraq: “Where they go we should follow.”, he said. That is what he was about. Now, in what is sadly more a crisis of competence than a crisis of conscience—would that it were—we have the absurd spectacle of Dr Brash lurching around indecisively, with one vague, non-committal policy after another. He has all the finesse of a barefoot Mr Bean hopping around shoeless on a hot, tar-sealed road.

Let me be very clear that this Government believes that New Zealand is a sovereign nation. New Zealanders expect nothing less than a considered but independent New Zealand view and stance on where and when we engage in international military deployments. The people of New Zealand now have a very clear and simple choice when it comes to defence. They have a Labour-led Government, which will always retain what must be the ultimate responsibility of any credible Government—decisions on where and when to deploy our servicemen and women into harm’s way must be the responsibility, openly, of Government—or they can choose the cavalier abandonment of that responsibility by the National Party and its mates, if, God forbid, National ever gets back on to the Treasury benches of this House.

💬 Ron Mark: What about Iraq?

I say to Mr Mark in passing that we are in Iraq as a response to a United Nations mandate to go and assist the people of Iraq with the humanitarian rebuilding of that country.

That member who has just resumed his seat is New Zealand’s Minister of Defence, and all New Zealanders have reason to feel very concerned at that. The last occasion on which New Zealand military forces were deployed was in our part of the world, in the Solomons, which is a country where New Zealand has a serious responsibility for maintaining security, regardless of what anyone else does. That Minister well knows that the way he and the Prime Minister dilly-dallied and mucked around over whether New Zealand would commit an infantry company to the Solomons became so bad that the Prime Minister of Australia was on the verge of saying: “Stuff them, we’ll put another company into the Solomons ourselves.” New Zealand, under Labour, is becoming so unreliable that it cannot be relied on even to take its responsible place in the Pacific. That is what Labour has done to our defence standing in this part of the world, where we have a responsibility.

Just yesterday the Government of Australia announced a $338 million subsidy for its wine producers. It is being done by way of a tax rebate that works out at $290,000 per wine producer. National wants to know what this smart alec Government has done about that. Has it just bent over and kowtowed to the Australians? What has this smart alec Government done? Under Closer Economic Relations, the Australians would, at least, have had to consult New Zealand before implementing that policy. We have heard nothing on this issue from the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Jim Sutton, nothing from Phil Goff, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and nothing from the Prime Minister. It is an issue that will cost New Zealand’s wine-growing industry hugely. Every bottle of wine it sells in our third-biggest export market, Australia, will be up against a subsidised Australian product.

The question is this: did Australia consult with this Labour Government before announcing that subsidy? If not, that speaks volumes about the relationship between the Labour Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia. If Australia did consult New Zealand, which it is meant to do on matters affecting business opportunities in both countries, then it obviously took no notice of what our Labour Government said, unless Jim Sutton said Australia could go ahead and do it. Obviously, Australia took no notice of New Zealand. Either way, it shows how damaged New Zealand’s relationship is with Australia that the Government of Australia would take this action and screw New Zealand’s wine industry, without even turning a hair.

This announcement follows hard on the heels of what we saw last year, when Australia chose to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States of America without New Zealand being there. We are Australia’s Closer Economic Relations partner and also its Anzac partner, but that country told us it did not want us there. The latest estimate of that trade deal is not now $4 billion, as previously estimated; the latest estimate of the benefit to the Australian economy, as at the end of last month, is $6 billion. The irony of it all, in terms of the relationship between this Labour Government and Australia, is that this weekend a leadership forum is to take place here in Wellington. Of course, we will hear lots of fine words coming out of that forum, but that will not alter the fact that this Labour Government has damaged for all New Zealanders their relationship with Australia.

I want to talk about a reason why the National Party should never govern this country again. I point members of the House to a report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee regarding the sale of Paraparaumu Airport by National in 1995. What did that committee conclude? It concluded that the National Government sold Paraparaumu Airport and ignored its strategic and national importance. It was sold cheaply—below the price it should have sold for. New Zealand taxpayers—and all New Zealanders—missed out on somewhere between $1.5 million and $3 million, maybe even more.

