General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The parlous state of this Government is reflected in this pathetic Order Paper before the House that shows how lacking this Government is in having any sort of agenda or vision for New Zealand. Let us look at the bold, new ideas from the Government this week for taking this country forward. It is another dose of PC, pathetic nonsense from this nanny State Government. The latest idea is from George Hawkins, Minister of Internal Affairs. Not being satisfied with taxing the heck out of New Zealanders with his speed cameras or his ticket-an-hour quota for the police, he has now come up with an initiative to save New Zealanders.

💬 Opposition Member: What is it?

It is fences around paddling pools. Despite not having a single fatality in 5 years, his Department of Internal Affairs will now require every family in New Zealand with an innocent paddling pool to spend $5,000 on a fence. If any unsuspecting New Zealand family does not provide the fence required by George Hawkins’ department, it will be up for a fine of $500.

The petty bureaucrats of this Labour Government are again constraining the freedoms of New Zealanders. There is no limit to the petty, control-freak elements of the Ministers in this Government. There is no vision for the economy. There is no vision for what will take New Zealand forward. Instead, the answer is fences around paddling pools. Is it any wonder that there are podgy children, when the Government makes this one of its priorities? But the Government will not stop there. The Minister of Transport, not content with trying to control the roads, now wants to put the same sorts of petty controls on those New Zealanders who dare go off-road. That provision is in a sneaky transport bill that was not announced to any member of this House. Harry Duynhoven and his bureaucrats now want to control four-wheel drive enthusiasts, those involved in the outdoors, and farmers by introducing a new set of controls and petty, pathetic laws. The police will now give out tickets, not just when drivers are on the road but also when their cars are in their driveways at home.

Is there any limit to the extent this Government will go to regulate and take away the freedoms of New Zealanders? Will Harry Duynhoven get to his feet and explain why the Government wants to ticket people involved in events like those that would have involved Possum Bourne? Possum Bourne would turn in his grave at the notion that this Government wants to put those sorts of regulations on those who use their vehicles off-road. There are absolutely no limits to the extent to which this Government will go to try to control every nook and cranny of New Zealand life, whether it is those involved in organising the Rally of New Zealand or those families with paddling pools.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: It’s too hard, too savage.

I ask Mr Maharey whether he supports fences around paddling pools. I know there is hardly a member in this Government who has children, but perhaps even those members who do might accept that fences around paddling pools shows, in effect, the stupidity of this Government and how far it will go to take away the freedoms of ordinary New Zealanders. The country has had enough of the pettiness of the bureaucrats and regulations that this Government would have us follow in order to control every nook and cranny of New Zealand life. People are looking for a different vision. They are looking for the sorts of policies that National has—policies that would get the Government out of people’s lives—rather than the petty nonsense we see from this Labour Government.

We really know the National Party is in trouble when the Hon Nick Smith, National’s one-time deputy leader, leads off the general debate. He must be the same Hon Nick Smith who featured in the latest North and South, and who described himself as having been “screwed” by his colleagues. Nick Smith was asked by the interviewer how it felt to have been “dorked” by Don Brash, and he described in intimate detail the treachery of his colleagues.

National is a party that is in desperate trouble. It is in so much trouble that some members are walking right out of Parliament. Roger Sowry and Lynda Scott, promising young middle-of-the-road members of the National Party, are walking away from a once-great party that is on its way out. Then we have the disappointed, humiliated, and angry Simon Power, the only whip ever to have sat on the front bench of a political party in this Parliament. The once-promising Simon Power is on his way down. Then there is Wayne Mapp, who has been demoted time and time again.

I have some advice for Don Brash: he should watch his back. John Key is counting the numbers, and why would he not? The public are providing the numbers. In every monthly poll for the last 6 months, Don Brash has registered diminishing confidence with the New Zealand electorate. Every month over the last 6 months, the National Party has gone down in the polls—down 9 percent since February this year. Is that any wonder, when we get headlines like “Bumbling Brash loses the plot”, which was in the Otago Daily Times last weekend? But we do not have to go as far back in history as last weekend. John Armstrong wrote a comment in the New Zealand Herald today under the headline “Home or away, Brash is losing”. The National Party has a real dilemma. If it does not put Don Brash in the House, people say it is because he cannot front up and does not have what it takes to be the leader. When it does put him in the House, he proves that point. As John Armstrong wrote: “When he fronts up, he is being slaughtered.”

