General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. On Monday we saw the second National Party reshuffle in a year—the second episode of The Young and the Restless, or, at least, “The Young and the Restless Plus Dr Brash”. Of course, in one sense, Dr Brash has become the perfect National Party leader—an absentee landlord. He turns up on occasions to collect the rent.

💬 Hon Member: What about the Prime Minister?

She is doing Government business in the Tokelaus and Samoa, not just poncing around somewhere, never seen by anybody. Unlike the leader of the National Party, she is shown on the front page of the Dominion-Post doing her job. It is a good job that Don Brash is not on his beloved performance pay; he would be below the poverty line if he were.

But the most extraordinary thing is what has happened to Simon Power—the man who would be king but could not even make it to being prince in the first place; the man who found out that indolence, a good jaw, and a taste for conservative suits is not enough in the 21st century to be leader of the National Party; a man who failed but gets rewarded with a pay rise. That is the National Party’s approach to rewarding merit. He is now a senior whip and is ranked seven places above the finance spokesperson.

This is the whole new approach to Government that we are seeing from the National Party. It shows how it has abandoned the core issues. Look at National’s spokespersons. The spokespersons on finance, health, agriculture, and foreign affairs all sit in the second row. This is the party of farmers, the party of cosying up to the United States, the party that taxes on health, the party of finance—all those spokespersons are in sitting in the second row. National’s spokesperson on conservation, its associate spokesperson for this, and its associate spokesperson that are all sitting in the front row at the present time. Simon Power sits on the front bench and his colleague on the back bench—the whips cannot even talk to each other in the National Party these days. But what can one expect from a leader with 2 years’ parliamentary experience and a total of 20 hours actually sitting in the House throughout those 2 years? That is what we have got.

Look at the rest of them. Ms Rich wanders around looking like a pre-Raphaelite painting trying to find a frame. She had a big row with Dr Brash a couple of weeks back. He wants time-limited benefits and she does not, and she is right so in the future she had better stick up for herself against him.

And now Mr Key. Mr Key has been promoted a short distance. But note his comments: “I came into Parliament with the real aim of being Minister of Finance.” That is what one could call a modest person, for a first-term MP. But the funny thing is that that is exactly what Don Brash said when he came into Parliament—“I went into politics with the intention of becoming the next Minister of Finance.” Imagine if one is Dr Brash and Mr Key has just said exactly what Dr Brash said! “I’m just happy to be the spokesperson on finance.”, says Mr Key. No wonder he is being kept back in the second row at present, a long dagger’s throw from the front bench. And, of course, what about differences on policy? Mr Key thinks the superannuation policy is quite a good idea. Mr Brash thinks it is some great big kind of con job. Who will win that great policy debate? Who will win the policy debate on State assets? Dr Brash wants to flog them off. Mr Key came from what he calls a sort of State house. I am not sure what a “sort of State house” is, but that is what he actually said on radio. He said he wants to keep those State assets, because he knows how important State assets can be to future successful international bankers in terms of their careers.

Let us next look at what has happened to the rest of them. All the grumpy old men are sitting in the second and third rows. David Carter spent a couple of months on the front bench—the peak of his career. Lockwood Smith can go home and look at the photos on the wall again and dream of what might have been. Mr Richard Worth has proclaimed his ambition any number of times in the National Business Review to be deputy leader, but nobody except the National Business Review takes any notice of those particular claims. Georgina te Heuheu, has been relegated to the unranked, and poor old Wayne Mapp, again a relic from the front bench, is there at the back. But welcome back, Mr Ryall, to put a firm hand on the front bench of the National Party!

The final clue to the internal dynamics of the National Party is that the caucus secretary is also the spokesperson on food safety, and she is dispensable because she is retiring. She takes the notes, and tastes the food at the same time.

Yesterday the Minister for the Environment signed the Packaging Accord. We have some difficulty with the fact that the accord is voluntary. We believe that the targets need to be a tad more demanding than the 65 percent recovery rate for aluminium when we are already saving 70 percent. We think the 23 percent recovery rate is likely to be met by the recycling operations of local bodies. Although we may be pessimistic about the effectiveness of the accord, we are committed to reducing the amount of packages, pottles, plastic, and polystyrene that go into the nation’s shopping baskets, wheelie bins, rubbish skips, and landfills.

Yesterday the Minister drew attention to the success of some recovery operations. It is essential that we recover the resources from products we discard, and we applaud the activities of successful waste initiatives. However, I was more encouraged by her references to design efforts to reduce the amount of packaging, because it is the sheer volume of the stuff that we use and discard and the unrecoverable energy used in the manufacture, packaging, and transport of that stuff that contribute to the catastrophic climate change and sea-level rises confronting our children and our grandchildren. The packaging accord needs to be seen not just as a mechanism to reduce the amount of stuff we generate but as an essential component in reducing our energy and resource consumption, and the ecological footprint of our all-too-often hugely profligate lives.

