General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is a bad time to be a National MP, and I have some very bad news for the National MPs: things can only get worse. They will get worse because it is now clear that the gamble to put in a first-term MP—a man who has never won a single election on his own, has never been in Government before, and has always been in the monastic cloister of the Reserve Bank—as the leader of the National Party has backfired.

Increasingly, the leader of the National Party looks like a ferret stuck in the headlights of an oncoming car. He cannot go around the country, because if he does the media cane him. He cannot come back into the House, because if he does the Government canes him. So Don Brash tried a new tactic this week: he sat in the House for an hour and a half and did nothing—nothing at all. Finally, before question time finished, he got up and tried to walk out unnoticed. Frankly, he had been unnoticed until that time, because he had done nothing. Don Brash looks like a ferret, and a truck is coming. Its headlights are on, and he is about to be run over, because the National Party—

💬 Simon Power: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has gone too far. All members of this House are honourable members, and to start to equate members with animals does lead to retaliation, which becomes rather silly. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. That truck is coming, because the National Party always changes its leader. Since we have been the Government, National has had three leaders already, and Mr Key, who stays in the Chamber, is already looking around eagerly, waiting to move from the second bench to the first bench. He is the most ambitious first-time MP since Don Brash, really, to sit in this House.

Not only has National had three changes of leader, but it has changed the deputy leader four times already since the last election. National has reshuffled so often it forgot to move the senior whip off the front bench. It reshuffles all the time because it has no talent. What National ends up doing, as a result, is that it pushes as hard as Mr English did this week. He pushed very hard on the issue of Hauraki Plains College. He came in with a box, and he sat behind that box. When we finally got the box and opened it, we found the box had nothing in it, at all, to prove Mr English’s claims that Hauraki Plains College had done the wrong thing. He confessed that today, and he has apologised. It is no wonder he apologised, because Sandra Goudie had threatened to walk out of the National Party caucus if he did not pull his head in over that attack on a good school in her area. We know that is true. Everybody else in National’s caucus backed Sandra Goudie in telling Bill English to lay off one of the best schools around her electorate—and he has been forced to back down.

Things will get worse, because National has no policy. National members disagree on policy. Mr Key disagrees with Don Brash on almost everything these days. Have members noticed that very subtle disagreement all the time, as Mr Key positions himself to take over the leadership? Things will get worse because of the personality differences that are right through the National Party. Mr English cannot stand Maurice Williamson, and Maurice Williamson cannot stand Bill English. Can we believe that those people could ever form a Government together? Dr Smith, in North and South magazine, stated that he was “dorked” by his leader. He stated that he was “screwed by the caucus”. He stated—and I quote this carefully, Mr Speaker—that he did not “come to Parliament to shag spiders”, whatever that means. I absolutely wonder. What does it mean to have that kind of language used by a member of Parliament who is so desperately bitter after being treated so badly by the colleagues whom he now has to somehow serve on the front bench? Things will only get worse for National, because we will make them worse. Should the National members think we have finished with them, I say we have not started on them.

That was the man who led a blameless life at Massey University—and he has come out to tell everyone else that they spent their time in monastic cloisters! That matters because that Minister looks at the world through light pink lenses. While he has been looking around with his academic theories, in his own sector of responsibility the polytechs have been ripping off the taxpayer for tens of millions of dollars. I will come back to that matter later. I did not apologise to Hauraki Plains College. I spoke to it about what it was doing, and the best that the Government has been able to come up with is to say that the assessments in the box were not meant for assessment. That is what the Minster of Education said today. I stand by everything I have said, and the big question is whether Trevor Mallard will give in now to the pressure for a National Certificate of Educational Achievement review, or whether he will give in later. It is really just a matter of whether there will be a review now or later.

I want to come back to Mr Maharey. Mr Maharey is surfing on a fiscal wave that is the product of a strong economy. He is showing the reckless disregard for taxpayers’ money that we have come to expect of the Labour Government, because there is so much more of that. There is a $34 billion cumulative nominal increase in the tax take. Where is it going? Mr Maharey is overlooking the following set of circumstances. Any number of schools in our electorates run adult and community education classes, and some of those classes are quite popular. They are paid for by tutors getting an hourly rate. What is happening to those classes? I want to read out an email to the Minister of Education, because it is his portfolio money and his Minister mate’s portfolio money that is involved. The email is from a person who runs adult and community education courses, and it states: “We have been hit from every angle—far more than just first aid and boat master, computing and te reo Māori. Basically, any class which was popular they”—meaning the polytechs—“have attacked.”

