General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This House is meeting as the New Zealand justice system is crumbling around the head of this Government. This Government cannot deliver justice, but it is happy to write cheques for the worst criminals in this country. This Government has people locked up in prison, court cells, and police cells who are innocent. Prisoners can lodge claims against the Government, and the Government says that they should get payments from it.

This Government has a shortage of judges and police, but we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to justify payouts to the worst prisoners in New Zealand. That is a no-brainer. Why is the Government defending the payment of tens of thousands of dollars to the worst prisoners in this country? Those payments should be blocked, stopped, and wiped, and the Prime Minister should be doing that.

We listened in the House a few weeks ago to the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, who warned against removing the right of compensation to prisoners. We have heard Mr Goff say in this House that compensation can be justified. So why are they not making any effort to fix the crumbling justice system?

I want to tell the House about the indictment on Labour confidence from Mr Phil Goff, the Minister who wanted to decriminalise sexual behaviour of children aged between 12 and 16, and the Minister who told Cabinet that the country would accept decriminalisation of sexual activity between 12-year-olds. Let us see the concept and the indictment of incompetence under Mr Goff.

We have a huge inmate muster crisis, with 200 prisoners being kept in court and prison cells around the country. We have a prison officer recruitment crisis, where the Government admits that it is several hundred short of the necessary number of prison officers in our country. We have huge delays in the court system. In Whangarei, Manukau, and Auckland, lawyers are warning that guilty people may walk free because of delays in the justice system.

New Zealand has a big shortage of judges. This Government says that it is all right to send our judges to Pitcairn, but New Zealand Kiwi victims will have to wait to have their case dealt with. That is what this Government says.

There is a huge shortage of police. Burglary response times all around the country are appalling. There is non-reporting of crime; people have given up. Rotorua has the worst crime rate of any city in New Zealand, and the MP for Rotorua says: “Well, the police commander tells me it’s all right, so I’m not worried.” That is what she says.

We have huge delays in methamphetamine testing, where serious criminals are not having their case dealt with because this Government is not properly resourcing the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Now we find that it can take 2 years to get a person’s case dealt with by the Police Complaints Authority, because this Government is not resourcing the justice system.

They are not resourcing the justice system, but they are happy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in prisoner compensation. And the Government hides behind saying that it cannot do anything that is retrospective. But Mr Goff has brought in legislation for the extended supervision of child sex offenders—retrospectively. What does the Government think the seabed and foreshore legislation is? It is retrospective legislation.

Now we hear from Mr Goff that international protocols mean that this Government has to pay compensation to criminals. He was in a Cabinet that put a reservation on that undertaking—that said only the Attorney-General should have the discretion to pay compensation to prisoners—but he was happy to stand up in the New Zealand Parliament and say that we have to do it. Where was he in that Cabinet meeting? This Government is guilty as charged of criminal incompetence.

I have to say that with spring in the air, with the start of daylight saving, and with long summer nights ahead, New Zealanders are feeling pretty good about themselves and New Zealand—at least the ones who are represented by people on this side of the House are. They are feeling like that because Labour is looking at opinion polls that are just breaking out all over the country, like those spring flowers. The opinion polls say that Labour is 4 to 8 percent solidly in front of the National Party.

We are busy little bees on this side of the House, because we are overseeing a booming economy. We are overseeing the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years. We are overseeing regional growth. We are overseeing more New Zealanders employed than ever before in our history. We are overseeing the drop in the number of people on working-age benefits. We are overseeing the redistribution of $2.75 billion to low to modest income households. We are giving out money for Modern Apprenticeships, and that is applauded by industry. Tomorrow, for example, we will be giving money towards the new, wonderful Gateway programme. It feels like spring on this side of the House. It just gets better. It makes one proud to be a Kiwi.

But on the other side of the House, I have to say that it is all gloom. It is as if winter has not yet finished on the National side of the House. It is as though a weather bomb has just hit on the National side of the House. I say to Mr Donnelly that we do not regard him as being on the National side of the House. The sunshine is creeping across his doorstep as we speak. However, the weather bomb has smacked into exactly where the National Party is sitting. We know this because nothing is happening. National members are indoors. They are beside the fire. They do not want to come out, because they are failing to get their message across.

Dr Don Brash told people in his Ōrewa speech and thereafter that the National Party was on its way to victory. He told them after Ōrewa that it was health, it was education, it was economics, it was welfare, and it was law and order. We were going to hear about all these speeches that would set the scene and the agenda, and how the National Party would rise again to take over the country. That is what he said. Well, he did not actually say that, because that was far too exciting. He would not have done it that way, at all. He would not have dared to be exciting like that and, of course, he has not given those speeches. We have not heard any policy on race. We have heard no policy on law and order. We have heard no policy on welfare. We have heard no policy on education. National members have even told us that they do not expect to fight the next election on the economy, because it is too good. They will have to move elsewhere.

What National Party members have decided to do is listen. They have gone all the way to Invercargill. Dr Brash was there the other night, with all the Rotary groups. They said he came to listen, not to speak, and that is exactly what he did. He listened. Today he was back in the House for the whole of question time—an hour and a half—with many opportunities to ask questions of all the Ministers on this side of the House, but he listened closely to what was going on, because, of course, National Party members have nothing to say.