The National Party is in desperate trouble. It is no wonder it is in desperate trouble when its leader, Don Brash, has twice this year gone to Australia to bag his country—to run it down. He did that in March, when he told the Australians that New Zealand was not pulling its weight in defence. What about our people in Afghanistan? What about the role we have played in East Timor, in Bougainville, and in the Solomon Islands? That man should be proud of his country. He should be proud of the servicemen and women who work on behalf of this country—a country that more than pulls its weight in international affairs. Then, just last week, Don Brash stated in the Australian Financial Review that New Zealand is a failed Pacific Island State. It has been some failure! Every country in the world would like to fail in the way that New Zealand has failed in the last 5 years. New Zealand is at the top of the OECD in terms of growth rates. A regional survey by the National Bank shows that our annualised growth rate at the moment is 4.3 percent. We have the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD—4 percent, which is down from double figures under the previous National Government. New Zealand is a country that Transparency International has consistently rated in the top three countries in the world, in terms of good governance and a lack of corruption. Yet Don Brash, when talking to a business audience, tried to lower confidence in this country, thereby betraying and undermining his country.

New Zealanders will not tolerate behaviour of that nature. It is no wonder that the National MPs sit silently with their heads down, because they have a leader whom they are deeply ashamed of. I tell John Key he should not wait until after National has lost the election but should claim the leadership now. The numbers are there. There is no confidence in Don Brash as leader of the National Party or as a potential leader of this country.

Clearly, after listening to that speech, one can only come to the conclusion that Phil Goff is a woman not to be trifled with. He reminds me of a blowfish, trying to puff himself up into far more importance than he actually has. The blood pressure was rising, the rhetoric was pouring, but there was nothing worth listening to.

During the general debate I want to talk about an issue of huge importance to rural New Zealanders. About 2 weeks ago they were dismayed to get Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors, which is a discussion paper from the office of Jim Sutton. Just in case anybody is unsure of who Jim Sutton is, he is the advocate within Cabinet for rural New Zealand. He is the advocate for rural New Zealanders. What did he do? He put out a discussion paper about how the Government can trample over the rights of every New Zealander who lives in the rural sector and who happens to have a waterway.

I ask what Jim Sutton has in common with Robert Mugabe. I will answer my own question: they both take property rights away from white farmers. I emphasise “white farmers”, because what is proposed in the document will not apply—shock, horror, as though it might come as a surprise—to Parekura Horomia, who is sitting over there, or to his lands. It will apply only to people of European origin. That is simply an outrage. But why should we be surprised? I must add this little bit in, too; this is a little pearler. In one of the discussion documents that he sent back to Cabinet, the Minister said: “This issue around Māori lands needs more work. The rest of it is not a problem, but around Māori land, it needs more work.” What is more disturbing about this—and I totally agree with a Treasury paper that I have here in which Treasury stated, and as I have said—is that this question is not about access but about a thing called property rights. I tell the Minister that one either has property rights or one does not. It is a bit like being pregnant: one either is or is not. One cannot have it both ways. This is about property rights.

I would like the Minister to take a call and answer this question. Why is he not taking the land around the Avon River in Fendalton, for example? There is no access for anybody, including any member of this House or any member of the public, to at least one-third of the properties on the Avon River. Why does this right apply only to rural land? If one wants to be fair about it, why does this Government not apply access to all waterways in this country? Those waterways include the Avon, the Heathcote, and the Styx, where one cannot get access to one-third of the properties—but the Minister has ruled that out.

I am all for access. The ACT party is all for access to anywhere, but we have to face a certain reality, including in this very place here. Members of the public cannot walk around this home of democracy—this very House, this very Parliament. Access is strictly controlled. That is for an extremely sensible and valid reason. These days we cannot, given matters of security—both internal and external—have people wandering all over and anywhere just because they feel like it. Yet this Minister for Rural Affairs says it is OK because it is only farmers. There are only 40,000 farmers in this country. The Government does not get their votes and is not going to get their votes, so it will take their property rights and give them to what is known as the recreational lobby—350,000 votes.

That is the purpose behind this paper. It is not about some great notion of ensuring the continuity of access, which is given by 92 percent of the farmers in this country. They give access freely and regularly. They do not hinder access at all, but this Government comes along and asks how it can “appropriate”. That is a nice word for “thieve” or for “steal”.

I would like to endorse the comments made by the Hon Phil Goff. It is a sad day in Parliament when the National Party has to dust off one of the brat pack, the Hon Nick Smith, the member for Nelson, who, as he was correctly quoted in North and South, was “screwed” by his colleagues over there on the Opposition benches. Is it not an interesting day?

I take a very serious view of the way that the Leader of Opposition conducts himself with regard to the upholding of the dignity, the integrity, and the credibility of our constitution. The Leader of the Opposition must uphold a constitutional entitlement that underpins a great institution called Parliament. What is that? What is one of the greatest obligations of a Leader of the Opposition? It is to front up to Parliament, to come down into this House, and to put his or her position. The Leader of the Opposition can oppose or propose things, but he or she has to be here in order to do that. National members have to understand that the onus on, the obligation of, and the duty of the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Don Brash, is to come down into this Parliament and earn his money—earn his keep—by standing up for the constitutional entitlements of Kiwis out there, who need to have a strong Opposition leader.

What do we have? Don Brash does not even turn up in the House.