What do the polytechs do? They set up an arrangement, often with a voluntary agency like the coastguard or the Red Cross. They grab a course that is being taught in the local high school and turn it into an equivalent full-time student - funded course, which is much more expensive. The polytechs charge the participants for the full cost of the course, and share the funding between themselves and the voluntary agency, when neither of them does anything. They do nothing. The participants pay for the tutor, and the Government pays the voluntary agency and the polytech for enrolling the students. The Government is paying out thousands of dollars for each of those courses. I will give the example of just one small course. I will not say what it is or where it is held. But for that one small course, the voluntary agency collected $125,000 and the polytech collected $75,000. The participants paid for the cost of the course. That is just one small course, which used to be run in a high school, under the auspices of adult and community education.

If the organisations concerned were not public organisations, that would be fraud. And Steve Maharey looks the other way, because the people involved are all nice Labour-voting people, who understand the public service and the ethics of collaborative, non-competitive tertiary education. Those people are ripping the Government off, day after day, and then laughing behind Steve Maharey’s back. I know that, because I go and talk to them. I tell them that Steve Maharey said he would get the money back, and they laugh. No one believes what Steve Maharey, a front-bench Minister and close confidant of the Prime Minister, says, because he is a totally ineffective Minister who has overseen over $100 million of polytech rip-offs, for which the taxpayer is getting almost no educational value. And Steve Maharey still sits on the Government’s front bench.

I want to talk about the independent youth benefit—something that I questioned earlier. But before I do, I just want to make one observation: amongst Labour we have an interesting dichotomy. There are those members who were sensible enough to allow United Future to push forward with the Families Commission, recognising the need for such an entity to pursue the interests of the family. Yet at the same time, we have another less sensible part of Labour that is doing its damnedest to destroy the families of this country. One of the members in that part of Labour, I suspect, is the Minister the Hon Rick Barker, whose jowls and jaw seem to be flapping like a flag at the surrender of Iwo Jima, with regard to the independent youth benefit. He utterly and totally misses the point.

The fact is that although there are some youth at risk who do require the independent youth benefit, unfortunately in many cases there is no attempt to seek out the veracity of the allegations made by the youth. Very often the youth simply wants to opt out of being parented and to be able to get access to the funds to do so, without his or her very good parents being able, first of all, to answer back the allegations, because of privacy rights. There is no determination whatsoever on the part of Action Works and of Work and Income to look at the veracity of the allegations made against the parents, in the first place. It is very hard for parents to reconcile with a youth once he or she has been given a sufficient amount of money to live separately. That is very, very difficult. It destroys families, and destroys family relationships.

Since 2001 we have spent $109.6 million of taxpayers’ money, of which $25 million was spent in the last year, on this benefit. That represents the Government trying to split kids off from their families, which is utterly despicable and disgusting. It gives kids a taste of what life is like on a benefit, and gives them the encouragement to pursue exactly that lifestyle. One of the other attributes that is so distasteful about the whole process is that Work and Income hands out that money, yet does not then turn round and investigate the lifestyle that is being led by those youths. It does not look at their living conditions or at whom they are living with, and it certainly does not back up the claim that the benefit allows kids to pursue their scholastic work at school.

I have cases left, right, and centre of families that are receiving phone calls from teachers, asking them why their kids are not at school. The parents are still held to be responsible for that, but it is the State that allows those kids to live away from home, without parental supervision. Who is to blame? When some of the parents wanted to question exactly that, they were told that despite the fact that the State pays for the youths to live away from the family and despite the fact that the Government allows those kids to unmonitored, in terms of whether they attend school and their living conditions, parents are still held to be accountable for what those youths do. That is ridiculous. We are telling the parents of this country that they are responsible for bringing up the kids they bring into the world, yet we are taking away the means by which they can be responsible for that—the means by which they can parent those kids. This Government is complicit in doing just that, by failing to look at exactly how it is being done.

There are some kids in this country who do need the independent youth benefit. They are at risk. But the problem is that the Government is doing nothing to ascertain the veracity of the allegations that are made against parents. If we expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for splitting families up, then at least we should go after the parents, throw the allegations at them, and charge them with an offence. They should be charged for the abuse that they are supposed to have inflicted on their youths, for whom taxpayers are footing the bill. It is an absolute nonsense. What we got from the Minister, in answer to questions earlier, was nothing but a frothy concoction that was devoid of meaning. It seems to me that when it comes to families, it is not the case that the Government bites off more than it can chew, but that it chews more than it can bite. The independent youth benefit acts as an incentive against reconciliation between parent and child. It is a taxpayer-funded benefit to incentivise youth to get away from the requirements of being parented and the responsibilities involved in being a member of a family. What we should do is to focus on the real abuse that occurs.

Today my colleague Ron Mark and I will outline a conspiracy to let a violent criminal walk the streets of Auckland because the police would not prosecute him for a violent crime.