Climate change is no longer a vague, scientific hypothesis somewhere in the distant future; it is already happening. It is happening here and it is happening now. And for those who doubt climate change, or that we are responsible for it, I refer them to a recent article by National Party candidate and long-time environmentalist, Guy Salmon, who wrote, in the winter of this year, Is climate change scientifically unproven?

The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, the “IPCC”, was set up to advise Governments on the complex scientific issues involved in climate change. It strives to obtain a broad consensus of thousands of experts on all aspects of the topic. Thanks to the culture of integrity in the global scientific community and the cautious thoroughness of the panel’s processes, the 20-year debate over whether greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the global climate has now largely fizzled out. Significant uncertainty still surrounds the rate of change and the likely global and regional effects, and these provide scope for argument. But the case for actively managing humankind’s emissions into the atmosphere has been convincingly made.

Packaging waste is a significant component in those emissions. It would be churlish of us not to commend the Minister for drawing attention to the waste issue, for this is what the accord does; but the absence of encouragement for producers who use refillable containers, who use recycled materials in their packaging, or who do away with the packaging altogether are serious omissions.

I want to speak briefly about one of the more successful initiatives. Carter Holt Harvey’s Full Circle paper and card recovery operations are an example of what can happen when there is a market for recycled materials. Full Circle works with waste operators from one end of the country to the other, and paper has become a key component in waste-recovery operations. However, it is of little comfort to the people whose lives have been devastated by the mudslips resulting from illegal logging, done to produce pulp for the paper that is being recycled, particularly if that paper is never read, is printed only on one side, and is used for documents that are not needed in hard copy. So full marks to Full Circle, but let us remember that recycling is what one does with stuff that was made to throw away, and the first priority in the waste reduction hierarchy is reuse.

Taking a pile of sand on the other side of the world, pouring in a heap of energy and turning it into a bottle, shipping the bottle around the world, filling it once, emptying it, and smashing it, even when it is turned into another bottle, is wasteful. It is inexcusably wasteful. Taking another shopping bag every time we make a purchase is wasteful, inexcusably wasteful. Using polypropylene and cling film around fresh fruit and vegetables is just plain silly.

We do not question the sincerity of the Government’s intentions; it is the lack of urgency that concerns us. And we are running out of time.

We all know that the three most-used words by the individuals who make up the National Party are: “Why not me?”. Those words have been heard a lot around this Parliament over the last little while, because of the latest Brash reshuffle. The National Party, by my count, has changed its leader three times and its deputy leader four times since Labour has been in Government, and it has reshuffled so often that we on this side of the House are getting dizzy. It has reshuffled so often that we simply cannot keep up with the people it is moving backwards and forwards. Each time a reshuffle takes place, the words “Why not me?” echo around Khandallah, Remuera, Fendalton, and gentlemen’s clubs all over the country.

As members of the out-group, Roger Sowry and Lynda Scott have already decided “why not them”, and they have gone. They have answered the question. They have gone. But what must it feel like to be still here? National thinks that whipping is so important that the No. 3 slot in the party has gone to Simon Power. Whipping is now the No. 3 issue for the National Party. It thinks that finance is so unimportant that John Key is on the second bench. It thinks that health is so unimportant that its only doctor, Paul Hutchison, cannot get the job as health spokesperson. Not even mindless loyalty pays off, because Lockwood Smith has not moved at all.

This is not a party that is getting down to the hard work of developing policy to lead this country into the 21st century; this is a party of wounded egos, of mistrust, and of personal ambition. The incredibly ambitious Mr John Key, who already has his eye on leadership, has distanced himself day by day from super Don Brash. On the issue of superannuation, Don Brash says: “Don’t like it.” On the issue of superannuation, John Key calls it the “Cullen fund”, and says: “We have to keep it.” He loves our policy. John Key, raised in State housing, loves the policies of the Labour-led Government. Well, that party is turning into a party that is preoccupied with itself. Over here, this stable, capable, united Government is leading Kiwis into being ambitious for themselves, for their families, and for their nation. We are doing an amazing job.

Yesterday we heard that unemployment is the lowest it has been for 20 years. At 4 percent, it is second only to one other country in the world. There are more people in paid work than ever. Māori unemployment is down, unemployment figures for Pacific Islanders are down, regional unemployment is down, and long-term unemployment is down. I can only say that when it comes to our economy and employment, everything that should be up is up and everything that should be down is down. That is the nature of New Zealand today. The National Party said that this is luck. It said that it is a lot of luck. Then it said that it is a lucky streak. Finally, symbolised by John Key on the second bench, it has agreed that the country is doing so well that it can forget about the economy and jobs, because everything is going in the right direction and it has to continue to grow.

It must hurt the National Party, with its emphasis on whipping, to know that the economy is going to grow and that jobs will continue to appear, but we have not finished yet. On this side of the House our response to this is, we are going to deal with labour shortages, we are going to deal with skills shortages, and we are going to introduce more policies like the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. We will introduce more of our policies in tertiary education, more of our policies in regional development, and more of our economic policies—and it must grind down the members on the Opposition benches.