It could be hibernation, but I think there are internal arguments. Mrs Rich cannot agree with Dr Don Brash on things like welfare. We know that not only can they not agree, but now they do not have any ideas. If we read the Listener article, we see Mrs Rich hanging on the phone for a whole 20 seconds while she comes up with the fact that their policy is going to be—proactive. They cannot get more active than us. Mr Goff and I are even called workaholics by people in the media. We are always working. Mrs King is so thin now, after all the hard work she does, that if she stands side-on, we cannot see her. That is how active we are.

Mrs Rich wants to tell the country that she will get—proactive. That is a killer of a policy. I can see that going across on the hustings, as they ask: “What are you going to do?”, and National Party members say: “Get proactive.” That party dumped Mrs Shipley, it dumped Mr English, and if we look at the way the polls are changing, it is about to dump Dr Brash.

Every time I look at Australia’s economy and see how much more it has grown in real terms in the last 20 years, I realise what a political failure this Government—its economic and social policies, and its ideology—is. There is an affront to our democracy occurring in New Zealand and in this House. For a democracy to thrive, there must be a free media and a strong and effective Opposition in Parliament. Unfortunately, the leadership of the National Party is so weak and ineffectual that it does not have the capacity to oppose a failed, arrogant Government of control freaks and social engineers. The so-called leadership of the National Party is in hiding, I am told, until next year, because it is too timid to discuss policy in case, it says, someone should steal it. I cannot imagine anybody being dumb enough to do that, but, as they say, the lion of Ōrewa has become a lamb in this Parliament when it has come to the crunch. This is the first time in history that a chicken has been seen leading a bunch of turkeys. Why will Don Brash not debate treaty policy—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that National Party members are reluctant to defend their leader, but that cannot continue. The member cannot call Dr Brash a chicken in that way.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order I want to hear.

Why will Don Brash not debate treaty policy with New Zealand First? The answer is simple. It is because he cannot. Last week I challenged him, having received criticism from him. He had the effrontery to say, when we released our policy in respect of Treaty of Waitangi principles: “New Zealand First needs to disengage with Labour”—that is new; I never knew we were engaged with Labour—“which is taking New Zealand in a quite different direction.” I say to Don Brash: “Precisely!”. That is why we have repeated our policy, which we have now had for maybe 16 years. He said further: “If it does, it might begin to look credible on this issue.” What a damn cheek! Having stolen our speech in respect of Ōrewa, he then had the effrontery to say it was his.

Why will he not debate economic policy? He said the other day in the Dominion Post—and I could not believe this; this is obviously a man of immense political experience—“In my view the economy will not be the major issue at the next election.” In the whole of the Western World we never, ever hear, particularly in the economic climate in which we live, any respectable Opposition leader making that stance—yet he has.

This is a country with a balance of payments crisis. This is a country where per capita incomes now rank 37th in the world. This is a country where we have under 8,000 exports per person and Ireland has 55,000. This is a country that is failing in every way. I do not care what those journalists write about the consumptive economy that is about to burst. The reality is that when we compare our economy with any other sound one, it fails miserably, and the leader of the National Party does not want to debate it.

💬 Darren Hughes: The great debater.

He was described by Toastmasters as “the great communicator”. The great what? Where is “the great communicator” today? He did say that he would debate only with the Prime Minister. That will be like taking candy from a baby. The Prime Minister is not great in debates. I know that because I have been through a number of campaigns, and she has never won one yet. But she will win hands down if the leader of the National Party is left to the job.

I have a warning for National Party members: if they cannot do the job then they should get out of the way. They should stop taking up parliamentary time in question time and in debate, and let the party that can take on the Government do the job. Why should Don Brash pick up the salary of the Leader of the Opposition, which is much higher than mine, and never be here to do the job? What is going on here? Where in the Western World would we see that in any self-respecting political party?

💬 Hon Member: Nowhere.

Of course we would not. I say to National Party members that they can hide him now, they can keep him out of the House now, and they can keep him away from the public now, but they cannot hide him in an election campaign. That is one time he cannot hide. If National members think he is bad in the House now, they should wait until the election campaign starts in 2005.

💬 Jill Pettis: I can’t wait.

I cannot wait, either. One thing I know is that in the last campaign Labour lost 14 points in the polls in the space of just under 5 weeks. They are as flaky as hell in their support. On this side of the House I see a party in decline, and in that respect that means there is an enormous opportunity for the one Opposition party that knows what it is doing.

I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the House find ourselves in agreement with a large part of the focus of the speech made by the member for Tauranga. I think there is an amount of fraud going on in this House. Someone is collecting the salary for the Leader of the Opposition, and providing none. He turns up every now and again for an hour. He trembles at the knees on the odd occasion that he asks a question—the papers shake in his hands. He learns from that, and so does everyone else. We get reports from all over the place on that. We get headlines like “Home or away, Brash is losing it”, and nothing could be more right than that.

💬 Hon Member: Third division NPC.

From a position where every reasonable political commentator thought Dr Brash could be in the game at the end of the year, he has let it just slip-slide away. He promised five speeches, but gave one and a half. Did he follow up the half? No, he did not.

We have seen headlines like “Bumbling Brash loses plot”—again, that is a really good summary. That is a reason why Winston Peters should be getting the salary of the Leader of the Opposition. I was previously of the opinion that at some stage National Party members would come to their senses and go on bended knees to Mr Peters to ask him to lead them. Given the situation they are in now, and the trend in the polls as far as they are concerned, I have to ask, if they did, why Winston Peters would say yes. It will head in his direction anyway, as the National Party slip-slides away.