Two years ago a serious crime was committed by a potential killer in Rocky Nook Avenue in Auckland. The offender was identified and DNA-tested by the police, and he confessed. This was an open-and-shut case but it never got to court, and we want to know why. The offence happened at the home of Judge Coral Shaw and her husband, Peter Shaw. Their lawyer, John Haigh QC, said that Mr Shaw had been violently attacked in a burglary and had not wanted to go through the trauma of a trial. I emphasise the lawyer’s words that his client had been “violently attacked”. He said that Mr Shaw remains a victim. Mr Shaw, of course, claimed that there had been a burglary at his home, that he was attacked, and that he rang the police to lodge a complaint of aggravated burglary at his home. Mr Haigh said that his client was like many victims: he did not want to relive his situation by going through the prosecution process.

I want to know what is going on in New Zealand. Let us look at these facts. They are coming out very slowly, but they are coming. There was a violent incident at the Shaw home, but was it a burglary? The police had a suspect, and they identified this man by DNA. The police had more: they had a confession. In short, they had an open-and-shut case against Phillip Edwards, but it did not proceed. They did not need, at any time, Peter Shaw as a witness.

So the reason that the public has been given today, yesterday, and for the last few weeks is balderdash. If there is a killing, as in a murder case, the victim obviously cannot appear in court. This cut-and-dried case would have put a killer behind bars, but it was dropped, and we want to know why. Who made the decision to let a violent criminal with over 50 offences, many violent, go free? Who decided to cover up this case and mark the file “Confidential” and “not available for any authorised disclosure”? Who wrote on the police file the following: “Edwards was spoken to and admitted the burglary on the understanding that it would never be used against him or published in any way.”? Why, when the police have the man’s modus operandi, was he not charged? What is the Minister of Police not telling New Zealand today? Why did the police threaten on three occasions, one of which was in writing, the television programme 20/20?

💬 Simon Power: What!

They threatened the television programme not once but on three occasions, one of which was in writing. Whom is the Minister covering up for and whom is he protecting? He has now had weeks to apprise himself of all aspects of this case, yet he sits there and argues that it is the job of the police, and that he is not responsible. What will it take for that incompetent Minister to realise his responsibility? We have had a murder here, yet the guy gets a conviction for manslaughter because this case never even got to trial—a case that was identical to the McNee case in many ways. Who is the Minister protecting? How can he say the police are tough on violent offenders, when killers are allowed to walk free in the streets of New Zealand? And how many other cases are there like this? For there will be others. What is the Minister hiding, and why should he not be required by his leader, the Prime Minister of this country, to resign? I cannot conceive of any self-respecting Western democracy allowing a Minister to get away with that—allowing him to abrogate himself of all responsibility and say it is someone else’s job to tell the public what was going on. This is a man who got up in the House last week and said that crime is down in New Zealand.

💬 Ron Mark: No wonder!

No wonder—he does not prosecute violent criminals! [Interruption] No wonder—he does not prosecute murderers!

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the outburst from the Minister of State Services permissible? In reference to figures on crime, he yelled out across the House that crime is down because Ron Mark was out of the country.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me put it this way. I try not to interrupt the debate, and I try not to call attention to comments being made. Now that the member has mentioned the comment, it will of course appear in Hansard—it would not have. The comment having been made, I thought it was an inappropriate one, but it was not actually out of order. I thought it was a passing comment made across the House by way of interjection. His own leader has made many more-effective ones.

I deplore what Winston Peters is doing. What Winston Peters is doing is using this House to attack individuals in a way that he is not prepared to do outside. [Interruption] This member has the lawyers’ bills to show that he does say outside what he says in the House. The point that must be made is I am pleased that we do not have a country in which the Minister of Police decides on prosecutions. That is a matter for the police, and will always be.

But the point I want to make is that it is good, is it not, to have a leader of an Opposition party who has a presence in the House—someone who fronts up to the House, someone who makes comments to the House.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ rulings 23/7 and 24/1 specifically refer to the convention that reference to the absence of a member from the Chamber is out of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member did not make that comment. He said “a presence in the House”. I thought he was referring to a member’s overall contribution. Certainly, if he had mentioned whether that member was in the House at this moment, that would have been out of order. But I did not take that comment to be out of order at all.

Is it not good to have the leader of an Opposition party who is a regular attender of the House—someone who makes a contribution in the House, someone who is not afraid to ask questions of the Prime Minister? I do not know why Don Brash earns $5,700, on average, for each question he asks in this place, when Winston Peters is doing his job for him. If I were Mr Peters, I would put in for a pay rise. Maybe we have to get to the point where the Leader of the Opposition is appointed by a vote of Opposition parties, because, that way, they might have an arrangement whereby they get someone who is prepared to do an honest day’s work—and that would be a change.

Bill English is someone whose behaviour over the last 2 weeks has also been deplorable. He dumped on a school, using material that he claimed was assessment material but that was not used in the final assessments.

💬 Katherine Rich: It said “assessment book”.