That Government sold the airport without protecting the rights of the people who had had land taken off them under the Public Works Act. It knew that the law was deficient, but it still sold that airport, and those people’s rights were not properly protected by law. Māori interests were also said to be covered by the law, but for 3 or 4 years Cabinet papers indicated there was no such protection. So the State sold the airport knowing that both Pākehā and Māori who had had land taken off them were not protected by law.

The committee concluded that the paper trail on this whole sorry transaction was woeful. It agreed that the evaluation stage of the tender process was seriously flawed, and that Government processes fell well below the standards expected in an asset sale of this type. Why did this happen? That question needs to be explored by a full Government inquiry. Why did that Government sell below the price? Why did it not protect the interests of the previous owners? Why did it ignore the strategic value of that airport?

Perhaps a paper I came across very late in the piece may help us to understand one of the reasons it was sold like that. I shall quote from it. It is about another airport sale that was happening at the same time: “Earlier, in respect of Ardmore, the Minister was briefed regarding an approach by Mr Warren Kyd MP, who was involved with one of the potential purchasers. The ministry’s view was that political involvement in the sales could be embarrassing. The Minister agreed with this position and Mr Kyd was cautioned accordingly.”

We want an inquiry to investigate whether the National Party was being completely incompetent, or whether there was political interference by local members of Parliament in those airport sales. We are not just talking about Paraparaumu. Ardmore has come up in the paper work, and we want answers. The New Zealand public deserves answers from the National Party, because we have documentary evidence from correspondence written during its stewardship—which I will table—between the Auditor-General’s office and the Ministry of Transport. The Auditor-General’s office wanted to ask questions. The Ministry of Transport sent back the letter I have quoted from, indicating why some of the processes were slipped by. This was despite Cabinet paper after Cabinet paper, which I will also table, indicating that the Government knew that the law was inadequate, that it was selling the airport too cheaply, and that it went against its advisers’ advice as to how the airport should be sold.

The Government ignored the local people’s wishes and the strategic and national importance of that airport. It is one of the shoddiest things I have ever seen in my time in Parliament, and that view is shared by just about every party on the select committee. New Zealand First, ACT, the Greens, and Labour all were in agreement that the sale was a shoddy piece of work, and we said so in the report. We are asking the Government to inquire into this. We want to know whether there was political interference or incompetence.

Perhaps Dr Brash could come up with answers for the New Zealand public. He wants to be put in charge of New Zealand’s assets again. He wants a chance to privatise even more of our assets, at below their value, in dodgy ways, and maybe with improper interference from his own MPs. These are serious questions to which this Parliament deserves answers. This Government is being asked by a select committee to inquire, and we expect it to inquire. We want answers, and so do the people in Paraparaumu who signed a petition 2 years ago to have this matter looked at. We want to give answers to them and to all New Zealand taxpayers.

Twice I listened to Lockwood Smith’s speech last night, and again today. Three times I have asked that member whether he stands by the position of Simon Power, that where Australia, the UK, and the US go, New Zealand will go unreservedly. I asked him three times. That member is a former trade Minister. Three times the cock crowed, but that member did not answer. Three times he would not answer.

If it is not National Party policy, why does he not front up and distance himself from Mr Power? The National Party now has “Simon says” one day “hands on heads”, and “Simon says” something else another day, but we do not know what the National Party’s position is. As I said last night, surely foreign policy and defence policy issues and concerns are rightfully determined by a sovereign nation like New Zealand on its own terms; not led by the nose.

Historically, at Gallipoli we followed others. That may have been the right thing to do, historically. We followed our allies. We should still commit our support to our allies where appropriate. However, I have to say today that the people of New Zealand have the choice of a Government—Labour—that will make those decisions based on the righteousness of the causes, our own domestic requirements, our own concerns, on our own terms, and not under pressure. On the other hand, we have a National Party that says we will go, regardless of whether the cause is righteous or honourable, and regardless of what anybody else thinks internationally. It will be led by the nose. [Interruption] For trade deals, as my colleague John Tamihere says.