If one is a New Zealander today, one is saying to oneself: “I want an apprenticeship. I want to get into exporting. I want to build my band so I can export my music around the world. I want to take on more tourists in my local business, and I don’t care how many times the National Party reshuffles its benches and emphasises whipping as the major issue in the nation.” Out on the streets they are saying: “We don’t care about whipping”. They are saying: “We don’t care that Simon Power is using his No. 3 slot to promote whipping.” That is not the issue people care about. They want a nation led by a Government that can do the business, and Labour can.

National members came to the House this afternoon thinking there was going to be a scrap on. We thought there would be a decent debate and that the Government would be ready and firing on all cylinders. What a sad, tired, worn out bunch of front-benchers and Ministers they turned out to be!

We were down here waiting for Michael Cullen to come out firing on all cylinders, and what a sad, tired old dinosaur that Minister has turned out to be. Steve Maharey, the man desperately trying to look young, with striped shirts and dotty ties, comes down here, firing on all cylinders, and the National members are thinking there will be some very witty—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it might be wise for the tone of the debate to improve somewhat. If we are going to keep referring to the age of members, I think we will start focusing on the Leader of the Opposition.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have had enough. That was not a point of order. The member will start his speech again, from now. That was just wasting time.

We thought that the Government members would come down firing on all cylinders, and what a tired old effort it has been. Michael Cullen reused old jokes that he used 18 months or 2 years ago. Steve Maharey is the big second hitter, and he gave the same tired old speech.

What worries us most on this side of the House is that the public are sick to death of the same tired old faces across the other side of the House. They are tired of seeing Annette King telling them that nothing is wrong in the health system. They are tired of seeing Steve Maharey saying that nothing is wrong in social development and that universities are doing well. They are tired of seeing Helen Clark carried around above red-blooded males’ heads, and let us hope that when she returns to New Zealand we do not see a repeat of that. Let us hope we do not see her being carried by John Tamihere and Trevor Mallard as part of their punishment for their very poor slip-ups over recent days. Although today in question time, Steve Maharey referred to them not as red-blooded, but hot-blooded—a very strange description, we on this side of the House thought.

Meanwhile Dr Brash has had the courage to reshuffle the National caucus in a way that will spell the end for that Government. Let me just say that in the National Party finance team we have a former Governor of the Reserve Bank, a former Minister of Finance in the shape of Bill English, and a highly regarded international trader in the form of the very clever Mr John Key. What do we have on the Government side? Two teachers. So we are ready. Tony Ryall has single-handedly made George Hawkins’ life a misery for 18 months. He has destroyed Paul Swain’s credibility in the corrections and courts portfolios, and Phil Goff has given up his vein-popping speeches in this House because Tony Ryall has it all over him when it comes to policy development and debate. But not only that, the talented Judith Collins has taken out a second-row Minister in this Government, and there is plenty more of that to come.

This team is young, energetic, reinvigorated, and filled with new ideas, not tired old socialist doctrine from the late 1980s, and we certainly will not be fronting up on television with people about whom the public say: “Oh, it’s just them again, the same tired old faces.” Jim Sutton would rather be overseas—and frankly, who would blame him—than have to sit in that caucus room for another Tuesday and look at the same tired old faces. I say to the Government members that time is up. This reshuffle has shown energy, determination, and expertise, and they should start looking for another job.

“It is one thing to be humiliated by your opponents. It is another to be humiliated by your own leader.” Those were the words of John Armstrong of the New Zealand Herald, commenting on the Don Brash reshuffle. I agree with that. He then went on to say: “Dr Brash tried to portray his new line-up as a Government-in-waiting but it falls a few moves short of that.” I agree with that, as well.

Don Brash has done more than that. He has fanned the flames of discontent that were lit last year when his caucus stabbed Bill English in the back. He started a fire within his own caucus that is now burning out of control. Dissatisfaction and pent-up frustration is spilling out around the parliamentary corridors and the press gallery, and in the little smoke-filled rooms. The malcontents are leaking like a sieve. They cannot wait to get out and tell people what they think.

I will tell members of a few of the things the malcontents said last week. The National Party’s own members are going around and leaking everywhere. The former brat pack and co.—Mr Sowry, Lynda Scott, Tony Ryall—believe it will be only a matter of months before Bill English is back as leader of their party. He will be back. They are waiting for him to come back because they have never got over the fact that they are now in the hands of new boy Mr Brash and of Gerry Brownlee, whom they have never rated at all. The malcontents are now calling the caucus “The Don Brash Show”, because only one performer is allowed to hold sway. Dr Brash’s autocratic and absolutely ruthless style—known over at the Reserve Bank—is now in their caucus, and they do not like it, at all. One of the National Party members was so angry last week that he said that if Don Brash were to fall into an offal pit, he would not pull him out.

Katherine Rich, a person with some integrity and talent, is opposed to time-limited benefits. She has been told by Don Brash that there will be time-limited benefits. I predict that Katherine Rich will have to make a decision either to stay in this place or to hold true to her beliefs.