That member clearly does not understand; Bill English did. He took the word of a liar—someone who was facing competency procedures. He took stolen material, and he brought it to this House. He indicated to the House that there was a problem, when the problem had been long fixed. He knew it, but for a cheap political point Bill English dragged Hauraki Plains College’s very good name—a good rural school with a wonderful reputation in its area, and to which kids come from right around the region because of its quality—through the mud. Let me make it clear: the only person who did anything wrong was the teacher who was facing competency procedures. That is the person who stole the workbooks and that is the person who put students up for credits that they should not have got, and he was acted on. He had been acted on long before Bill English came into the picture. So what happened? Bill English, in order to make a cheap political point, came to the House, used the words of a liar, and attempted to mislead everyone here. That is deplorable. I agree with what Sandra Goudie said at National’s caucus yesterday.

💬 Simon Power: Oh, come on!

Oh, come on! The whole of Bellamy’s is talking about what happened in the National Party caucus yesterday, and if I were her, I would have walked, as she threatened to do. If National had a leader worth his salt, the apology that Bill English has made privately to the school would be made public. If the National Party’s leader was worth anything, we would see some leadership from the National Party, and Bill English would apologise.

After the speech from that member I can only conclude he is jet-lagged. We had a member criticising another member by saying that he has not been doing an honest day’s work. Who said that? Trevor Mallard, a Minister who recently returned from swanning around the world, sipping champagne at the Olympics, working on his tan, and taking the credit for the Olympic glory of those hard-working Kiwis. He could not even get the haka right. It was an embarrassment. That Minister was talking about cheap political points and I have two words to say to that: Tuku’s underpants. Was that a cheap political point?

It is very interesting that today the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Steve Maharey, led the debate. That Minister, more than any other Minister in this House, has been responsible for public money going down the drain. Tax and spend, tax and spend—Michael Cullen collects the money and Minister Maharey spends it. What does he spend it on? Things like bread-tag earring projects.

💬 Simon Power: That worked.

That worked really well. I hear they retail at $2 a pair. Then there was the hip hop tour, where someone had the opportunity to travel for 70 days to research how hip hop got to New Zealand. It included a Paris stop-over, a nice wee stop-over in Fiji, not to mention the chill-out period in Hawaii. Where is the report from the trip? We have not seen it. Labour is proud of those sorts of projects, such as craft trips to Melbourne. Many New Zealanders would like to go on craft trips to Melbourne; the difference is we do not expect other taxpayers to fund them.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: This is from the member who had 6 months off.

There speaks that member once again. I wonder how his jet lag is. He had better work on that tan, as it appears Athens was not hot enough for him. Michael Cullen has collected $34 billion more than he needed, and Minister Maharey has spent it on a wide range of projects that have gone absolutely nowhere. So much for the “life of blameless excellence”! The life of blameless excellence is becoming somewhat tarnished as the result of a lot of hip hop tours, dodgy projects, and of course I must mention the bread-tag earrings once again.

National has had a huge amount to say about these dodgy projects, but I will spend some time looking at a report from the Government’s own officials. Let us look into the Government’s report on the capacity-building grants—which, for members who may not recall, used to be called closing the gaps before Helen Clark banned that term. These capacity-building grants have been fraught with difficulty. The report found that the guidelines for the grants were relaxed at the end of the financial year. Staff thought “Oh gee, we have a whole lot of money that hasn’t been spent. Let’s start to dish it out.” Staff found that the guidelines were difficult to understand and unworkable. The grants were not supposed to be used to pay salaries, but workers went out and told organisations that if they called someone a researcher, a project manager, or a facilitator, then using the grants for that purpose was OK. These grants have been a joke. As for the Pacific organisational development funding, the reporting was so poor that it is difficult to generalise about the results.

The sad thing is we are not talking about tens of thousands of dollars; we are talking about millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that has been spent on projects purporting to be about community development but do little more than furnish someone’s pockets. Yesterday in the House I raised an issue about a $19,000 grant that had gone to the Aotearoa Rugby Football League. That $19,000 was supposed to be put towards producing a business plan. No one has seen this business plan. I cannot find anyone who has seen it. Not only was the money not allocated to the many cost categories that were in the original application; there were just four neat payments to a Labour Party official who just happened to own the company that has made the most of that particular contract. Minister Maharey then called in KPMG. It was a whitewash.

I would describe that speech as a bit rich coming from that member. Katherine Rich comes from the party that says it stands for one law for all. She opposes paid parental leave for every woman and man in this country—every parent—except herself. She was happy to take paid parental leave when she had her children, but she denies it to every other person in this country. I think it has been a little bit of “follow my leader” from young Ms Rich. Don Brash opposes 4 weeks’ annual leave for everyone except himself. He made sure that 4 weeks’ annual leave was in his contract when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. [Interruption] Yes, he takes a holiday every week.