In a headline Dr Brash stated: “I’ll quit as leader if we lose next election”. We all know when that will happen. What I am asking is why they are delaying it so much in this particular way. Another headline read: “Do-nothing National delays peak”. Well, there are a few other people suggesting a few peaks should be delayed, as well. I think there has been a recommendation of abstinence from some parts of the House, around which I am sure there will be further discussion. [Interruption] Does Mr Williamson know the story? It is a great story. I will share it with the member, but probably not in the House at this particular point in time. I am sure that when I share the story with Mr Williamson, my secret will be safe with him and with the Labour caucus. I think the secret will get around, and that member will love it.

What does one do when one is in trouble in politics? One does not hide, and that is exactly what Don Brash is doing. He runs from the House part way through question time to hide. He went to Stewart Island, spent most of the day there, and said nothing. He hid on Stewart Island. I spent quite a lot of time during the latest adjournment reading headlines from provincial newspapers to try to see whether he was there, somewhere. There was almost nothing. I am told he went to Southland for a day. We could read that in the paper. We could not see anything else about where Dr Brash went. I made some statements about studentships and some other relatively controversial topics in an area that Dr Brash had been addressing, and the media went looking for him for comment. They could not find him. One of the things one has to learn to do if one is to succeed in politics—and I say this to the two potential leaders of the National Party sitting opposite me—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Georgina and Maurice!

No, I think Georgina is going to be sensible and not run again. I was talking to Simon Power and John Key, who will be contesting—

💬 Darren Hughes: The key to power.

The power to the key, or the key to the power—it is a little bit hard to tell. They will be the two who will compete for the National Party leadership after the election.

Is it not great to hear the Labour Party saying that a person should front up? Do members remember the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, saying: “Here I am—I’m going to be a different sort of leader. I’m going to be the sort of leader who fronts up on the tough issues, and my word is my word.”? Do they remember that? Then she launched “closing the gaps”. Māori and non-Māori would be brought together and everything would be happy, but the public said it did not like that. The use of the phrase was banned—verboten! That was what the Prime Minister said; it was a goner and not allowed. Here is a Prime Minister bringing Māori and Pākehā together. Tariana Turia was turfed out. She went, and now she is despised and hated by the Labour Party.

Here is a Prime Minister who said: “Oh, I’m prepared to be upfront. I’m a Prime Minister who is blunt. I’m a Prime Minister who says it like it is.” She was asked: “Tell me, Prime Minister, did you know that you were speeding?” She said: “I didn’t know how fast we were going.” Well, when some person was doing 145 kilometres per hour and the peasants were scattering out of the way through Waimate as if that person were some South American potentate passing through with sirens going—the Prime Minister said, I think, that she did not know how fast she was going; it could have been 150 kilometres per hour, or it could have been 151 kilometres per hour—the person would sure as heck know that that was speeding. And this is a Prime Minister!

The police are investigating whether she was speeding. How long, really, do we think that will take? The ministerial driver, who is under the control of the Prime Minister as Minister responsible for Ministerial Services, has to write an incident report—and he did. It is a very serious thing when one goes through Waimate like the clappers, scattering all and sundry, to get the Prime Minister to a rugby game when she would rather be reading a book at home. She was asked whether he had written a report. The Prime Minister could not say. When asked in this House she did not know or could not say. She was quite happy to tell the press that she did not know how fast she was going. So, when the Prime Minister—and remember that this is a Prime Minister who is upfront and to the point—was asked in the House whether she stood by that statement, she answered that she was not prepared to. Here is a Prime Minister who is prepared to tell stories to the press and not confirm them in the House.

By the way, do members remember that this is a Prime Minister who forged paintings and then could not remember whether she had. She said that she was not about to be interviewed by the police—“I’m the Prime Minister of New Zealand.” Well, I ask Trevor Mallard why he will not give the lesson that he has just given to Opposition members to his own Prime Minister.

What will happen now? She will swan off to Hungary and Budapest to be with her lefty mates at the Progressive Governance Summit. She is so happy to go to that. Do members remember that the other time she went to it was 9/11? She got off the plane and learned about the twin towers attack going on. She got back on the plane, flew to Italy—and they were all horrified. They said they were lefties, but they had cancelled the conference. They did not even want to be seen with her, because they wanted to go back and support the United States of America in its hour of need. But Helen Clark had just hopped on the plane, so anxious was she to be amongst them.

💬 Hon Annette King: She came home.

RODNEY HIDE:. She came home after she got to Italy and realised that no one else had come—and that they were appalled she had turned up.

Darren Hughes throws his hands up. Why? He is like Steve Maharey. He is required by law in New Zealand to believe that everything Helen Clark says is true. That is what the law of New Zealand for the Labour caucus is—everything Helen Clark says is true. I ask Darren Hughes whether Helen Clark forged a painting. He is going all red in the face. That is quite humorous, is it not? We should have the Darren Hughes barometer, so that when one questions the Prime Minister’s integrity or her word, we can see Labour Party members getting excited and Darren Hughes going red. That is the reddest he has ever been. I must have been the closest to the truth we have been on this issue. I say to Darren Hughes that that lesson should be for the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Helen Clark is a disgrace.