💬 Simon Power: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member does not need to raise a point of order. Reference must not be made to a member’s absence, at all. This is coming off the Minister’s time.

The reality is that that is a fact. Moving on, I point out that in terms of the constitutional requirement of a Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash has just sunk that requirement. Around this very Chamber we see reminders of the great battles that Kiwis have fought in. We have to uphold that right and that entitlement, but we have a Leader of the Opposition who will not do that. That is a constitutional outrage, and the Kiwi heartland has to know about it.

What is worse than failing to upholding that requirement is for the Leader of the Opposition to go off shore, shrouded in the constitutional entitlement and right of his office, and to go and bag his homeland. Kiwis understand that there is an institution here that the Leader of the Opposition has to use. Kiwis understand that they can come down into this House and have a go. Kiwis understand that. They will not accept a Leader of the Opposition, shrouded in this constitutional entitlement, going off shore and telling Aussie business people—one of our largest markets—and the Australian communities that we are a basket case, that we are a banana republic, and that we are no better than the Solomon Islanders, the Papua New Guineans, or anybody else. On every measure, this country and this Government shape up. New Zealand stands up; it pulls its weight. It is in the top three of the OECD in terms of economic performance, yet we have the Leader of the Opposition going off shore and laying a dagger into the heart of this heartland. Kiwis do not like that, and the Opposition members know that. They cower and hide behind their very seats when the Leader of the Opposition walks into the House, just as they do right now.

More important, not only is there a lack of leadership and a lack of capacity, capability, integrity, and credibility about the constitutional shroud that must be upheld, but when we look across the front bench of this Government, we see it is dominant. To give an analogy, on the Government’s front bench here we have the congregation of the bishops, whereas over there on the Opposition’s front bench they are apprentice altar boys, at best. When our front-bench members walk into this House, on every capability that it takes to run each Government ministry, they dominate. They dominate on policy, on intellect, and on engagement with our communities. When we look at the opposite side of the House, we see it is no wonder that the National members are going down the gurgler in the polls. Where is their capability, their competence, and their policy? National has Simon Power on the front bench, for goodness’ sake. Those members have no experience—nothing. National’s major finance spokesperson has not been here in the House any more than 24 months. How bad is that? Kiwis will start to question not only the lack of leadership in that particular party but also the lack of competence of that motley mob in the Opposition.

One of the worst indicators in the social report that the Minister has just referred to is our rates of obesity, which are amongst the worst in the world and getting worse all the time. I was therefore astonished at the summary dismissal by the Minister of Health yesterday of the very well-researched, positive report on obesity by Diabetes New Zealand on fighting the obesity epidemic. Its key recommendation is that the Government investigate—just investigate—a tax on high-sugar soft drinks and high-fat food. The Government’s outright rejection of the report and its key recommendations show that despite all the lip service this Government pays to the obesity epidemic it is simply not serious about tackling it, or perhaps it is just too worried about getting off side with the food industry to take any serious action to combat it.

The new report contains frightening statistics that New Zealand children are amongst the fattest in the world and that we have a higher percentage of overweight and obese children than the United States, for heaven’s sake. That is hard to believe but is fuelled, no doubt, by the relentless saturation targeting of unhealthy food and drink at our children and adolescents by the food industry, through television advertisements, in schools, at bus stops, on packages, and even in school diaries like the one I have for a college in Wellington that advertises McDonald’s. Indeed, it is everywhere that one turns.

The saturation marketing of unhealthy food and drink to our children has become so pervasive that trying to reduce obesity in the present environment is a bit like trying to treat an alcoholic in a town that has a bar on every corner. Surely a Government that is serious about trying to change this environment would seek to protect our children from these pressures by banning the screening of advertisements on television that promote unhealthy food, by getting soft drink vending machines out of our schools, and by investigating a tax on soft drinks.

The Government’s own Ministry of Health estimates that twice as many New Zealanders die from dietary-related risk factors than they do from smoking, so why do we not have the same strong action on obesity as we do on tobacco? We have a tax on tobacco and alcohol, because of the harm they cause to the individual consumer and to our society. Why then would we not consider at least investigating a tax on fizzy drinks? The consumption of high-sugar fizzy drinks causes tremendous harm to our children and our adolescents. We have an epidemic of rotting teeth, we have escalating obesity rates, diabetes, and so forth, and costs to the wider society in terms of the health costs of obesity, diabetes, and other diseases. But despite the tremendous harm that they do to our health, the consumption of fizzy drinks has risen by an astonishing 45 percent over the past 5 years. Surely a Government that was serious about obesity would want to reduce the consumption of soft drinks, and would at least investigate a tax on soft drinks as just one way of doing that. But no, our Government has stubbornly refused to take any action that could get it off side with the food industry, and its key strategy—we could call it its “King hit”—is a voluntary accord with the food industry, which it will announce next Thursday.