I was talking to a National Party supporter the other day who said that National had offered him no reason to vote National. He thought the Ōrewa speech would not have a lasting impact on public opinion, because for a party to get into Government there had to be real substance behind the leadership. There had to be substance within the leadership, but substance behind it would have been good, as well. Unlike me, this guy thought that Don Brash was an excellent Governor of the Reserve Bank. He felt that is where he should have stayed, because he is making no mark on this Parliament whatsoever. This National Party voter expressed frustration at the lack of policy coming out of the National Party. He felt this had much to do with the deep divisions between Don Brash and the spokespersons on finance, social development, and education. Don Brash is at odds with his key spokespersons. [Interruption]

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you hear what Katherine Rich said then?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry but I did not.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It was most offensive. She should apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member make a derogatory comment?

💬 Katherine Rich: I think I did, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you withdraw and apologise?

💬 Katherine Rich: I withdraw.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: And apologise, if it was a derogatory comment.

💬 Katherine Rich: And I apologise.

Don Brash is at odds with his “Key”spokesperson as well as his “Rich” and “English” ones. It is this failure to resolve huge differences of opinion that has left National with nothing more than the Ōrewa speech and a law and order speech that was heavy on rhetoric and light on detail and substance.

There was also frustration expressed about the lack of depth on the National Party’s front bench. Someone else put it more succinctly when he said there was something wrong with a party when its old guard was as young as Tony Ryall, Nick Smith, and Bill English. He could equally have commented that it was odd that the new guard had been in Parliament for 2 years and would be eligible for superannuation next year. This is not the once-proud National Party where the old guard was old and the Young Turks were young.

But that was not the real issue for this National Party supporter. He thought it was bad enough that National had no policy, no depth in its front bench, and nothing in its caucus to offer this country, but he said that Don Brash had done something that even he could not accept. It was one thing to bag New Zealand inside New Zealand; it was another to bag New Zealand overseas. That was an absolute disgrace in his book and I agree. It was tantamount to economic sabotage, and that man stands guilty as charged of economic sabotage of this country.

The newspapers, in what they have printed, back that up. The Dominion Post said: “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: “National should by now be giving more detail on what it would do differently if it came to power. 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.” In the New Zealand Herald, Fran O’Sullivan stated: “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. Instead his article reads as little more than a summation of why he came into politics. The net impression from the Brash article is that anyone who lives in New Zealand is a loser—investor or individual. What it doesn’t say is why he bothers to stay and what he will do.”

And that is because he is the loser, National is the loser, and this country is the loser when an Opposition leader goes overseas and bags our country.

This morning the Human Rights Commission released a report on the state of human rights in New Zealand today. I hope the Government will not dismiss it lightly. What that report shows is that while we are doing pretty well in some areas, like improvements to the monitoring of human rights, we are still not achieving what we should be in a number of other critical areas, like how we treat our children and a whole lot of other people who tend to be marginalised and treated with a culture of contempt by the structures of our society. Some of the key issues highlighted by this report include the large number of our children and young people who still experience poverty, neglect, and abuse; the widespread barriers that prevent many people living with impairments from full participation in society; the vulnerability of all of those who are in any form of detention or institutional care; the endemic social and economic inequities that face Māori and Pacific Island people particularly; and the ongoing significance of the challenge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and what it could and should mean in terms of truly responsible governance.

While a lot of the material used in the report is already well known, such as the fact that nearly a third of our country’s children are still living in poverty, and the fact that our children have the fifth-highest rate of death by maltreatment in the OECD, the commission’s achievement has been to bring key information together within a human rights framework, having consulted with some 5,000 people whose views should certainly not be ignored. The commission and those it consulted also contribute a whole range of suggestions about where we need to do better, and, while I realise that the Government is developing an action plan to be released later this year, I hope it does not feel it has to wait until then before starting to take concrete action on at least some of the issues raised.

I turn to just a couple of those issues, which is all I have time to do today. The report highlights the fact that New Zealand still does not acknowledge in our legislation any universal right to adequate housing, as does, for example, the UK. There is no systematic monitoring of housing law for things like security of tenure, affordability, or accessibility. Children are suffering as a result of a lack of access to stable and secure housing, and Māori, Pacific Island people, and disabled people continue to be disadvantaged. Those findings are backed up by the real-life experiences of ordinary people all over this country. I have been visiting a number of community groups working on housing issues over the last few weeks, and the reality of what is going on in some of our urban and rural communities is nothing short of a disgrace. After 5 years of a Labour Government and the very welcome reintroduction of income-related rents for State housing, we still find ourselves with waiting lists that are completely outstripping any willingness by the State to cope; with Housing New Zealand Corporation staff who, apparently, actively discourage people from going on to the waiting lists; and with a large number of people who continue to live in substandard and/or overcrowded housing—or not in houses at all.