John Carter, a person I have a lot of respect for, has served his time as the chief whip. He has given to all the National Party leaders over the years. He wanted one thing and one thing alone—the chance, should National become the Government, to be the Speaker. What happened to him? He was rolled for the price of the Tamaki seat. National will put in a Brash lookalike and that has John Carter seething mad. I do not blame him.

Clem Simich, a man I have great respect for, was forced out of his seat by a nasty, undermining campaign. He has been promised the Speaker’s job, but—listen to this—has not been promised a high position on the list. Do members know why? National does not want Mr Simich back in the House—the plan is that he will lose.

The former health spokesperson, Lynda Scott, has really been pushed out of her job. She has been dumped out of her job. She was told that she would not become the Minister of Health should National become the Government, so she is leaving. She will become a general practitioner in a primary health organisation.

Now the fan is being turned up a little more, and the eyebrows have gone up a little higher amongst the National Party caucus, because Don Brash has just anointed the next National Party leader, Simon Power. I quote John Armstrong again: Mr Power is the “future emperor without clothes”, with a fig leaf “too small to hide his embarrassment”. He is the future leader who has had to be demoted to be promoted. That is a very strange way of running a caucus.

Dr Paul Hutchison was tipped to be the health spokesperson. Dr Hutchison is well qualified, respected, and prepared to listen, but he was passed over for a Brash acolyte who has shown no understanding of the health system and even less support for those who work in it. National is in a mess.

What a way to start the day! There was the Prime Minister on the front page of the New Zealand Herald and the Dominion Post—her wish absolutely complete—abreast what we on this side of the House could only describe as the Tokelauan Learjet. There she was, ready for business, with Roman sandals on her feet, a baseball cap on her head, and, most important, her cellphone at the ready. That cellphone was loaded with global roaming, because she was ready, willing, and able to receive phone calls, as she had before, from that red-blooded male and recent author—who will one day be king for Labour—John Tamihere.

Mr Tamihere is used to making phone calls to the Prime Minister. I might add, though, that normally he is asking for forgiveness—for the time when he told the Sunday Star-Times what he really thought of the Hon Steve Maharey, and for the time when he told Margaret Wilson not to worry, because “Swainy and the boys” would sort out her botched-up employment relations legislation.

On this recent occasion the call to the Prime Minister was very different—more sinister, more vindictive, and more vengeful. It was a phone call designed to knee-cap a now former civil servant and northern regional manager of the Community Employment Group, Ms Amokura Panoho. Mr Tamihere had information gathered by his own staff in a covert operation that any Mossad agent would be proud to be part of. That information stated that Ms Panoho had used Government resources to further the Māori Party, which was about to undertake a serious challenge on Mr Tamihere’s own seat and on all those Labour-held Māori seats.

The information was wrong, but that did not stop Mr Tamihere from issuing a press release and repeating it on National Radio. The information was wrong, but that did not stop Trevor Mallard, Coordinating Minister, Race Relations, from making a fool of himself by issuing an inaccurate statement on the radio, which he had to go grovelling to the public to apologise for. The information was so wrong that those two “Keystone Cops” have created a cast-iron case of constructive dismissal, financed by the public of New Zealand.

That was not the first time Mr Tamihere has undertaken this kind of behaviour. Just a week earlier he led the witch-hunt into his former employer, the Waipareira Trust. Mr Tamihere said that an audit review was required. He made serious accusations against the Waipareira Trust, which have now been proven to be false. Those accusations were based on the fact that five trustees of that board are Māori Party members. That is why Mr Tamihere made those accusations and why he went after Ms Panoho.

This is a pattern of behaviour that does not befit the democracy we have in New Zealand. I have only one question for Mr Maharey, who said today—as he has said so often in the House—that Ms Panoho resigned of her own volition. If she resigned of her own volition, why does she want her job back now?

The future Prime Minister of New Zealand, Don Brash, reshuffled his caucus—his Cabinet—on Monday. He is leading National with what some political commentators have described as the “dream team” in finance. Modesty prevents me from going through my curriculum vitae in the House today, but suffice it to say that I have had a job in finance. I have been in the real world, domestically and internationally, for 20 years. But I am not on my own in “Team Finance” here in the National Party. We have the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Don Brash, who held that position for 14 years.

I think the member misheard—it was the “scream team of finance”. We have had yet another desperate flip-flop. It has been only a year, and we are into the third time around the clock for Dr Brash—that occasional visitor to our Chamber who, to borrow from Evelyn Waugh, stood twice for Parliament but so diffidently that his candidature passed almost unnoticed. Dr Brash rolled out his new-look wannabe Cabinet this week. To be fair, I have to acknowledge that it is an innovative mix—a blend of the absurd and the inexplicable. It was only a matter of months ago that the so-called fresh new Brash team swept away the worn out young fogies of the English brat pack. With the blood barely dry on the floor, those members are now back on National’s front bench, with one exception.