Did Rodney Hide not get excited today? He was worried about Darren Hughes’ red face. All I can say to the member is that at least Darren Hughes’ hair has not fallen out. Rodney Hide was to be the man who would be a different leader when he got control of ACT; he was to be a statesman. Well, that did not last very long. Today we have seen him fluff and flounce; he has been full of verbal flatulence all day. That is Rodney Hide, the new leader. That is the leader of a party that talks about “Do what I say, not what I do.” ACT is a party that preaches abstinence but whose leader took ACT from the dizzy heights to 1 percent. ACT is a party that is on the way out. I say ACT should bring back Richard Prebble.

However, I have to say that at times we are too harsh on each other in the House during a Wednesday debate. Today, as Minister of Health, I want to share some good advice with the House from a lovely little book that I have been given. I have some advice for members out of this dear little book, which is called The Little Book of Calm. I have a homily for a few people. The first one is for the National Party. It is a little bit of wisdom that states: “Select your company well.” I say to Maurice Williamson that he has selected his company well, but there are many people in the National Party who are worrying about the factions that they have ended up in. So that is the first piece of wisdom for the National Party. What about the second piece? The book states: “Pause between changes.” That is a very good piece of advice. There is always a temptation to lump all one’s changes into one big masochistic event. Well, that is what happened to the National Party. It put all its changes into one big event. It dumped one leader after the next leader after the next leader. I say that National Party members should take a little advice out of this book, and wait a little longer before they change Don Brash. They should get themselves really down in the doldrums before they change him.

Here is a little bit of advice from The Little Book of Calm for Tony Ryall. It states here: “Pretend you’re human.” I think that is very good advice. The book states: “Be content with what you are.” I say to Tony Ryall that he should be content with what he is.

But I am not just giving advice to the National Party. I have a bit of advice from this book for a couple of other parties. Here is some good advice for the Green Party: “Grow your own.” It is very calming to grow one’s own. For the ACT party, I thought this was very apt: “Know when to withdraw.” It is very important, when one is preaching abstinence, to know when to withdraw. The time is right for the ACT party to withdraw. It is a spent force, and life is over for it. Spring is in the air. The people of New Zealand are looking forward to the summer. The sun is shining, and they are feeling good about themselves. Certainly, older New Zealanders are feeling good about themselves. They know, if they go to the doctor, that they will pay less to go to that doctor today through a primary health organisation than they paid previously. As I have gone around all the bowling clubs in my electorate, the RSA, and so on, I have found it is the older folk who are thanking the Labour Government for what it has done for them. They now can afford to go to the doctor.

I feel very sorry for the National Party, and I think that I can give it another little bit of advice from The Little Book of Calm: “Run for your life.” If I were a National Party member, I would run for my life, because when one looks at the headlines one sees that that party has received, in about 3 short months—[Interruption] Yes, “Skinny” Robinson gave Mr Power that advice today, and I hope he will take some of it. “Bumbling Brash loses plot”—how is that for a headline? “Home or away, Brash is losing it”. Well, he is very seldom at home, if home is this House. We seldom see him around here. I do not know about losing it when he is away, but we know he has lost it in here. When Don Brash is away, I gather that he is too busy listening to actually tell people anything. Now everyone is asking whether he has a tongue. He sits there like a stunned mullet, saying absolutely nothing. This headline is one of my favourites: “Brash attack: his boomerang did come back”. That is fantastic. It tells us what the National Party is like today.

I am not surprised to learn that the Minister of Health has in her no doubt extensive library The Little Book of Calm. No doubt she will not be able to share it with most of the members of the Labour Party, because it did not look as though it had a lot of pictures of it. I suggest that she leaves it on her desk for the vein-popping Minister, Phil Goff, to read the next time he is having a cardiac arrest when he is answering a relatively simple question in the House about why he supports New Zealanders as young as 12 being allowed to have sex, or why he thinks it is OK to pay compensation to some of the worst criminals in the country. Maybe that is why he needs a book of calm.

What is going wrong in the Minister of Finance’s office? What is actually going on in the Minister of Finance’s office? The Minister of Finance is a man who is used to doing the work of 10 men. He is used to being the Prime Minister in disguise. He is used to being the “Minister of Fix-it”. He is used to doing 10 jobs for the Labour Party, and to holding up the failing Government. What is going wrong in the Minister of Finance’s mind? The Minister of Finance is now tremendously confused about whether he is also the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He thinks he is the Governor of the Reserve Bank; he is tremendously confused about his job. A few weeks ago we saw him get up in the House and commit what can only be described as a “base rate blooper”: he announced to the country that interest rates were to go up. Oops! He did that just 24 hours before the Reserve Bank governor was meant to do it. I think the Minister of Finance is quite jealous of Dr Brash. He looked across and saw that being Governor of the Reserve Bank was a pretty good job.

So much did the Minister of Finance enjoy the domestic strategy of putting up interest rates that he has now rolled that out into a global strategy. That is right. He went off to New York and chipped away about how interest rates are to go up two or three times, or as many times as he has fingers on his hand. He was out there parroting away. What did the Minister of Finance tell people? He gave a very interesting interview, chipping away like a little chihuahua up there in New York, and told the Dow Jones analysts that not only will he spend like a drunken sailor, given half the chance, but also that he will talk like a drunken sailor as well. They must have been wondering where on earth the Minister of Finance had come from. They would have thought the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was independent. They would have flicked through the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and seen the word “independent”.