The Green Party believes that the Government should make manifest in legislation a universal right to adequate housing. The Government—and local government for that matter—should accept a role in providing housing for those most in need. That includes people who literally do not have a roof over their heads today. The Government should be a lot more open to looking at new options for providing social housing through support for genuine third-sector finance and building initiatives, which could help begin to break down our current almost total dependence on the private and State sectors for the provision of social housing.

On the issue of the abuse and neglect of children, I note that the report makes no bones about calling for the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Again, this is something our current Government could do, with no fiscal impact and with no mucking about, if it had the will to do so, as it can certainly be assured of the Green Party’s backing in implementing such legislation immediately. We do not have to wait for more action plans or elections to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, or to do more for people in severe housing need. Labour could, and should, use this report as a blueprint for action right now. I commend the Human Rights Commission and all the people and groups that have worked with it in putting together this report, and I truly hope it will have a real and positive impact on some of our most negative statistics before too many months go by.

I have some questions for Don Brash, and I wonder whether he will answer those questions as I go through them.

💬 Hon David Carter: I can answer.

💬 John Key: We can answer.

I do not want the quislings in the front row who are pretending to be Don Brash to answer the question; I want Don Brash to answer. The first question is: why is it that from June this year he has asked only four primary questions in the House before today?

💬 Simon Power: He’s down in Invercargill getting votes.

If the rabble on the front bench could just be quiet! Even Don Brash says that it is impossible to rank the front bench. I want Don Brash to explain why since June this year he has asked only four primary questions until today. And why did he flog John Key’s question today, after John Key did all the work on it yesterday? I would like to ask him those particular questions, but I cannot hear any answer from Don Brash. I would happily yield my call right now to Don Brash if he would like to answer those questions.

I have another question for Don Brash. I want him to tell me now—perhaps he could tell me by way of interjection—whether it is National’s policy to get rid of the nuclear ban by lunchtime. Is that the policy? He is being very quiet. I cannot hear a response from him, and I would be quite happy right now to yield my position to Don Brash if he would answer that particular question. Why did Dr Brash not stick up for his MP from Tamaki, Clem Simich? Can he please tell us? There is no answer—there is absolutely no answer to that particular question. I have a very good question for him. Why did he go to Australia and bag our country to the Aussies? Why did he—Dr Brash, the Leader of the Opposition—go to Australia and bag our country to Australians? That is the closest thing to treachery one can get in the House—we do not like Australians! The only thing we like about Australians is when we take the Bledisloe Cup from them!

We saw a cartoon that shows Don Brash going through immigration in Australia with a sign over his back that says, “The end is nigh, we are doomed”, and an Aussie immigration man saying: “He says his name is Brash, and he’s got a message of encouragement for Australian investors and tourists when he is in charge.” Where was the message of encouragement? Fran O’Sullivan got it right when she said: “At least he could have outlined a prescription for things to do.” And before the rich person over there starts saying: “What about Clark?”, let me say that Helen Clark, wherever she went in the world, set out a prescription of hope for this country as she talked to international audiences. Not once did she bag our nation to the Australians.

I am not finished with Don Brash yet. I want him to tell the House how he ranks his front bench. Who are the people on his front bench who are any good? [Interruption] That was absolutely not an answer, at all. But that is not unusual. When we look at the front bench, we see, really, only one person, National’s “Key” spokesperson, who is really looking forward to taking over the position. I ask Don Brash this question: does he agree with John Key’s assessment of the superannuation fund, or will it, like the nuclear policy, be gone by lunchtime?

I am getting a little tired of Dr Brash not answering these questions. I want to ask him one very direct question: how can he put his hand out on pay day and take his pay? I want Dr Brash to tell me how he fills in his days in this place. I know he is going to Invercargill to speak to a Rotary club. I know that because the club cannot sell the tickets. It has had to advertise to get people to buy tickets. What a wimpy Leader of the Opposition!

That was all but a valedictory speech from the bitter member for Invercargill. I do not blame him for being bitter, because his own career has, basically, been truncated. He has had to toss in the towel because he knows he is unelectable in Invercargill. That is what happens when one’s community is destroyed after Trevor Mallard is let loose on one’s electorate. Mr Peck has to toss in the towel and find another job, because he has nowhere else to go. That is what happens when Trevor Mallard is in one’s electorate.

Yesterday that self-proclaimed Olympian, Trevor Mallard, came to the House to answer a question. He was back from his Evers-Swindell photo shoot. He came to the House to answer a very simple and straightforward question: “What was the cumulative nominal increase in taxes since 1999?”. I sat with bated breath waiting for the answer. What did I get? I saw Trevor Mallard, that self-proclaimed Olympian, hide under the cloak of cleverness. He whispered: “$12.793 billion” to the House because he was ashamed to give the real answer, which he knew, of course, was $33.992 billion. Extra taxes worth $33.992 billion have been robbed from the dinner tables, seats, and pockets of all New Zealanders. He was ashamed to come to the House to answer that question, so he hid under the cloak of cleverness. That came from a man who has truncated and destroyed the career of Mark Peck. Boy, there will be interesting leaving drinks when Mark Peck leaves this House in about 12 months’ time!