Let us review that front bench. National has just seven slots these days. The first is the pristine No. 1 slot. It is the as new, seldom occupied seat of the leader, whose entire House leadership style seems to rest on the old adage that absence makes the heart grow fonder. To be fair, we saw a new strategy today: it was a stunning impersonation of a still life. It was very good; it did not get Dr Brash into trouble, because it did not do anything. The No. 2 slot is held by the loyal Māori affairs spokesperson and the most recent apprentice in the deputy leader’s role—although I say to Dr Brash that he should perhaps review an old videotape of a certain National Party conference, before he leads his deputy down a stairwell. I think that is good advice to give to Dr Brash. He should check out those videotapes—there are a few aspirants to the leadership, after all.

I want to quickly move on to the No. 3 spot, which is the most curious position of all. It is held by the House novice Mr Power. That gets really confusing, because he is an absolute novice in the House. He has completely messed up in his role as defence spokesperson, but has been—[Interruption] I thank the member. Mr Power has completely messed up his job in defence, yet he has now been appointed to the House organisational role of senior whip. I know there are a lot of incredulous observers of that, but National says that it will raise his profile. Mr Power was the defence spokesperson, and National says it will raise his profile by making him senior whip.

The situation gets better, because there are only two competent House managers on the Opposition side of the House. One is John Carter, and the other—ominously for National—is Roger Sowry, who is on his way. He has had it. Mr Carter has been promoted from the role of senior whip to defence spokesperson, at No. 14, to raise his profile. So we have Mr Power on the front bench raising his profile by getting rid of the defence portfolio and becoming the chief whip, and we have Mr Carter going down to No. 14, after 9 years of good service as senior whip, in order to raise his profile. Both situations cannot be true, can they? So what do we know? We know that John Carter has done a damn good job. He has given a great performance; he must be due for promotion. What does that say about Mr Power? All I can say is that Mr Power has taken the hit. All that is happening now is that we are waiting for the fall. I will quote John Armstrong again: “It is one thing to be humiliated by your opponents.”—we have done that—“It is another to be humiliated by your own leader.” That is precisely what Don Brash has done to poor old Simon Power. He is down and gone.

National’s No. 4 slot is held by the social welfare spokesperson. That slot has no future, because, as we have heard from Annette King, National is in fundamental conflict over its core policy. There have been stand-up scraps in caucus between Katherine Rich and Don “he who must be obeyed” Brash. That is it, because in the barren wasteland of a talent pool called the National Party caucus, what has poor old Don Brash had to do? He has had to bring back three of the four brat packers, who still have blood on their backs, and he has had to put them on to the front bench, to plot against him. I tell Don Brash not to turn his back, and not to go ahead of some people on the stairs. Any belated attempt to placate that bunch will be a waste of time. As the old saying observes, the only infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured. I think Dr Brash is on the menu.

What a performance we have had from Steve Maharey today. What an amazing performance it was by a man who, when asked whether he would inquire into the $65 million of community funding that was not spent by Christchurch Polytechnic and Tairāwhiti Polytechnic, said that he would. I ask him why that inquiry has not been undertaken already. Why did he wait? The Minister has known—

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Got any State cheques?

Why does that member not listen? The Minister has known that in the last 6 months there has been an $80 million blowout in that community funding budget. How could he not have noticed that in 6 months the fund has gone? Why did the Minister not answer the question himself? How could it be that $80 million has gone missing in 6 months, blowing out the budget, and the Minister has not even noticed?

Three polytechs were responsible for the spending of most of that $80 million. I ask the Minister why the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission have just sat on their hands for the last year. What have they been doing? As the Minister himself said today, he has noticed that the budget has been blowing out for 2 years, and not just for the last 6 months. So what the heck has he done about it? [Interruption] The member who commented from the side of the Chamber obviously missed the point: $1 billion of the tertiary education budget has blown out. Where did it go? Only now has the Minister said that he may do an inquiry into what happened to a small portion of the $65 million of community funding not spent by Christchurch Polytechnic and Tairāwhiti Polytechnic.

Yesterday the Tertiary Education Commission’s report was released. With breathtaking arrogance, the Tertiary Education Commission undertook an inquiry into what had happened at Christchurch Polytechnic. The commission is the organisation that pressured Te Wānanga o Aotearoa to cancel its contract with Carich 2 weeks before 2,000 students were to enrol, causing a $10 million blowout to Carich. Carich fell over, after three audits had cleared it, because the commission pressured Te Wānanga o Aotearoa to cancel its contract. So one of the biggest providers, which had passed all its audits, then rolled over. The commission was then charged by the Minister to carry out an audit into Christchurch Polytechnic. What did it find? The commission’s report was a whitewash. The commission stated that nothing much went wrong and that all was well, despite the fact that $15 million went to Christchurch Polytechnic, and that of the 18,502 students who were enrolled—and for whom the polytechnic received $738 per pupil—the inquiry could not find out whether 13,298 students had completed a course, or whether they even had a computer, had turned one on, had put a disk into one, or had done anything. Of the 18,502 students who were enrolled, the commission could find only 5,000 students who had actually gone online. Yet the commission stated that that was all right, that nothing was amiss, and that everything had been done properly. All that the commission has done is to exonerate itself, when in fact it is the commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to whom the blame for the fiasco should be sheeted home.