There is nothing wrong with working with the food industry to try to get it to make improvements in the food it sells and markets to young children, but, frankly, it is simply naive to expect the industry to curb its highly profitable promotion of fatty sugary foods and drinks to our children voluntarily. The Government knows this. Experience with the marketing of tobacco and milk industries has shown that voluntary approaches are ineffective, and it is quite simply naive to expect that our food industry will voluntarily give up its relentless targeting of unhealthy food and drink at children in our society.

The food industry is thrilled with this voluntary accord because it sees it as a wonderful public relations opportunity and as a way of avoiding regulation. It will make all the statements in the world. It will be full of platitudes, but short on action.

In a year’s time Helen Clark will make New Zealand history by becoming the first-ever Labour leader to emerge from three general elections to lead our country as Prime Minister. If the National Opposition denies that, let its members tell us who will lead them to victory at the next election.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Don Brash!

Will it be Mr Brash, who goes overseas and slags his own country? Will it be Gerry Brownlee, who cannot even get on with the Christchurch City Council, or will it be Nick Smith or Simon Power? I do not think so.

The truth is that Labour will not win a parliamentary majority on its own next year. It will be assisted, as it has in the last 5 years, to govern in a coalition Government. Over the 5 years that I have represented parties in coalition with Labour we have—[Interruption] That may well be something that the National Party could study—how does one actually win elections? The National Party has no idea, but we have.

Over the last 5 years we in this Government have reached out, case by case, to serious Opposition parties to enact legislation that is forward-looking. We have pursued laws that enhance the prospects of job creation. I am proud of the fact that New Zealand now has the lowest levels of unemployment that it has had in a generation.

I would have thought that when leaders of the National Party go overseas they would trumpet that fact and be proud of it. For example, we have a lower level of unemployment than Australia, but no, we are not told that. We are told by the National Party that we have no forestry initiatives in this country while Australia has dozens of them. That came from Mr Nick Smith. I tabled in this House a list of forestry initiatives mounting to nearly $600 million. A wood processing strategy is being developed, and investments have been made and are being made in New Zealand as I speak. That was tabled in the House. I do not think that Mr Nick Smith said anything further, but the National Party leader went to Australia and said that no forestry investments had been made in New Zealand in comparison with Australia. I know that he would never be able to find out what is tabled in the House because he is never here.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister knows that he cannot refer to the absence of any member. He will withdraw that remark.

The truth is that our unemployment rate is the second-lowest in the entire OECD group of rich nations, and it is well below that of Australia. Why would the leader of the National Party go to Australia and not tell Australians that? The cold, hard fact is that every single region in this country is in positive growth mode as I speak. Why would the leader of the National Party not want to tell the Australians that? Why would he not want to tell the Australian community that this country has averaged a higher growth rate than Australia for the last 5 years? Does Mr Smith know that that is true? Why does his leader not know that that is true? I wonder whether he would have told the Australians that the average growth rate in the 5 years before that, when there was a National-led coalition Government, was well below that of Australia. It has been well above that of Australia for 5 years under a Labour-led coalition Government.

Those are the facts that I would have thought any member of this Parliament going overseas and talking to people, or writing for an overseas audience, would mention. In truth, that is the situation that New Zealanders are confronted with. They are confronted with a leader who aspires to be the Prime Minister of a country who should, ordinarily, at least be proud of that country and be a salesperson for it, rather than someone who writes articles slagging his country in an overseas country that is our largest market for manufactured goods.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s criticising the Government.

Actually, he is criticising his country, because if he were telling the truth about his country, which I would think any New Zealand parliamentarian would, he would say that our growth rate is higher than that of Australia. Why did he not say that? It is true, but it does not fit the gloom and doom image that he wants to present—as though the country would do better if he were presiding over it, when it is actually doing better than it has done for many, many years. That is something that I do not think that Don Brash is coming to grips with. One cannot go around New Zealand or the world telling everyone how badly the country is doing when everyone knows it is not true. Everyone knows it is not true that we are not doing well, and Don Brash insists on telling people what they know is not true.

I seek leave to table the report of the New Zealand Forest Industries Council pointing out that 21 new timber-processing plants are being built in Australia, and none in New Zealand.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Phillip Layton Edwards, on the face of it, is just another example of the failure of the Government and society to deal effectively with, and rehabilitate, a criminal delinquent. Phillip Edwards started out as a small-time crook in 1997 with 16 convictions for typical entry-level crimes such as unlawful interference with a motor vehicle. Over a short space of time he graduated. He then started to appear in the courts, according to his rap sheet here, for assault, stealing vehicles, burgling homes, carrying offensive weapons, threatening behaviour, more counts of assaulting women, jumping bail, breaching police bail, and failing to do periodic detention. Finally he was put away in jail for 18 months on a range of convictions. He served 5 months, having served 4 months on remand, and in his time in jail he was assessed and identified by staff of the Department of Corrections as being dangerous and highly likely to reoffend.