The Hon Dr Michael Cullen is the “bag man”. His bag is overflowing with the efforts of hard-working of New Zealanders. There are $34 billion worth of extra taxes in his bag. What does he do with that bag?

💬 Opposition Member: Where has it all gone?

Well, he transfers his booty of extra taxes from the seventh floor to his friendly sidekick on the sixth floor, “Big Spendin’ Steve”. “Big Spendin’ Steve” gets the bag with the $34 billion worth of extra taxes, and what does he decide to do with it?

💬 Phil Heatley: What does he spend it on?

He wastes it. That is what he decides to do. Under his nose, Steve Maharey has a raft of rorts that he executes with glee. Shall I tell members about the raft of rorts?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The suggestion that a member is rorting is something that is quite unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member whether that is what he said.

Not at all. What spending programmes from the sixth floor have we seen? There have been hip hop tours, slush funds in the order of tens of millions of dollars for polytechnics, and courses for singing, humming, and listening to the radio, not to mention—

💬 Simon Power: “Sing along with Steve”.

“Sing along with Steve” is very popular. It is like sucking saltwater through one’s nose while playing twilight golf. [Interruption] Yes—craft trips to Melbourne. It reads like a list of things people could do when they have nothing else to do, and it is all funded out of the $34 billion worth of extra taxes that have come from the hard-working people of New Zealand. Kiwis have had enough. They have said that they want all that flaky spending from Steve Maharey to end. They would like a refund of their hard-earned taxes. In case members have missed the facts—because that self-proclaimed Olympian forgot to tell them when he came to the House yesterday—here they are. Fact: $34 billion in additional taxes has been taken from the hard-working individuals and businesses of New Zealand since 1999. Fact: individuals are paying 35 percent more than when the Government came into office in 1999. Fact: 3 million taxpayers in this country are all paying an additional $2,800 each per year. Could the Government not find better things to do with it than fund the flaky things that have been coming out of Steve Maharey’s office on the sixth floor? Fact: companies in New Zealand are paying 72 percent more than they were paying in 1999, but the Government does not seem to think that is a big problem. It is not concerned about companies doing that. As Dr Don Brash quite rightly pointed out today, this Government is forcing companies in New Zealand into a most uncompetitive position. In 1999, when the Government came into office, the company tax rate in New Zealand was 33 percent. Today it stands at 33 percent. So in one respect we can say there has been no change.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Ron Mark.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague Ron Mark, but according to the list I have in front of me, the next call should go to the Māori Party. I wonder whether you could advise the House as to how matters are to proceed from this point.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next party that is due for the call is New Zealand First, and it will take it. The 12th spot can then be reallocated if the member from the Māori Party does not turn up by the time the 12th spot comes up.

I ask that you clarify for the House whether, in the event that a party is not able to take an allocated call, it is then the case that the call moves to the next allocated party, and that an unallocated slot remains at the end of the speaking list. If that is the case, could you please advise the House how you intend to allocate that final spot.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: My thinking at this stage is that ACT has not had a call. [Interruption] I was going to speak to the ACT member in a minute. Every now and again in the general debate a party does not get a call. Because ACT is not getting a call today, it seems reasonable to me that ACT members be asked whether they would like that call—if the member from the Māori Party does not come before the 12th call.

There are three tenets of policing that are absolutely adhered to in normal circumstances by the police of this nation. They are, firstly, to detect crime; secondly, to apprehend offenders; and, thirdly, to prevent crime from occurring. The police are charged to uphold the law without fear or favour. In the case of Phillip Layton Edwards, clearly that has not been the case.

Further, there is a convention that if the police have all the evidence, they must prosecute. Standard domestic violence and rape cases are occasions where they totally adhere to that convention. But as we look at the situation that is unfolding in the Phillip Edwards case as it involves Mr Peter Shaw, it is quite clear that for some obscure and odd reason the police have chosen to break with that convention.

I raise another point, which is about the oath of office that every police officer takes. That oath states: “I do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the Police, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will, until I am legally discharged; that I will see and cause Her Majesty’s peace to be kept and preserved; and I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the peace; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to the law. So help me God.” That is the oath of office that every police officer takes. The question is why the police did not adhere to their oath, follow the conventions, and charge Phillip Layton Edwards with a reported aggravated burglary of Judge Shaw’s home. Why?

People ask why I should pursue this issue. Why should New Zealand First pursue this issue? I want to give the House the reason. The police knew the violent nature and tendencies of Mr Edwards. They had him in custody, and they had a case against him, with a DNA strike and a confession, yet they still failed to prosecute him on this charge. Again, we have to ask why.