Yet the Minister stood up and, with breathtaking arrogance, said that all was well, and that even though the programme has been going for 9 years, it had begun to blow out only in the last 2 years. What has the Minister been doing in the last 6 months, so as not to notice that the community funding budget went from $20 million to $100 million? He did not even notice that $80 million went missing. Only now has he said that he may have an inquiry into what happened to the other $65 million not spent by Christchurch Polytechnic and Tairāwhiti Polytechnic. He has not initiated an inquiry into what happened at Tairāwhiti Polytechnic. There was $21 million spent on radio programmes, and we do not even know—as Bill English pointed out today—whether the students ever turned on their radio, or whether a smattering of te reo Māori was learnt by any of the people who enrolled on those courses. Yet still, to this day, the Minister has not instigated an inquiry into that; the inquiry at Tairāwhiti Polytechnic was done by the polytech itself. It identified 2,000 students who had not fulfilled any of the requirements of the course. What about the other sixty-something thousand people who enrolled on that programme, for which the polytechnic received money? We still do not know whether there was any responsibility or accountability back to the taxpayer. What a performance that was!

How lucky Tairāwhiti Polytechnic, Christchurch Polytechnic, and the Eastern Institute of Technology are that they are predominantly Pākehā-run institutions, because if they were like Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, which has put up with at least 12 major audits in the last 2 years, they would not have got off quite so lightly. Any time that Māori do anything—maybe it is to take a hip hop trip overseas—they get in trouble, but in the case of Pākehā the verdict is that all is well.

The only comment I will make on that speech is that I am reminded about people in glass houses—but I will not go any further than that. People have talked about the great National Party reshuffle. I have to put it on the record today that John Key—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

It is OK, Mr Speaker, let them go, because every time they open their traps people see what they are. John Key is the big winner in National’s reshuffle, for three reasons: firstly, he jumped 10 places, and, secondly, he has a top portfolio: finance. But the biggest reason John Key is a winner today is that Don Brash keeps praising John Key’s chief competitor, Simon Power, and naming him as the next, or a future, leader of the National Party. Firstly, that is the kiss of death, and, secondly, the old brat-pack boys are not particularly happy, so the knives are starting to come out. John Key is moving down the runway and is not making any enemies in the National Party. He is ready to roll, so that when National members put the knife into Simon Power, “Johnny” will be the man. That is what it is about today.

Some nice things have been said about Simon Power, and we ought to be fair. Here is what a guy called Dr Jon Johansson stated in the New Zealand Herald today about Mr Power; let us be fair and a bit nice. He stated: “It is also recognition of Mr Power’s interpersonal skills and the need to bring him more usefully into the nexus of decision-making within National.”, given his promotion.

💬 Hon Member: What?

No, the article gets better, because Dr Johansson goes on to state: “Although little reported, Mr Power has also made a series of positive, forward-looking speeches during the past six months.”

💬 Government Member: Without reservation.

No, it gets even better. I quote: “He seems to understand, in a way that Bill Clinton intuitively grasped, that we are going through a historic period of technological change. Continually learning new skills, embracing change, and demanding choice have been his messages. … Finally, Mr Power can undoubtedly help National to increase its vote if given the opportunities to do so. Dr Brash should give him the freedom to roam.”

Now that comment was written by Dr Jon Johansson, who is listed as a teacher of New Zealand politics and political leadership at Victoria University. After reading that, I am glad I did my political science degree at Canterbury University, because there is one problem with Dr Johansson’s opinion. I am advised that until very, very recently, it was Dr Johansson who was ghostwriting many of the foreign affairs and defence speeches for—who else—National’s new chief whip, Simon Power. So he has his own spin doctor, but that will not be much help to him. The New Zealand Herald has contradicted itself today, because the editorial also stated—this is not a comment from Mr Johansson—“Quite why Mr Power may be leadership material is not yet apparent to the public.” I think that is reasonably accurate.

But what a mess and what a motley crew there are in the National Party. We now have “Bubble and Squeak”—Gerry Brownlee and Simon Power—or is it “Gerry and the Pacemaker” with Don Brash? I do not know which it is. But they did not have the courage of their convictions—the party, that is.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Hey, hey!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, order!

I withdraw. The National Party was chicken, because what it did not do in the reshuffle was to demote the only person in its caucus to be convicted in a New Zealand High Court, Nick Smith. Of course, those members would not demote the only other person in their caucus to be civilly prosecuted for assault—one Gerry Brownlee—and one has to wonder what will happen to David Carter after Winston Peters puts the sword into him, and strips his chequebook three or four times over. So I just say that the bubble for National’s team has burst. One or two bad polls, and it loses its bottle. One or two bad polls, and the National members are all running around with their heads cast down, not knowing quite what to do. What a display it was in question time!