I am surprised that Annette King’s little book is not a dictionary. She should give it to the Minister of Finance, who thinks he is the Reserve Bank governor, and get him to define what “independent” means. There he was in New York, chipping away to the international media about how interests rates are to go up to 9 percent in New Zealand. It was very nice of him to tell mortgage-belt New Zealand that its interest rates are going up to 9 percent. He does not want to go up and down the country in New Zealand and tell people that interest rates are going up to 9 percent. He would rather tell that to people in New York, because he does not think we will find that out back here in our cosy little enclave down in the South Pacific. He would rather let people know the good news there in New York.

I suppose that the only question I really have for the Minister of Finance is whether he has actually told Dr Bollard that. Dr Bollard came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but he did not say that interest rates were going up three times. He did not say that floating mortgage rates were going up to 9 percent. He said that there may be one more hike. So one can imagine the shock and dismay of international investors when they found out that news. We have to ask ourselves where it leaves us when our so-called independent Governor of the Reserve Bank is bagged by the Minister of Finance, who has gone offshore and said that the governor is not doing his job properly. There is a word I cannot use in this Parliament, but some members on the Government side of the House were very quick to put the boot in when they were previously on the Opposition side of the House. But now we have had the Minister of Finance go to New York and bag the Governor of the Reserve Bank. That is what he has done—what a vote of no confidence that is! I hope the governor has an iron-tight contract. Alan Bollard will be sitting over there on The Terrace and absolutely trembling, because his boss is in New York, slating him. He is absolutely slating him! The No. 1 risk to the New Zealand economy is his interest rate management—what a shocker that is!

Old Michael Cullen is on a bit of a roll. I do not know whether he was suffering from air sickness or a bit of turbulence, or what was going on. Not only was he happy to tell the world that interest rates are going up three times but, lo and behold, he said not to tell anyone that, because it was a secret. He said he had been running a thing called the “OBERAC”—the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes, or the operating surplus—and telling everyone that there was no money, but now he was going to spend it.

There we go—that was the temporary member for Helensville. He knows absolutely that he is the temporary member and that he has another 12 months to serve. People in West Harbour, Kūmeu, and Whenuapai do like him, but they do not like the party he represents. They do not like National’s leader, and that is why Mr Key will be the shortest term MP that Helensville has ever had. Having said that, I wanted to talk a bit to the House today about the “p” letter, in terms of Parliament, of performance, and of a whole range of things.

In the last 12 days, we have seen one of the most bizarre and perverse coming-outs in the political history of this country, and it has been bizarre. There is a connection between ACT and the National Party, and what is that connection? It is the Business Roundtable. The person who writes the policy—the bridge, the link—for both the National Party and the ACT party is Roger Kerr. That link between those two parties has now been absolutely destroyed. When the Business Roundtable rocks up anywhere to make a submission, and when Roger Kerr rocks up anywhere to say anything on anything to anyone, what will we now think? No longer will we see integrity, and no longer will he have credibility. It is quite clear that the ménage à trois between Don Brash, Roger Kerr, and the leader of the ACT party—

💬 Government Member: Rodney Hide.

Yes, that is right, Rodney Hide—“Mr 1 Percent”. That member used to always be known out in the private sector as “20 Percent Rodney”, but in this Chamber he is “Mr 1 Percent”. So Kiwis are starting to wake up and acknowledge very quickly and very clearly that members on the Opposition side of the House are gone. The speakers who have risen on that side today have acknowledged that. Normally, Mr Key’s contribution is full of passion, vim, and vigour, and it has some spark about it. We know that those members have gone, that they are gutted, and that Don Brash no longer has the spark and the sparkle.

The Opposition members are supposed to make five speeches and to lead the policy debate. They had a go at the Hōris—end of story. Secondly, what did they do? They had a go at the prisoners, or the crims—end of story. They were half shots and no shots. We are waiting for the other three big ones, and they will not say anything. Why? We will—the “p” word—pinch the policy. We are on the policy front foot. There is no need to look across the House to the Opposition side. That side is absolutely bankrupt in regard to the way that its policy advisers, led out of the Business Roundtable by Roger Kerr and co., link with the old policies of the old, failed era that Don Brash is so very much the symbol of. It must be terrible to rock up to the National Party caucus on a Tuesday. When those members walk in there for their cream scones and teas, the difficulty is palpable. We can sense it pervading through Parliament—that “p” word is a wonderful word.

I wanted to spend a bit of time on the ACT party, because it is really important, when a party is under stress and difficulty, to see how it responds. How did ACT respond? Well, where was Rodney Hide? He was in Spain—sunning it in Majorca, or whatever they call it, with his mate Alan Gibbs. He was over there saying: “Gibbs me more, Gibbs me more money, because it’s dried up onshore. We’re down to 1 percent. Give us another couple of million. Gibbs me more, Gibbs me more.” That is what Rodney Hide does. The beauty about Rodney is that it is a bit like Pavlov’s dogs, which sit there and salivate. I have seen him. As soon as anybody with a chequebook walks around this Parliament as a lobbyist, one sees Rodney Hide panting—absolutely panting behind that person. I find that “p” word absolutely disgraceful, as well. There is no doubt that Rodney Hide, Deborah Coddington, and the rest of the ACT party caucus have passion. That party, which was to be the opportunity for the National Party to maybe get near the Treasury benches, is imploding. What a great day it is when members on the Government side can see a party that merely comes into this House and talks about rack and ruin. It is no longer on the policy front foot and no longer has any ideas. ACT is the party of no ideas—apart from being in touch with its masculine side and, by the sound of it, quite a bit of it.