On 9 July 2003 he was released on parole without conditions, under the understanding that he would be living with his auntie. In fact he went out on to the street to live under bridges. On 13 July 2003, 5 days after he had been released, he offended again by fighting in a public place. On 16 July, a week later, he offended again, and on 18 July he was convicted and discharged, again to go back living on the streets. Can anyone see a problem here? Well, firstly I would say that this case quite clearly shows that the Government’s belief in parole is misplaced. Parole does not rehabilitate, and nor do short sentences. But there he was—on the street. Sadly, within 2 days of that conviction he killed David McNee.

But we now know that on 12 September 2002 he became the prime suspect in a reported aggravated burglary of a judge’s home. He invaded the home of a member of the judiciary, yet despite extensive investigations, a DNA strike, and a confession, he was not charged. The question is why. What were the consequences of his not being charged? I can tell the House that the failure of the police to prosecute him on that offence and put him in jail meant that he went on to commit a further 11 crimes against the public, culminating in the murder of David McNee.

Some say that McNee got what he deserved. In fact, I have one such letter from a member of the public here, saying that McNee was just a cruising faggot, and that Edwards should get a medal. Well, here is the point: regardless of what views some people out there might have, Edwards’ track record shows that quite clearly he was on a pathway to murder. The point is the victim could have well been an auntie or a nana of anybody whose home he was burgling who just happened to get in the way. It could have been one of us whose car he was stealing who happened to get in the way.

So what went wrong? Well, there are serious questions that must be asked, and I would ask these of the Minister. Why did the police not proceed with the prosecution of a count of aggravated burglary of the Shaw residence? They had the evidence, they had a confession, they had a man locked up in jail already, and they could have proceeded with that charge. Authoritative people have said that Phillip Edwards would have got 3 to 5 years on that count. That would have ensured that he was in jail, and he would not then have gone on to kill David McNee. Why did the police not proceed? Why did Mr Shaw not front? He used the excuse, purportedly, of trauma. Well, we know about trauma: policemen, firemen, firewomen, and ambulance officers deal with trauma every day, yet they still give evidence when required; women who are raped, and children who are molested, still face that trauma and give evidence as part of their responsibility to uphold the law. The police had evidence that a man had broken into the home of a member of the judiciary, yet they failed to prosecute and uphold the law. There are those out there on the streets who say all those players are directly responsible for Mr McNee’s death.

There are other questions. Did the police receive any instruction from on high?

New Zealand is a great country. In fact, in my view, it is the best country in the world to live in. We have strong economic growth. In fact, we are one of the key successful economies in the OECD. We have the lowest unemployment for nearly two decades—the unemployment rate is the second-lowest in the OECD. We have low inflation. We have growing household incomes. For the first time in our country’s history, more than 2 million New Zealanders are employed. Our Working for Families package, which we delivered in our last Budget, gives significant financial support to 60 percent of all New Zealand families with children. Our social report shows that we are in the top half of the OECD for the majority of the key social indicators.

So, given that we do live in the best country in the world, and we all know it, why would anyone—any New Zealander—go overseas and attack our country? Why would any New Zealander go to Australia and attack our country? Well, the public and the media response to Dr Brash’s attack on our country has been consistent and strong: going overseas to attack New Zealand is just wrong.

Some of the best lines from the media are worth repeating to the House. The Dominion Post stated: “Dr Brash has no obligation to follow or promote a government line. It would be odd if he did. But nor is his role to go overseas and bag and belittle the country in which he wants to be prime minister.” The Christchurch Press stated of the National Party leader: “It is all very well to carp and criticise, but voters need more on which they can judge whether the party would be a potential alternative government. … Brash fails to state clearly what National would do to improve on the Government’s performance.” John Armstrong said: “Don Brash’s assertion that New Zealand risks becoming ‘just another Pacific island state’ not only bordered on the ridiculous, it was silly politics to boot.” Fran O’Sullivan said: “… the National leader’s article relies too much on insinuation without adequate factual underpinning to justify the doom-casting.”, and he provides “no roadmap for the future.” She also said: “National’s leader would have made a much more useful contribution if he had spelled out where his party stood on the single market and other measures which will avert his prediction of a failed state.” She described his presentation as “little more than a summation of why he came into politics. … What it doesn’t say is why he bothers to stay and what he will do.” The Manawatu Standard, Simon Power’s own local paper, stated—and I am sure he agrees with it—that it is “not a good look for a political leader to go overseas and to effectively bag his own country,”. Nobody in New Zealand would disagree with that. It is just not a good look for a political leader to go overseas and bag our country.