I am told that the only time one sees Don Brash around Parliament is at 9.30 on a Friday night, when the mannequin comes out on that programme called Facelift. I am told that is his new highest-profile role. Of course, Gerry Brownlee is there too, but the programme has not quite got the dimensions right on Gerry Brownlee yet. But that is the only time one sees Dr Brash. The people know that if he cannot match it here in the House, there is a real question mark as to whether he can match it anywhere outside this place.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to seek your advice as to the timing of personal explanations and whether it is necessary, when a correction is made and the member is in the House, for it to be done immediately, or whether it can be done later. Quite a serious accusation was made during that speech with regard to Mr Power. It was made in a jocular way, about Simon Power arranging for a ghostwriter to write letters on his behalf. If that is the case, it should put right immediately.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has a chance to take a slot in the debate, if he wants to.

New Zealand is meant to be going through some sort of economic boom, except most New Zealanders do not know about it and cannot feel it. The reason for that is so much of this country’s asset wealth is owned overseas and so much of our profit is repatriated overseas every year.

It has been a very sad week for most New Zealanders, because they still cling to the hope that they may one day own their country again. I am referring to the sale of Powerco at a bargain-basement price to the Australian-based Prime Infrastructure. The ghost of Ned Kelly is now galloping down Devon Street in New Plymouth. A lot of questions are being asked in Taranaki about the sale of a high-yield asset and the way it was carried out, apart from the obvious question of why the people of Taranaki were not told about it. Why were they not consulted? Why was there no consultation process at all? How many people in the Taranaki community knew what was going on and approved of it? Do they want the Australians running their energy industry, like the Australians now run our banking system? The Australians are not bad people, but why do we want them running our crucial energy companies as well as all of our banks with the exception of two?

Why have not all the Taranaki Electricity Trust trustees, who control nearly 12 percent of Powerco’s shares, seen the documents of sale? Why were they not all consulted about the final price and, most important of all, about the method of payment? Only 62.5 percent is to be paid in cash; the rest is in “high-yield” securities. And if it is high-yield, why sell it, when it belongs to the people of that area? How can those Taranaki Electricity Trust trustees ratify a sale when they still do not know all the details of the sale and its conditions, except for what they have learnt through press conferences or the media? Why were the opponents of this sale in positions of responsibility totally ignored by the people who wanted the sale to go ahead? Who was driving all of this, and who stands to benefit? Will the good people of Taranaki get their fair share, or will it go to Australia, as so much else has in recent years? And when will we all see the fine print for the sale? We in New Zealand First are sick and tired of people getting up and saying that this sale is good for the country, good for New Zealand. For example, we had it with the sale of Air New Zealand; we had it with the sale of New Zealand Rail, and we all ended up seeing people bleed it for all it was worth, and now it is back as our responsibility as a key part of our infrastructure. When will we see the fine print?

Powerco was sold, it was claimed, for the purpose of efficiency, except it is not being bought for that purpose; it is being bought for the purpose of profit. How come this is going on in 2004, when we as a country have lost so much? Once again, we New Zealanders, and New Zealand, are the big losers. A crucial, key economic component called power has been turned upside down by the National Party. Those in positions of trust as trustees must surely understand that they stand with a responsibility to the people who are the beneficiaries—who are, after all, the owners. There has been no consultation and no details, and the sale is to be ratified later this month. This must be a case where the Government should be asking some serious questions. It should not wait around for the Overseas Investment Commission, but should ask some serious questions now and ensure that the practice that Labour began between 1984 and 1990, and that National pursued—

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Excuse me, electricity reforms were 1998.

No, I am talking about asset sales. I know Labour sold $9 billion worth. Along came National, promising not to sell out our tūrangawaewae, and it did the same. Here we are in 2004, and a high-yield, publicly owned asset is being flogged off without anybody knowing what is going on. It is certainly not good enough. The sooner we have some answers from the Minister, the better. The sooner we find out, the better.

I seek leave to table an article in that venerable paper the New Zealand Herald by one Jon Johansson, entitled “Brash’s reshuffle does much for National unity”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection.

In the New Zealand Herald on 9 August there was a very telling picture of Don Brash with Gerry Brownlee sitting at his side to his immediate left. I thought that was odd, as Gerry Brownlee sits on Don Brash’s right. Then I realised it was an archive photo, because the New Zealand Herald could not readily find a recent photo of Don Brash in his seat in Parliament. I thought that was a very important point for the New Zealand Herald to raise, and, sure enough, the caption under the photo says it all: “Strangely silent: nobody could accuse Don Brash of hogging the limelight at question time in Parliament. The Opposition leader has spoken up less than his deputy, Gerry Brownlee.” Well, the fact that the New Zealand Herald had to go into its archives to find a photo to go with its story headed “Missing in action when it counts” speaks volumes. The bottom line is that Dr Brash does not like asking questions in Parliament, because he finds it demeaning. He thinks it is a bit beneath him to come to Parliament and ask questions. Here he was today in Parliament, large as life, and there was not one single question on the Order Paper from the Leader of the Opposition.