In my second speech in this House, I accused a member of being drunk in charge of the country. That was not a revelation, but it was received with outrage by most members of this House, who thought that such things should not be spoken. I still get a whiff of alcohol in this Chamber at times. It is not common, but it happens. I am not opposed to people having a drink, but I do oppose the hypocrisy that says: “Drinking alcohol on parliamentary business is OK, but I’m tough on other people’s drugs.” All drugs can cause harm. Some, such as methamphetamine, seriously damage most users. Some, such as cannabis, can cause real harm—

💬 John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech, but I think that it reflects badly on the 120 members of Parliament if a member comes down here to the Chamber and make accusations that there are whiffs of alcohol in this Parliament. I personally take offence at that. I think that if the member wants to name somebody under the parliamentary privilege that he has, he should go ahead. If he is talking about Winston Peters, the leader of New Zealand First—which clearly he was, because he was talking about the time that he was Treasurer of the country—he should say so.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: I take very strong offence at the comment that Mr John Key has just made. He has used the opportunity of a point of order to make reference to the leader of the party I belong to as being the very member that Mr Tanczos was talking about, when clearly there is quite a distance between those individuals. So I would ask that you ask Mr Key to withdraw that reference.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): In fact, that was the only specific reference that was made. It was not direct, but I know the implication of it. I, on behalf of the House, did not take offence at what Mr Tanczos was saying. It was broad enough and, goodness me, enough references have been made to that member on a number of things. So members should not be so touchy. Let us get back to where we were.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: With all due respect, I would ask you—and I know it is probably inappropriate for me to do so—to reconsider, probably, both parts of your ruling. Certainly, I think there was a reflection on all members from the member from the Green Party, but I do want to make the specific point that a suggestion that a particular member of this House is intoxicated is inappropriate. It should not be made, and I think it should be withdrawn and apologised for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I have ruled on that matter, and I will not take any more advice on it. I took us back to the beginning. There were two slight transgressions there, and I am willing to go back to the beginning.

All drugs can cause harm. Some, such as methamphetamine, seriously damage most users. Some, such as cannabis, can cause real problems when abused, especially by young people. But the consensus among the professionals is that the major problem drug is alcohol. In order to genuinely reduce the harm caused by drugs in this country, we need to focus on the seriousness of the harm itself, and not just on the legal or illegal status of the drug that causes it. We must focus on the harm caused by all drugs, and we need to get our priorities straight. All drugs can cause harm.

Inconsistent legislation only causes more harm. We need legislation in this country that is consistent, integrated, and evidence based. I welcome the statement by the Hon Phil Goff this afternoon that the Government will be guided by the evidence on this matter. It is a pity that the United Future party will not make the same commitment as the Government has made. United Future consistently refuses to accept or look at the evidence, and it still refuses to publicly debate the issue, even though Mr Dunne and other members of the party have been invited to do so numerous times. We need legislation that can regulate all drugs, integrate drug education and drug treatments into the framework, and begin to take the politics out of the debate.

The Greens have a proposal. It is the beginning of a discussion, not the end of it. We believe we can develop a controlled drugs framework that sends a message that all drugs carry the risk of harm if abused, and that allows each drug to be regulated according to the evidence on how to reduce harm from that particular drug. We have proposed a framework that would have a class A, with a high level of restriction. The possession and sale of drugs in that class would be illegal, except for therapeutic use and research purposes. For example, methamphetamine would be in that schedule. We suggest a class B, with a medium level of restriction. The sale of class B drugs would be illegal except for therapeutic purposes, but R18 possession would be legal. As an example, we would put codeine and cannabis in that class. In class C we would suggest a low level of restriction. The sale and possession of class C drugs would be permitted for general use, with a range of restrictions, such as an R18 restriction. The framework would address whether sales must be from licensed premises or could be from more general premises. It would ensure there were advertising restrictions, and that there were warnings on the containers of all drugs on sale. In that class we would include alcohol, tobacco, benzylpiperazine, and things like that.

We believe that the use of illegal drugs, or under-age use, should be dealt with by giving honest information on the consequences of drug use. There should be a compulsory assessment, and if there is evidence of a drug dependency, then treatment should be provided. All members of this House know that despite the extra money put in by this Government, the treatment services are still underfunded. They have been consistently underfunded for decades under previous Governments, and it is time to put some real funding into that area. That approach was reiterated by Joe Walsh during his anti-P performance today in the Beehive, when he made a plea for addiction to be seen as an illness rather than as a criminal matter, and for treatment to be made available to people. The Greens believe we need legislation that will lead to fewer drugs in schools and fewer drugs problems, and that will tackle drugs across the board—from alcohol, to nicotine, to cannabis, and to other drugs. We believe we need a consistent, an integrated, and an evidence-based policy framework to deal with drugs in this country.

If members tune into TV3 tonight they will see a new Kiwi comedy that is taking the country by storm. It is called bro’Town, and it is a good example of Kiwi ingenuity and comedy. But another TV programme will be hitting our screens sometime in the next 12 months. It will have fanciful cartoon characters that are equally as unbelievable, and it will be called “Dr Flip-Flop”. It will be a cartoon show that will feature an elderly main star with a PhD surrounded by a hapless band of bandits as they go around trying to convince the people in their neighbourhoods that they have ideas. It will be a disaster of a show. It will get no ratings. New Zealand On Air will not touch it. But it will make great viewing for people interested in politics and Parliament, because those on “Dr Flip-Flop” are about to be exposed on television as the kinds of characters they are.