Under a National Government, if ever Simon Power were the Minister of Defence, I would like him to front up to tell every Kiwi service person that they would walk up the ramp of the Hercules to go off to battle, risk their lives, and maybe not return. They would not know what they were fighting for, because a National Government—if it ever got there—would never address that issue.

The National Party will not debate economics, or the best employment figures we have had since 1987. It will not debate the best OECD growth in the OECD rankings. The only issue it will debate is race. If we look at Don Brash, the great economic genius—so he tells us—we see a man who has no charisma. He will not front up to debate economics, he is hollowed out, and is either agnostic or uncomfortable with every issue. We do not know what his position is. When I look at Dr Brash I am reminded of the wonderful quote from Winston Churchill about Clement Attlee, who, like Dr Brash, was sadly lacking in charisma and a solid position. Winston Churchill said: “An empty cab pulled up outside the House of Commons and Clement Attlee got out.” I am sadly reminded of Dr Brash.

Dr Brash rebuked Simon Power over the foreign and defence policy. As I said last night, we have nuclear power, wind power, and now we have Simon Power. I want to reflect for a moment on the National Party’s foreign policy stance on Iraq. When we said that we would think this through, we would make commitments, but on our own terms, the National Party flew into a frenzy because we would not engage blindly or unreservedly. National was hollowed out with frustration. Why? Not because of its hatred of tyrants and despotism, because of a deep love and affinity for the Iraq people, or because they were on the trail of weapons of mass destruction. National wanted to commit unreservedly, not on our own terms, simply to gain a trade deal from Uncle Sam. That is distasteful. Many Kiwis recognise that that is distasteful.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Selling our sovereignty.

Selling our sovereignty. When a country says it will send troops unreservedly, no matter what, without question, what that does is surrender sovereignty, and surrender control of foreign policy and defence policy, which is then dictated by others. More important, it surrenders the command and control of its own troops. That has happened in our past, and in some respects we have paid the price for it.

I seek leave to table the documents I referred to, which are letters from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Ministry of Transport, and Cabinet papers.

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

One of my Christmas presents was a calendar, entitled “George W. Bushisms 2004 Day-to-Day Calendar”.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: “Locky”, the pin-up?

No, it was not. There are no pictures in it. The calendar is very humorous, featuring a laugh a day, a gaffe a day, from President Bush. Each day has a statement containing spoonerisms, malapropisms, contradictions, strange and unrelated facts, and misuse of words. The calendar is a litany of gaffes by the President of the United States. I now understand why Dr Brash wishes to visit the United States. It is to get his gaffes, his “Brash-isms”, published; or perhaps it is so that “Dithering Don”—which is what he is called on television—can get an honorary doctorate in indecision. There is at least a gaffe a day from Don Brash.

I shall share some of those “Brash-isms”, ditherings, and dilly-dallying with members. The first one is on Iraq, and states: “The Americans didn’t handle Iraq as well as might have been done.” When Don Brash was pressured over his stance on the war in Iraq, he said: “I think I would have done what President Bush did.”, and then: “I guess in hindsight it’s easy to see what might have been done differently.”—dilly-dallying Don Brash. There is a calendar here, definitely. On nuclear policy, he is reported to have told an American congressional delegation in January that if National became the Government the ban on nuclear ships would be “gone by lunchtime”. Now he claims not to remember what he said, and I quote: “What I said to them precisely I simply do not recall. It’s more than 4 months ago.” This sounds very much like some of those “Bush-isms”, but would members believe it, they are “Brash-isms”.

On the subject of schools, Dr Brash said: “For my part, I do not care who owns the schools.” Later he said: “Well, we might be better off to look carefully at other models, where the Government funds education but where most schools are privately owned or operated.” He was dilly-dallying once again, not able to make up his mind. Then on health he said he wants user-pays: “Prices in a competitive market are usually a more reliable indicator of where resources should be allocated than political or bureaucratic edict. The problem area of health care can be solved through the price mechanism.” Goodness knows what happens when people are sick. Then Mr Brash said: “I am certainly not going to step into the political maelstrom, which is the health-care debate, at least in part, because I simply do not know what to suggest or recommend.” Those comments were made by someone who thinks he might possibly one day be the leader of this country. He was dilly-dallying once again.