I think there is a reason for that, too. When he gets up to ask a question, he is not very good at it. Own goals are his particular forte. For example, he questions the Government about providing 4 weeks’ annual leave for ordinary workers, but he expected 4 weeks’ annual leave when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. One rule for all? One law for all? It does not mean one law for all when he would be disadvantaged by it. He wants one law for all only when there is a headline in it for him, not when it would enable ordinary, working people to have 4 weeks’ annual leave. The bottom line is that if Don Brash were to have a chance—and he will not have one—he would get rid of 4 weeks’ annual leave before lunchtime, I reckon. In fact, he would probably get rid of lunchtime as well, if he had half a chance.

What I cannot understand is why, after what was touted as a major reshuffle, Dr Brash did not take centre stage in his leader’s seat on the first day back in Parliament, in order to show just how proud he was of his handiwork. But he could not bring himself to do even that. On the first day back, he could not even sit with the new team and say how proud he was of what he had achieved. The bottom line is that he knew he had not done a good job, and he knew that we knew it.

The reshuffle has already been nicknamed the “Power cut”, but it is a power cut with a difference. Imagine being demoted, keeping a front-bench seat, and getting a pay increase at the same time! It does not look right to me, and the public are not buying it. I actually feel sorry for Simon Power. I thought he had great potential when he came to Parliament, but, let me be frank, he has not proved himself. That “Power cut” of a reshuffle is a wake-up call to Simon Power, but it is a wake-up call with bells and whistles. Talk about softening the blow! How much extra pay will Simon Power get for his new role—his demotion? The amount of $21,000 a year extra goes with the demotion. That is the sort of demotion I would have liked to have, but it was not to be. Paying more and getting less is the National Party philosophy. When we look back at what that party in Government did to accident compensation, health, education, State housing—the list goes on and on—we see that every single time it was “pay more, get less”, except, of course, for workers under the Employment Contracts Act, who were doing more and getting less. That is how the Employment Contracts Act worked under the National Party Government.

The National Party reshuffle is nothing more than a diversion to draw attention away from the fact that three of the five major speeches we have been promised by Dr Brash have not been delivered. It is interesting to see which ones they are: welfare, education, and the economy. That is because Don Brash has his own views on those policies, and they do not match the spokespersons’ views. That is why we have not seen those three speeches. The last time a spokesperson disagreed with one of those speeches, she lost her job.

One knows a Government is in trouble when its members spend all their time denigrating the Opposition. They have fear in their hearts, and we are seeing it on their faces. The previous speaker, Ms Dalziel, once hailed as one of Time magazine’s 100 future leaders, now languishes in humiliation on the back benches.

I ask the following questions of the Government: how much will Mr Tamihere cost the taxpayer; how much will Mr Mallard cost the taxpayer; how much will Ms Dyson cost the taxpayer; and why did Dr Buwalda not defend his employees against the politically motivated pressure of Ministers? Surely that is one of the things we expect of an independent civil service—that it should not kowtow to its political masters. This was a concerted political attack on a defenceless civil servant. There was a concerted campaign by senior Ministers, who were all aiming at one individual. There is a word for that. It is “paranoia”. There is a smell of fear in the Government when all it can do is attack civil servants. I will tell members why there is paranoia. It is because Mr Tamihere fears for his seat. He knows that the Māori Party is organising. He knows that it has generated enthusiasm amongst his constituents. His response is intimidation, and bully-boy and stand-over tactics. I tell Mr Tamihere that the New Zealand public has no tolerance for intimidation or stand-over tactics. Mr Tamihere will be punished by those constituents in 9 months’ time.

What he did was constructive dismissal. Ms Dalziel, who prides herself on being a labour lawyer, does not seem to know that a resignation under pressure is constructive dismissal. That is precisely what the term means. What is more, on 10 August, in the New Zealand Herald, Ms Panaho stated that if the Labour Department “ ‘came back and offered me an opportunity to go back to the organisation … I may have to consider it’ ”. Why would she do that if she knew she had not been constructively dismissed? The reality is that she has limited choices. One choice is that she will have to be re-engaged, or else the taxpayers—all of us—will be paying for the Government’s intimidation and stand-over tactics.

I have just been appointed to the role of spokesperson for employment relations. I hardly expected that the very first issue would be the way in which Ministers have so grossly and gravely breached their own legislation. That party established the concept of “good faith” in the Employment Relations Act and strengthened the personal grievance provisions. Well, I did not expect to find, immediately on taking up my new role, that Ministers would be in breach of their own legislation and would have caused the constructive dismissal of a loyal civil servant who was merely exercising her civil rights. How do we know that? Because that is what the Deputy Prime Minister said she was doing. He said she had freedom of speech. Surely that is proof of constructive dismissal. Mr Tamihere had to apologise. Mr Mallard withdrew his statement—he did not even apologise. All of that will lead to us taxpayers—all New Zealanders—paying money for their default.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.