It is almost 1 year since the National Party list MP Don Brash, a first-term member of Parliament—not that there is anything wrong with that—became the Leader of the Opposition. Since that time, we could only describe the National Party as being a riderless horse in this Parliament. There is no better example than in recent times—being yesterday and today. As members know, we have had a 2-week adjournment—a chance for members to fan out across the country. I noticed that the leader of New Zealand First was very busy over the adjournment. Labour and Progressive members were very busy with party caucuses and talks with constituents. They were out around the country getting a contest of ideas that they could bring back to Parliament so we can debate the things we believe in. But what has happened in the last 2 days within the re-energized and refreshed National Party? We have seen the same tired old style and strategy that it has had in the year since we have been subjected to Don Brash as the Leader of the Opposition.

When we look at what has happened so far this year in the opinion polls, we see that the National Party, under Dr Brash’s strong and solid leadership, has shaved off a quarter of its support. I predict that by the time Dr Brash gets to his first anniversary as leader, he will be polling exactly the same as when he took over from Mr English. The National Party will have been on this extraordinary 1-year journey with its leader—a list MP and first-term member—and it will have arrived back at exactly the point it left with Mr English. That has me thinking that the Labour Party will have to do some thinking.

I say to my colleagues that I am not convinced we will be facing Dr Brash on the hustings in the next general election campaign. I think the “possum in the headlights” approach he has been taking shows that this man is rattled. The “great debater” is nowhere to be seen and nowhere to be heard. I know we have adjusted for daylight saving time, but we can still work out that Parliament starts at 2 o’clock and that members should get their questions in to the Clerk by some time in the morning—

💬 Jill Pettis: By 10.30.

By 10.30, I am told. Members get their questions in by 10.30 and they have a chance to get up in Parliament and ask questions of the Prime Minister and other Ministers. When the general debate starts, at just after 3 o’clock, members have the chance take the first slot in the debate and take it to the Government—like a Leader of the Opposition is meant to do.

I think Gerry Brownlee is getting ready to lurch up and take the job. How do I know that? Mindless speculation? Oh, no! I watch Murray McCully on these matters. Murray McCully is the great ace strategist of the National Party. I know that because Simon Power says it. If Simon Power says it, it must be right. Where George Bush goes, Simon Power goes. Where Murray McCully goes, Simon Power is not too far after him. Murray McCully has given advice to Jim Bolger, to Jenny Shipley, to Bill English, and now to Don Brash. We know that Murray McCully has stopped paying for Don Brash’s lemon, lime, and bitters at the end of the day. He is now funding Gerry Brownlee’s cheeseburgers. I would be very worried.

Don Brash was going to be the man available 24/7 to defeat the Government. But now when we ask him a question, what does he say? “I am uncomfortable with the National Party policy position. I have yet to reread our 2002 manifesto, and although I am not unsympathetic to the point that is made, I am not sure I can announce my policy at this time.” If one is going be available 24/7 to defeat the Government, that is hardly the way to do it. He said he would work with the Devil to defeat the Labour Party. At the time, I thought that was a very rough analogy to draw with the ACT party but, as it turns out, sinning is the done thing in that party. There were going to be five speeches. Only two of them have been given. That is a 40-percent work rate, which, I guess, is not too bad for a part-time worker. That is not too bad for Dr Brash. Forty percent is not bad. He is a bit tired after giving 40 percent of the work he promised to give.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Two speeches in a year!

Two speeches out of five have been given, and the other three will not be made. In 1 year he will give only two. He turned up in the tea party hat in Ratana, and he gave a speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust about being tough on crime. He was going to be the big prison warden. It reminded me of Hogan’s Heroes, with Dr Brash as Colonel Klink and Gerry Brownlee as Sergeant Schultz. It was an absolute joke, but it was much better than the normal Monty Burns and Homer Simpson routine they do. That party is a joke.

I want to congratulate the Hon Trevor Mallard.

💬 Simon Power: Steady!

I do. I want to congratulate him on having the gumption to stand up and say that we need to look at the length and frequency of pōwhiri in our schools. What he said is justified. He did not say we should not have such ceremonies at our schools—although, by the way, there is a mismatch with the secular clause in the Act. He said that the length and the frequency need to be considered.

Trevor Mallard is talking about adaptation, and I have to say I have also witnessed children sitting for long periods of time—up to an hour in one case—on concrete or asphalt, sometimes in the rain, listening to what are, in effect, meaningless whakapapa. A formulaic protocol devised for a marae situation—an adult situation—is being thoughtlessly forced upon our children. So I praise Trevor Mallard for standing up and saying something about it. But where is the support of his colleagues? They know that what he is saying is true. Where are the other members of the Labour caucus? Where is the support of his ministerial colleagues for the statements he is making? Where are the Labour members who are prepared to stand up and say that some of the practices carried out in the name of meeting the demands of the Treaty of Waitangi verge on child abuse? In no other context would we tolerate this nonsense. I say we have lost the plot, somewhat. Trevor Mallard said we have lost the plot, somewhat, and his colleagues have left him hanging out to dry.