No wonder the tensions within the National Party are now so obvious! Simon Power has been described by Dr Brash as having very good networks in his caucus, which I think is code for “He’s got the numbers, so he has to stay on the front bench even though I demote him.” John Carter has missed out on the Speaker’s job because of the “Brash-McCully” deal with Clem Simich. Maurice Williamson has to stay down in the back row, despite being one of National’s rare flashes of talent, because of the brat-pack influence. Linda Scott and Roger Sowry are leaving, and more resignations are rumoured. John Key is counting the numbers. John Key is brash and ambitious, rather than “Brash and dull”!

The National Party former leadership has become increasingly embittered and mean-spirited. Bill English, who used to be a pleasant chap, has become increasingly bitter and mean-spirited to the point that he moved a resolution in the National caucus that no National Party MP would be allowed to go to John Tamihere’s book launch. How petty, how bitter, and how mean-spirited can one be! Those members missed a fine book launch. I am sure that not fronting up saved them from feeling envy. I do not think anyone could have put it better than Jane Clifton when describing the reshuffle. She said there were two ways to read National’s reshuffle: either it is brave and far-sighted, or it is a desperate fig-leaf arrangement.

I have a very simple message to give those who are listening to the debate in the House today. Jim Anderton stood in this House and said that after the next election Helen Clark will enjoy her third term as Prime Minister of New Zealand. Let me put him straight: the only thing that Helen Clark will enjoy after the next election is being remembered as a small footnote in New Zealand’s history. No chapter will be written about Helen Clark. She does not deserve a chapter in New Zealand’s history, because all that Helen Clark and her Government are interested in is inch-by-inch, day-by-day, political management. They have no political vision, no vision for New Zealand, and no economic foresight as to where this country is going.

We looked at the Order Paper to see what sort of visionary legislation was being proposed by this Government. George Hawkins’ Police Amendment Bill (No 2) has been sitting on the Order Paper since debate on the second reading was interrupted on 27 November 2001. What has George Hawkins been doing for the last 3 years, other than have his police officers issue speeding tickets? Actually, he has been thinking up ways to fence paddling pools in New Zealand’s backyards. Instead of dealing with issues like gun control, burglary, and violent crime, he has been saying to families: “Let’s fence some paddling pools.” As my colleague John Key rightly said, why not just go straight to the chase and have a whole lot of bureaucrats run around New Zealand fencing puddles? We should just fence off all the puddles on the sidewalk and in the middle of the road, because that is the next logical step for a small-minded Minister in a small-minded Cabinet that will only ever be a footnote in New Zealand’s history. So small-minded is this Government that it is unable even to organise Dianne Yates’ bill to restrict docking of dogs’ tails. That bill has to go under the line on the members’ bill order form, because the Government is not capable of getting agreement on dog-tail docking. Instead, it is concerned with fencing paddling pools.

The Government’s current strategy is to do nothing, have no vision, keep its head down, and micromanage every issue, day by day. Ministers in this Government roll over at the first sign of controversy. Phil Goff was vowing to change the law to allow compensation payments made to inmates to go to their victims, but that was not before Tony Ryall had raised the issue in Parliament. However, immediately upon Tony Ryall raising the issue in Parliament, all of a sudden Phil Goff, the great justice visionary, went into micromanagement political control.

What will the Labour Party look like after the next election? For a start its members—what is left of them—will be sitting on this side of the House. Helen Clark will be a footnote. Mahara Okeroa will be gone. That seat will be won by Tariana Turia’s party. Dover Samuels will be gone. His seat will be won by Tariana Turia’s party at the next election. David Parker will be gone. He will be absolutely wiped off the face of the earth. Not only that; Jill Pettis is staring down the barrel of defeat in the Whanganui electorate. That is the word on the street and everybody in Wanganui knows that that seat will be gone. All those members will end up as footnotes under the footnote that is Helen Clark’s legacy. What the Government will do to try to save the day is begin the process of jacking up collective-bargaining agreements with its mates in the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) so that $500 goes to every member of the PPTA.

In a caring and sharing way I want to assist Simon Power. He has been receiving overt counselling and mentoring from Murray McCully. Mr McCully has been spending a lot of time with Mr Power since he became the senior Opposition whip. I think Mr McCully is trying to instil a bit of mongrel in Mr Power. I hear that Mr McCully is National’s strategist, but I have yet to see any evidence of that strategy working. Mr Power’s strategy should be to keep well away from Mr McCully. He is likely to suffer from whiplash, with him in the front and poor Mr Tisch at the back—whip No. 1 in the front and whip No. 2 at the back—from the semaphore, signals, and signs that will be going on. Mr Brash, with this new strategy, has got the whips sitting apart, for the first time in the history of this Parliament. I guess he has a strategy there somewhere, but we are yet to see it.

I also say to Mr Power that the road to hell is littered with the bones of young men in a hurry. In direct contrast, Mr McCully is an old man who pines for the Muldoon years of dark plotting, threats, and revenge. After all, he is the Rasputin of the National caucus.