On the question of equality, Dr Brash has said—and he keeps reminding us—that his wife is from Singapore, and he totally believes in equality. Then he said: “National is absolutely committed to returning more flexibility to New Zealand’s increasingly regulated labour market.” Next, when he is asked whether he would hire a Pākehā over a Māori, he said: “If I was an employer looking at two people who applied for a job with equal qualifications and I saw someone who was actively involved in a marae I clearly would have to be less inclined to hire that person.” Goodness knows what “actively involved in a marae” means, but it certainly does not mean flexibility on Dr Brash’s behalf. It was another “Brash-ism”.

Let us look at what he says about holidays: “My strong recommendation would be to leave workers to choose with their bosses how much leave they have and how much wages they have.” Then, when asked whether he would repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday legislation, he said: “Well, that would be my recommendation to caucus, yes.” —another matter of dilly-dallying, another “Brash-ism”.

The injustices and underhanded double-dealing in the sale of the Paraparaumu Airport in 1995 are scandalous, and something has to be done now—better than never—so that we do have one law for everybody. This is a combination of bureaucratic incompetence and calculated manipulation by merchants of greed, and one more National Government - supervised land theft.

The saga began with the compulsory acquisition of mainly Māori-owned land in 1939 under the Public Works Act to build an alternative to the Wellington airport. Since that time, a litany of shonky deals and blatant abuses of power have seen local Māori and other citizens ripped off. Under a National administration in 1995, Māori were denied the opportunity to take back possession of the land, which had been grabbed from them in 1939. In the 1990s the National Government decided to sell Paraparaumu Airport, and, through a series of shonky tender processes, a group of Kapiti property speculators and developers, Murray Cole, Bill Doak, Michael Mainey, and David Haywood, in cahoots with Ernst and Young, grabbed it for a bargain-basement price. These business people lied to the select committee about their real intentions.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Who was the Minister?

The National Party, all by itself, was in power—and no one else is going to take responsibility for that.

A Māori claim over the land was ignored, and the Māori who wanted their land back were literally told to go to hell. Ernst and Young, which was controlling the process for the Ministry of Transport, did accounting work for one of the successful tenderers, advising him of tax matters on running the airport, and in fact they were listed on the tender document. That is a massive and clear conflict of interest. On Ernst and Young’s recommendation, the Ministry of Transport sold the land for $1.6 million—the whole airport—when another valuation said it was worth at least $3.5 million. Those business people have now been subdividing the land, and selling blocks for housing and commercial developments. That is not, surely, an airport purpose, and they are making a killing while the original owners get shafted. They have made, on one subdivision alone, a clear million dollars already—almost half the price has already been made on one minor subdivision.

Who was in Government at the time? Well, the people on the National benches did this, and now they want to be, of all things, in Government again. Who was the local member? It was Roger Sowry. Who was the Minister of Transport at the time? It was a National man.

💬 Richard Worth: Roger Sowry is a good man.

Oh, I see. Here is the party that demands there be one law for everybody and that says Māori are getting far too good a deal when here, locally, Māori have been totally ripped off. When those members had a chance to uphold the law—the first offer back should have been to Māori—they utterly ignored it. This is hardly a group of politicians who are entitled to be back on the Treasury benches, not by themselves, anyway—that would be a fearsome sight—with a leader who cannot find the parliamentary toilets or remember what he said 4 months ago on something as important as a group of American senators discussing foreign policy with him.

New Zealand First believes that a full inquiry is justified, and now. And if we are to have one law for everyone, then let us have it now—a law where the issues of fairness are paramount, regardless of race. I am expecting National Party members to join this call, because that is what they have been ranting and raving about around the country for the last 3 or 4 months. Let us have one law for all. Let us ensure that those rightful owners are restored to their position, and not have a few people close to the National Party getting away with hell.

I want to know, in this inquiry, who was involved politically. I want these people, on oath, to tell us what the background scene was, because this stinks to high heaven, and the sooner we sort it out the better we will be as a cohesive country.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.