Where are the Labour members who are prepared to stand up and say New Zealand First is correct when it suggests that any reference to the principles of the treaty should be expunged from legislation? Labour members have come to conclude that the existence of such principles within legislation is in fact a load of nonsense. When Geoffrey Palmer first put them in there it seemed like a good idea, but the reality and the practice has not been the same. At select committees now it is argued that the principles of the treaty are too vague to be included and that they create too many problems. The treaty principles can be everything to everybody, and they create a form of temporary insanity within our bureaucrats. Labour Ministers know this, and they do not include such clauses in legislation nowadays. Margaret Wilson knows this. Where is the reference to the principles of the treaty in the Ngāti Awa legislation? It is in the explanatory note and nowhere else.

Officials advise us that including the principles of the treaty in legislation is no longer considered to be the brightest thing to do because of the chaos it causes, but what Labour MP or Minister has come out and said that New Zealand First and Winston Peters have got it right in moving to expunge that unfortunate phrase from legislation? No one. In fact, they have said nothing. There has been not a sound, a syllable, a murmur, or a mutter. They are not allowed to say anything about it. The reason nothing is being said—normally we would get a humungous attack on such a policy as was announced last week—is that Labour members know that what New Zealand First is saying is right and correct and will take this nation forward.

What other announced treaty policy from New Zealand First has received deadly silence from Labour? It is New Zealand First’s policy that refines the process of addressing historical grievances in order to enable these to be brought to resolution in an expeditious way. If members were to ask 100 New Zealanders, 99 would answer that they recognise there have been injustices and that these need to be settled and that then we can get on as a nation. However, there is real frustration with the seeming endlessness of the process and the frivolous claims elicited by the nebulous principles-of-the-treaty clauses in legislation.

The Government knows that there is an inherent conflict of interest when an activist and Māori Land Court judge acts as chairman of the tribunal. How many times must Margaret Wilson have thought: “Who will rid me of this troublesome judge?”. But she will not come out and say it. She would risk putting herself in the politically correct firing line. So she says nothing, and in saying and doing nothing she endorses the very policies that New Zealand First has been putting forward. The Government knows that restructuring the mechanisms for reconciliation is critical to the expeditious resolution of grievances, yet it will do nothing on its own initiative. We have to ask why the Government is so quiet on all these matters. Even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is saying that its relationships with foreign countries are formed with regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Hello! The Government is quiet because it knows that New Zealand First is correct.

I am pleased to stand as the final speaker in the general debate today to celebrate our Government’s achievements and success. It is a good stable Government, and we have a good stable economy. It is a Government that has shown, and continues to show, leadership and one that tackles the hard issues. This Government is absolutely committed to improving the health and wealth of ordinary New Zealanders, and it is working. We know that it is working. Compare this with the Opposition. Judith Collins and Simon Power are sitting there, looking so glum and forlorn as they wallow in the demise of their party. What an Opposition, members might say, and they would be right.

Don Brash is the doom and gloom merchant. He sees, and we all see, that National is now languishing in the polls. Its only possible coalition partner—its members are also gloomy, wherever they are—is polling so low that it is not worth a mention. It is actually polling below the margin of error. What a mess.

I missed a very big event last night. Don Brash spoke, and I was very sad to have missed it. I understand that he named a few unionists in the Labour Party, including “Mr Red Flag” himself—David Cunliffe, the man who put the “fizz” into fiscal management—and our young “whippersnapper”, Darren Hughes. It is his first job, but who is he, according to Mr Brash? He is the extremist from the Public Service Association. We acknowledge that they are certainly to the left of Mr Brash, but there is an awful lot of room to the left of Mr Brash. We all know that Mr Brash has no time whatsoever for unions or workers.

Let us look back at some of his memorable quotes, and I would say that these are genuine quotes. Firstly, he said: “Could we, for example, drop all benefits to the able-bodied and scrap the statutory minimum wage, so that pay rates could fall to the point where the labour market fully clears …?”. Our answer to Mr Brash is that we now have unemployment at 4 percent and it was achieved by raising the minimum wage; not by dropping it. He then wants to gradually raise the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand superannuation. For his part, he does not care who owns the schools in our country. National would repeal the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. The most appalling of all his quotes is: “Legal requirements that provide safe workplaces are a barrier to growth.” That is a genuine quote. Can you believe that?

💬 Simon Power: Stop saying “you”.

Can anybody believe that? I thank Mr Power. Can anybody believe that anyone in his or her right mind would say that legal requirements that provide safe workplaces are a barrier to growth?

National and Don Brash have now cottoned on. Every time Mr Brash opens his mouth he puts his foot in it, but National members have a very, very clever strategy now. They know exactly how to deal with this. They have the answer. They will say nothing, they will go nowhere, and they will lay low.

I wonder whether members remember that brave, new, dynamic leader.

💬 Darren Hughes: Who?

Mr Brash, that is who. I know we have not seen or heard much of him over the last few months, but we remember when he planned to give a major speech on each of the five main priorities: race relations, education, welfare dependency, security, and the economy. He roared in, stirred up race relations, and falsely claimed that Māori get more bereavement leave than anyone else. He thought that he was on to a winner, so he moved on to law and order next. That was a bad move. Crime statistics are now at a 15-year low, so that was a fizzer. We have not seen or heard anything more of Mr Brash since.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.