First of all, Mr Power is not the only one in the National caucus who is confused. I shall help him with Standing Order 43 as to when the House sits. Mr Brash has been in the Chamber for only 2 hours and 20 minutes over a 2-week period.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated.

💬 Simon Power: No, I will not be seated. I am raising a point of order.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am dealing with a matter—

💬 Simon Power: You do not know what my point of order is.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. It is up to the Chair to deal with a matter that is against the Standing Orders. The member will withdraw the reference to the member’s absence.

Yes, most certainly, I do withdraw. I just want to help Mr Brash. Standing Order 43 sets out the sittings of the House. It is on page 28, right at the top of the page; he will not have to read much. “Tuesday and Wednesday: 2 pm to 6 pm and 7.30 pm to 10 pm” and “Thursday: 2 pm to 6 pm.” Other members might like to draw his attention to that Standing Order, as there is not much to it. He should just pop in every now and then, because he has not been here much.

Mr Brash had the whole of last week to prepare for the appropriations debate on Tuesday. There was plenty of time for a lie-down in-between, because it was an adjournment week. He finished his speech 1½ minutes early; he plopped down exhausted and could not go the whole hog. He should keep taking the iron tablets—he must be low in iron. He reminds me of a Paul Simon song. I was talking to my Mulcher FM on air this morning, in Hāwera, about the Paul Simon song “Slip Sliding Away”. The more Mr Brash is nearer his destination, the more he is slip sliding away.

I also tell members on the other side that their caucus is so absolutely riven with division that it must be terrible working out which of those three factions they must align themselves with. I say to John Key that before he does the numbers, before he has those nice shots taken of the family at home, he should get rid of those ostentatious ornaments on the mantelpiece. Just one of those ornaments would feed one of my constituents for a year. That is not a good look. The ordinary New Zealander could not relate to those ornaments, so the member should get rid of them. They kind of destroy the “down home on the farm boy” look.

The economy in my electorate, in the Manawatū-Wanganui region, and in the Wanganui district in particular, is absolutely fantastically successful.

💬 Darren Hughes: Booming!

It is booming, as my colleague said. It is so fantastic that we had a full page in the Independent, a good story in the Listener, and a half-page story in the New Zealand News UK that my daughter sent me. She was very proud to see her home city featured in it. The New Zealand News UK states: “In this context, the robustness, breadth, and integrated nature of economic activity in Wanganui are assets that bode well for the future.” This Government is working towards all of New Zealand’s future.

We have read a lot in the papers of late about people being programmed, and I have just heard Jill Pettis trying to re-programme the Leader of the Opposition. I have been thinking about the programming of people, and I have been thinking about us as lawmakers and whether we try to programme people. The answer has to be categorically: “Yes, we do.” Let us take one simple example—a traffic light. Why do we stop at a red traffic light? The answer is that we are programmed to stop when the light turns red. I know that there is no greater power in the colour red than there is in the colour green. The light in itself has no power to stop a car. So we all operate in the knowledge that we have, or in the light of how we have been programmed.

Our parents taught us when we were very young—or they should have done—not to touch hot things. Some of us did, and we got burnt. However, we were still programmed. Our parents instilled us with values, and we learnt the consequences of taking wrong actions. Therefore, it is not so much the laws we pass, but rather, how we have been programmed that stops us. It is not the law that stops us at a red light; rather, it is the consequence of what might happen if we do not stop. It may be that we imagine we would get a large fine. Maybe in our mind’s eye we see a horrific crash. So it is the consequences of our actions that prompt us to stay within the law.

But what happens—and I want to challenge the House with this today—when the programming is wrong? What will happen to a society that re-programmes its people, suddenly telling them that things that have proven to be wrongs in the past are now rights?

Let us go back to my example of the traffic lights. What would happen if I taught my son to drive in a rural area, which I actually did, and he had never seen a traffic light, and I programmed him to believe that when he finally came to a traffic light he goes when he sees it is red? I tell members that I would not like to be going through that set of traffic lights when they are green and he approaches his first red light.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: Is your son colour blind?

No, he is not colour blind. However, if no one else is at the intersection when he goes through the red light, in reality would it make any difference? No, it would not. But we must always make laws for the good of society as a whole. It is for those reasons that I encourage us to be generational politicians, because unless we think of how the laws in this land will affect our children and grandchildren, we will miss the plot.

I have seen too much legislation in the 2 short years I have been here, such as the Civil Union Bill and the Prostitution Law Reform Act, where the focus is on only one generation and we do not consider the adverse effects these laws will have on our children and our grandchildren. For the benefit of those who use our roads, we have traffic lights to tell us when to go and when to stop. Just because my belief system has been programmed to think that going through a red light will not harm anyone, it will in no way prevent the reality of the major disaster that must eventually happen.