I want to give the House an idea of why he was in jail. This is from the sentencing notes of Judge Rea, in the Napier District Court: “The complainant and three small children were at the house. You”—being Edwards—“became angry when you were woken by a telephone call. You accused the complainant”—Edwards’ girlfriend—“of deliberately making more noise than she needed to wake you up. When she denied this you lifted her from the chair where she was and you punched her in the face. This caused her to fall to the ground, where you punched her and at one point tried to strangle her. She feared for her life and she asked if she could go outside for a cigarette. You agreed, and when she went outside and tried to run off down the road, you followed her but you did not want her to leave. You were yelling threats and abuse at her all along the way throughout this exercise in an effort to get her back to the house. You grabbed her by the hair and tried to drag her back. You held her by the hair with one hand while punching her several times in the face with the other. By this time the two of you were out on the street and the incident was being witnessed by another person, who drove towards you in a car. Fearing for your girlfriend’s safety, this other person drove towards you and parked alongside. She called you to stop what you were doing. She tooted the car horn to try to get the attention of neighbours or someone else to come to help. Your response was to abuse her, swear at her and threaten to smash her car. Not surprisingly, she was frightened and locked herself in the car. You then went back to your girlfriend and continued to beat her up in the same manner as before. The lady did a U-turn, tried to help, and eventually gave up and sought the assistance of the police.”

That is the nature of Phillip Layton Edwards, and the police knew all of that detail when they got a DNA strike and a confession in relation to a reported aggravated burglary of the home of a member of the judiciary. Why did the police not prosecute Mr Edwards in the interests of the safety of the public? A prosecution would have eventually preserved the life of Mr David McNee.

I was interested to read an article in Te Nupepa o te Tairawhiti entitled “The Treaty of Waitangi—The Legal Perspective”. The article stated: “The Treaty of Waitangi and what it means, what happened after its signing, and the implications of section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 could, it may be argued, be seen as evidence that many Māori rights existed and continued into the new legal order. This information is absolutely vital for underpinning our constitutional basis as a nation. Our country is desperately in need of information to identify the nature of rights which existed for tangata whenua prior to the treaty, in order to establish means by which to continue these rights into the new legal system. It is indeed a call for enshrining the treaty into a written constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand.”

The writer of this article is one of our leading lights of the judiciary. She is the kaiwhakawā of the Tai Rāwhiti Māori Land Court based at Gisborne. She has been a law lecturer at the University of Waikato and at Victoria University of Wellington. A specialist in international human rights, she was also a Harkness Fellow to the USA. Indeed, Judge Caren Wickliffe is well qualified to advise us on critical issues of constitutional significance, given her legal and academic breadth.

Judge Wickliffe is also of Ngāti Porou descent. It is this last statement that seems to have incurred the wrath of the executive, specifically both the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. Earlier this year the Prime Minister queried the judge’s ability to preside over proceedings from East Coast foreshore and seabed claimants, stating that the judge is of Ngāti Porou descent and this case concerns Ngāti Porou. Such a claim was made with little concern that the Cabinet Manual specifically instructs that Ministers should not express any views that are likely to be published, where they could be regarded as reflecting adversely on the impartiality, personal views, or ability of any judge. Clearly, the Prime Minister considers that the ethnicity of Judge Wickliffe adversely affects her impartiality, her personal views, and her ability as a judge.

Then today in the Independent the Attorney-General is reported as stating that by virtue of Judge Wickliffe’s connections with Ngāti Porou she has a direct interest in the outcome of the judicial applications. Given the sophisticated and complex networks of whakapapa we possess as tangata whenua, it would seem that very few Māori judges are actually able to hear a case. Of course, what would be fascinating to know is exactly how many cases Judge Wickliffe presided over in Tai Rāwhiti that were connected to Ngāti Porou, and how many times perceptions of bias and allegation have been raised in those previous instances—or is it more to do with the substance of this case? The House will recall that the background to this case is that Judge Wickliffe rejected Crown attempts to prevent East Coast foreshore and seabed claimants from proceeding to a substantive hearing for the case to seek freehold title to about 200 kilometres of coastline between Gisborne and Cape Runaway. The Crown had wanted a stay on the proceedings because of the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation.

We have here an interesting case of the Crown wanting to control the judiciary and its institutions in light of its own actions to fundamentally undermine the Treat of Waitangi. In referring to the treaty it is essential to consider the nature of the partnership between iwi and hapū, the holders of tino rangatiratanga, and the Crown. For more than a century the Crown has striven to minimise the importance of this relationship, and, as a consequence, the partnership is in disarray. This is to the advantage of the Crown but the disadvantage of the nation. The partnership has, of course, been threatened and under intense scrutiny in the aftermath of the introduction of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Throughout the course of the submissions received on this bill, tangata whenua and tauiwi alike have stated that the actions of this Government have placed increased tension on race relations in this country.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.