Let us as legislators again understand that marriage is to families what traffic lights are to the smooth flowing of traffic on our roads. Instead of watering down marriage, we should understand it and place a greater emphasis on it so that young children grow up in our society in the safety and security they deserve. I believe that all children deserve to have a dad who loves them and a mum who loves them—parents who care for them and who will train them in ways that will benefit both them and the society they live in. This will happen by giving marriage the green light and the Civil Union Bill the red light when we debate that legislation in this House.

I really want to stand here today and say that, yes, we do programme people, and we need to be aware of that as we pass legislation in this House, because there will be a consequence to every law we pass. Today we have heard in the debate the ridiculous example of swimming-pool fencing around paddling pools. We do not want to pass ridiculous legislation; we want to pass legislation that makes sense. We hear the debate about the left side of the House and the right side of the House. Well, United Future is down this end of the House, right in the centre, and we really want to try always to bring a sensible viewpoint to all of these things.

We hear National saying that the light is red, and we hear Labour saying that the light is green. The debate goes backwards and forwards, which is great and encouraging. But let us get one thing right: marriage in this nation has to be talked about, focused on, and given a green light, because it is the backbone of our nation.

I want to talk about leadership and about the concepts of leadership. There have been some great leaders in this Parliament throughout its history. Leadership is about energising the troops. In this country, leadership is about being a patriot—about standing up for one’s country and being proud of one’s country.

However, we have a person over on the other side of the House, a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel of New Zealand politics—they seek him here, they seek him there, they seek him all over—Don Brash, who wants to be a Prime Minister and a leader of this country, yet who goes overseas to Australia to talk about the economy but will not talk about it in New Zealand. Heck, no; he will not talk about the economy here! I think he had quite a good tactic. He would not talk about the economy or front up to the economic debate in this country, because the growth figures, the unemployment figures, and the economy are all doing well. He knew that if he shifted the debate on to the economy in this country he would lose.

So what did he do? He picked the scab off the race issue, and went for law and order. That is what he did domestically in this country. Then he went across the ditch to Australia. What did he do over there? Suddenly, he was the fount of all knowledge about the New Zealand economy and New Zealand society. What did he say to our Australian cousins? They are our best mates whether or not we like them. On the footy field they are our biggest competitors; they are also our biggest trading partners. What did he do? He put the boot into New Zealand when talking to foreign investors in Australia. That is what his contribution to the economic debate has been about.

There is a wonderful Australian expression, which I know from having lived in Australia for a while. Do members know what it is? It is “gone troppo”. The Leader of the Opposition has gone troppo. He has gone completely troppo. That is what Australians and New Zealanders think of his contribution. It shows he has gone troppo.

What do we have today in the general debate? Well, we have the walking dead in Lynda Scott and Roger Sowry. They are out to grass; they have had a gutsful; they are gone. We have Georgina te Heuheu. The boot has been put into her by the National Party, and I am sure there are a few people in this building who would testify to that. She has been treated poorly.

I want Don Brash to front up to the debate. Look at yesterday—at the people over there who were cowering behind their desks. He was crippled. Every commentator in this country, every editorial, knows that when he steps into this place he is a beaten man. The best those members opposite can do is to stand up, as Tony Ryall did, and take limp points of order to try to defend a leader who is not up to it. They made a blue; they should have kept Bill English.

Even the deputy leader of the National Party will not front for the debate. For 2 days he has not fronted. Will he defend his leader? I do not know why he has not fronted for the debate. Maybe there was a special on at Burger King. Maybe there was a pie-eating contest somewhere that he could win—I do not know.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Many members have talked about a member’s absence. It is not on. The member will withdraw the reference to a member’s absence.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did take some advice from the Clerk. I am advised, but I am in your hands to be corrected, that referring to a member who has not fronted for a debate is slightly different from referring to the absence of a member from the Chamber. But I withdraw and accede to your wishes.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member made reference to a time, and that is what was wrong.

I withdraw. So what we have here is the Scarlet Pimpernel of New Zealand politics. The only person on that side of the House who looked happy yesterday when Don Brash was being mauled—when he was being roasted, and when his feet were being put right on the hot coals—the one guy who looked as though it was the happiest day of his life, was “Johnnie” Key.

Simon Power looked aghast, because the touch of death is upon him. Don Brash has nominated him as the next leader of the National Party, and that is the kiss of death. His throat has been cut, he is on the hook, and it is over; the carcass is up there, waiting to go to the works. But “Johnnie” Key is on that runway, ready to taxi out, ready to spread his wings. As I said some weeks ago, he has not made an enemy in the National caucus. He just sits there quietly, ready to go—but there is poor old Simon Power. He once thought he would be next off the blocks. The only block he is on now is the chopping-block. He knows that John Key is going to leapfrog him, so he is history.

Then we have Nick Smith, the great defender of the faith. He is the man who has a conviction. He is the man, the impact player of the National Party, who today in this Parliament and in this general debate has been told to front up and give it a bit of guts. I say that Don Brash should show some grit, get into this debate, defend his own team, and show some leadership.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.